View Full Version : "Germanopean" Civil Wars?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 11:37 AM
I'm not quite sure how to lay this out properly in paragraphs, because my compositional skills have never been great outside of writing rough drafts. I'm even better at vocabulary and translation than this!

Why would Germanic nations (usually Protestant) fight amongst themselves by allying with non-Germanic nations like the Eurafrican Fascists (usually Catholic) and Eurasian Communists (usually Orthodox)? Did any of the rivalry between the English and Germans have something to do with possession of India? I got this idea that the Indo-Aryan ideology was to motivate Germans to conquer India by a land route from the English, for none of this was an issue before the East India Company raked in the profits for England and probably made Deutschland intensely jealous. Without the English monopoly and investment in India, where else would the interest in Aryans and Indo-Germanicism come from? Instead of European unity, there are the East Europeans who like Asians and South Europeans who like Africans, then there are the Northwest Europeans who like somewhere in between (Capitalists), but others are otherwise wishful of involvement with neither (National Socialists), even though still choosing (or naturally fitting with) a centrist position. It's interesting how when Germany was split, the West was the Nationalist part and the East was the Socialist--how natural.

It sort of came from nowhere and motivates mysticists even today, inexplicably. It trumps the bonds of Europeans, whom although undoubtedly are purest in Germanic form, choose some kind of exoticism as representative of their ideal. There is no love for Nordic and Mediterranean, an almost Alpine in general compromise like the Holy Roman and Latin empires. The Germans pride themselves on those things generally if Bavarian Catholics I suppose, even though the English were the ones to have completely Roman provincial and Scandinavian national integration, a more legitimate claim to both "glories", albeit in separate eras. In the British Isles, there was no Alpine element though, unless one considers the Celts to have an Alpine base, which would mean that the English to have all three elements of typical European racial base on a national and even mythological level, which is probably why the English are better on the international scene than Germans. The English have never been conquered or overrun by non-Europeans, like how the Huns did and the Moors made their inroads too. There has never been a significant population of non-Indo-European speakers in the British Isles, but that exists on the Continent and the English diplomats in the time of Hitler were not going to believe in the German claims of racial purity, especially with such individuals as Joseph Goebbels representing that.

I'm still trying to understand the religious aspect of Aryan ideology too, the identification of Indo-European language speakers with non-Semitic religions, with the Semitic language speakers having non-Gentile religions. I don't understand why some choose to be at each others' throats between Jew and Gentile, but then there are the "Jewish Buddhists" and German Christians for instance. What's terrible about that? Why not simply live parallel lives as people? Who really goes about disowning one another because they speak a Germanic language and adhere to the Jewish Messiah on the one hand, or castigates the Jews for following Buddha? It is an irony that Jews invented the most popular comic book superheroes Superman (German American icon?), Batman (English American icon?) and especially Thor, even disowning the Jewish villain Magneto as a vengeful Holocaust victim. What of the Jews who stand up for White people in general and White people in general support Israel to return the favour? How does support for Islam help anybody? Some "Aryans" would rather glorify Iran than the ex-Roman province of Palestine; some would extend friendship to Japan and then call the Latin Europeans worthless.

Why disown our Christian ancestors if we will not disown our Heathen ones and why embrace the primitive rites of shamanism if we consider Blacks to be unfit for our culture? Why ridicule the Crusades, even if our ancestors fought valiantly against admittedly foreign peoples (e.g. Turks, but Mongols for the Rus) in every sense of the term? There appears to be a blind spot among Germanicism, that it is okay to incorporate and accept Ural-Altaic peoples (e.g. Hungary, Finland and Estland, some might even go for Turkey) within, sort of like breeding out their non-Indo-Germanic heritage in a similar sense to Hollywood's Braveheart version of Edward the Longshanks, stating about the Scots, that "if we can't get them out, we'll breed them out". Oh, but then the Atlantic or Atlanto-Mediterranean element of Indo-European is "foreign" to the "Germans" who want some kind of Conan the Barbarian dominance on the Steppe and will accost their Occidental neighbours for that sake. When I went to the local Oktoberfest, there was all kind of Steppe celebration--as far as Uzbekistan. The English are portrayed as gutless and effete, diabolically Semitized traitors to an oxymoronic cause of preservation against ZOG. Regardless of its merits, Christianity was a Roman Pagan restyling of Judaism by the Hellenist Paul and Christians showed their Gentile apathy to the Jews along Roman lines by the persecutions. Some might say that when Rome split into two, the West went Christian and the East went Muslim, but both attack(ed) Judaism and Jews, then and now. The whole idea of the Chosen People went from Judaism to Christianity, to Protestantism to 19th Century baseline Romantic ideologies which fueled World War II.

I have a sense that these statements written above may be attacked with loads of hostility, simply because empirical "truth" hurts some people. I question the motives and logic of all peoples' ideologies, at least when there is glaring self-contradiction. I expect to be either ignored or abused for pointing out issues which make it difficult to see Germany in particular as a "holy nation among nations", which some Germanics and Germans in particular here seem to think the problem is with Jews. Pan-Teutonism is not necessarily Germanocentric, but because of terminology, it appears that Germany and Germanic are confused and conflated. If anybody thinks I'm being anti-German, they should rethink that. I have Saxon blood but try to affirm the Danish, amidst Saxocentric demands for conformity to their image as I feel it should be the other way around, due to the Urheimat being in the North, not the Plains or Steppe. Germans have made this a problem for Scandinavian peoples over more than a millenium, but I won't give in to them (or you) who may be reading this post. Scandinavians are not simply knock-off Germans or expressly willing tributary satellites of the latter. Imagine the insult of Germany appropriating Scandinavian culture for their use in degrading ways that make it almost scandal to cherish or treasure today. The Germans think it is okay to breed with Asiatic descent, but any African admixture is the worst taboo. What of absolute purity, by maintaining a "Germanopean" isolation from the admixtured extremes in the Asian East (e.g. Russia) and African South (e.g. Spain)? Compromise the race just for Aryan status? How willing would they be to sleep with the Gypsy, Iranian and Indian women? Oh that's right! It's a subset of Oriental fetish with Geishas. Blond is evil because of Hitler, even though none of the top Nazi leaders were blond?

What is the total cost of this folly of different Germanics taking sides with admixture to different types of peripheral peoples that slightly relate to Europe in special circumstances? Can that even be calculated? I suppose there is no hope in any real Germanic unity. I see here that at Skadi, one is hard pressed to find any real consensus on anything, of what we stand for or against. Are there any forums or organizations which do not pursue this line of squabbling and factionalism?