PDA

View Full Version : Do You Accept Intra-Germanic Immigration?



Sissi
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 09:14 PM
I posted a piece of news lately, Germans Are Austria's Strongest Immigrant Group (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=110486) which got split reaction.

This topic is about intra-Germanic immigration, what is your opinion of it?

In my opinion, there are two "degrees" of intra-Germanic immigration. The first is from the same ethnos which lives in different countries: a German immigrates to Austria, a Dutchman to Flanders, a South Tyrolian to Germany and so on. The second is from different Germanic ethnos: an Icelandic to England, a German to Norway, etc. In my opinion, the first is the most acceptable, I don't even consider it real immigration. The second is acceptable in limited numbers, because too many people of a different language and culture would have impact on the country.

Loki
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 09:24 PM
I voted "Other". Since I am essentially of the Nordicist persuasion, I would like Scandinavia, especially, to limit newcomers (if any at all) to those who are subracially acceptable. The Womb of Nations must remain as untainted as possible.

Sissi
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 09:31 PM
I voted "Other". Since I am essentially of the Nordicist persuasion, I would like Scandinavia, especially, to limit newcomers (if any at all) to those who are subracially acceptable. The Womb of Nations must remain as untainted as possible.
What about countries which are not purely consisting of one subrace? Germany, Austria and Switzerland for example. You couldn't say Germany is a Nordic country and Austria and Switzerland are Alpine countries, because that's too simple.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 09:38 PM
All immigration is wrong. The solution to our problem is not repackaged multiculturalism.

Sissi
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 09:43 PM
All immigration is wrong. The solution to our problem is not repackaged multiculturalism.
But where is the multiculturalism if a German immigrates to Austria or a Flemish to the Netherlands? They have the same culture and language. Actually some Southern Germans and Swiss even have the same dialect as we, Austrians. So where is the multiculturalism?

Hauke Haien
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Any kind of large-scale reshuffling is highly damaging, but I don't mind migrations that are small and dispersed enough to be assimilable and under the condition that they do not worsen the composition of a given region. The Northern Germanic nations are very fragile and cannot be a target under these criteria. They should focus on high fertility and emigration instead.

I don't know the exact numbers for intra-Germanic migration in each country, but I believe them to be quite small overall, maybe with the exception of migration from BRD to Austria and Switzerland.

Loki
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 10:04 PM
What about countries which are not purely consisting of one subrace? Germany, Austria and Switzerland for example. You couldn't say Germany is a Nordic country and Austria and Switzerland are Alpine countries, because that's too simple.

That's what I'm saying ... I would not be happy with any non-Nordics going to Sweden, in plain language, regardless of their Germanic pedigree. :P


The Northern Germanic nations are very fragile and cannot be a target under these criteria. They should focus on high fertility and emigration instead.

Precisely my thoughts, you were just more eloquent. ;) In fact, this quote above I would recommend for "Skadi Quote of the Month". Such wisdom.

It may be all the champagne. :P

Hauke Haien
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 10:15 PM
I think "Other." should be renamed to "Yes - but only immigration that is racially beneficial." and a new option called "Other." added. The poll could also be turned into multiple choice with additional options for the volume of migration.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 11:06 PM
But where is the multiculturalism if a German immigrates to Austria or a Flemish to the Netherlands? They have the same culture and language. Actually some Southern Germans and Swiss even have the same dialect as we, Austrians. So where is the multiculturalism? I couldn't tell you. ;)

Are all their cultural practices the same? Can no cultural distinction be made?

Hrodnand
Thursday, November 27th, 2008, 11:28 PM
In my view any kind of intra germanic immigration is allright. Most germanic cultures have many similar traits and I don't think an intra-germanic immigration would deconstruct any of them. Besides...


The second is acceptable in limited numbers, because too many people of a different language and culture would have impact on the country.

...we must also note, that it would be hardly imaginable that for ex, a great mass of germans would immigrate to Iceland - nor would this occur vice-versa, that icelanders would immigrate to Germany, only in rare cases.

However, I agree with Hauke Haien, that the immigration should be racially beneficial.

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 12:35 AM
Are all their cultural practices the same? Can no cultural distinction be made?
They are rapidly converting to globo-culture and under these circumstances no meaningful distinction can be made, except racial ones, which leaves us with WN and/or the most vulgar versions of Nordicism. Culture is what gives us local/tribal cohesion, regional identity, ethnic identity, even meta-ethnic identity and it keeps us separate from those who don't belong through our distinct way of life and even the separatist values that should be part of this culture and fleshed out through it.

So, yes, reshuffling Germanics would constitute a problem if it goes beyond what can be assimilated. A blurring of identity would result, both inward and outward. This is already a problem in Bavaria, where many people have moved because of job opportunities, thus introducing disruptive mentalities and foreign identities. They also tend to have very different voting patterns. Historically, this also happened when areas like Rhine/Ruhr industrialised, but they managed to stabilise sufficiently before our recent unpleasantness.

Nachtengel
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 12:51 AM
I think we need more young Germans because our population is declining: immigration from non-Europeans, elderly population, childfree women, emigration of natives. So I'd support German immigration from any German-speaking country or enclave.

Sissi
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 01:20 AM
...we must also note, that it would be hardly imaginable that for ex, a great mass of germans would immigrate to Iceland - nor would this occur vice-versa, that icelanders would immigrate to Germany, only in rare cases.
Iceland as a non-EU country, yes, but on the contrary, the EU has made intra-immigration more possible and easier.

Chlodovech
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 01:50 AM
I couldn't tell you. ;)

Are all their cultural practices the same? Can no cultural distinction be made?

Holland was scarcely populated and a quiet backwater before the Flemish influx (of intelligentsia) due to the pressure of the Spanish occupying force and its inquisition, which led to the Dutch golden age - the 17th century.

The cultural distinction between Holland and Friesland is bigger than that of Flanders vs Holland as a whole, and mid- and southern Holland specific. Flanders' culture is embedded within the wider framework of Nederlandse civilization. The most noteworthy difference between the Dutch of the north and the South are their temperaments. A Hollander is more outgoing, open, talkative, selfconfident. Flemings are introvert, quiet, distrustful of strangers, and they shun the individual: anybody who establishes himself as a unique persona, professional or otherwise.

As any other Germanic nation they're both highly organized, enterprising/commercial, antimilitaristic, artistic/creative... etc. But that's another discussion.

Stormraaf
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 05:47 AM
Any kind of large-scale reshuffling is highly damaging, but I don't mind migrations that are small and dispersed enough to be assimilable and under the condition that they do not worsen the composition of a given region.
If I were to emigrate to the Netherlands, for example, being assimilable would mean I would be a Dutch-speaking Afrikaner, but my children would be Dutch, since my ethnicity is close to that of the Dutch (Afrikaner = Nederduits) and my children would have learned the local culture from childhood. In that way I'll remain a "foreign Germanic", but my move would be beneficial to the size of the ethnic Dutch population for the next generation. Comments on this perspective?

Sigurd
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 06:58 AM
In my opinion, there are two "degrees" of intra-Germanic immigration. The first is from the same ethnos which lives in different countries: a German immigrates to Austria, a Dutchman to Flanders, a South Tyrolian to Germany and so on.

Good to see you clarified, otherwise I would have to point out the fact that Germans and Austrians aren't of a different ethnos. Nice also to see another Austrian to accept the truth of Austrians and Germans being essentially of the same people, it is "balsam on a plagued young Tyrolese lad's soul" to hear such a sentiment voiced --- most of my friends have similar convictions as I, but many of them refuse to accept that they are Germans too: A constant source of bickering 'tis. :P


The second is from different Germanic ethnos: an Icelandic to England, a German to Norway, etc. In my opinion, the first is the most acceptable, I don't even consider it real immigration. The second is acceptable in limited numbers, because too many people of a different language and culture would have impact on the country.Either way, I agree with much of the sentiment you voice in those lines. I will continue to propose unlimited immigration between all types of Germans until the day that I die --- as long as they still respect our regional differences. If a Westphalian comes along to preach Prussian Power in my little Bajuvarian hide-out then I shall point his Prussian backside to reason.

On a more light-hearted note that means - as long as they respect the fact that Weißwürste are only eaten before noontime whenever a person of Bajuvarian heritage indulges in them, and as long as they respect that the Austrian indulges in unhealthy amounts of White Wine, alternatively Weißbier and all types of lagers over their "premium pils" and all other piss-water beers that they know way up north (I'm sorry - we're just superior on our brewing down south, only the Flemish and Wallonians rival us on that account ... and Austrian white wine [I]is by far the best White Wine in the world ;)) :D

And appreciation of local bread spread such as Obatzda or Verhackert' is of course compuslory. :P

Intra-ethnic migration is not an issue: Most sentiments will be understood, the mentality will be similar (though again, I identify a certain "tribal mentality" existing, which is important too), the language, the history and all those things will be similar. There is no need why we should be limiting the influx of any German from another German-speaking country or a German-speaking enclave. These are our primary brothers, they are of a nation with us, they deserve our hospitality unlimited.

As for Intra-Metaethnic migration I also agree with the sentiments you voiced: Whilst it is not destructive in the slightest, and whilst I would not impose limits either on such migration per se, the numbers are an important matter. If half a million Germans suddenly settled in Iceland, it would distort the Icelandic heritage beyond the reasonable: There would then be more Germans than Icelanders in Iceland --- whilst many cultural norms will still be shared, the Icelandic language would probably suffer irrepairable damage. So as such, maybe a requirement should be that they are proficient with the language, well-acquainted with the local culture, or at least be very willing to learn them immediately upon their arrival.

A definite requirement, as said in both paragraphs somewhat, is of course an appreciation of the local customs, these must not get lost: Whilst intra-Germanic migration and intra-Germanic breeding is of no great destructive quality, it must be accepted that at the same time as we shall stand united, must we still support its regional diversification, right down into the heritage exclusive to one valley alone, and as such, before moving elsewhere, familiarise ourselves with the local customs there, and if possible, participate in them. :)


I think "Other." should be renamed to "Yes - but only immigration that is racially beneficial."

Care to explain as to what you mean by "racially beneficial"? If you feel that those accepted should be primarily of phenotypes most readily present in the area of questions - i.e. that a Dinarid Bavarian would look more out of place in Iceland than a Nordid/Borreby or Trønder Bavarian - then I can agree with that sentiment to some extent and at least understand it. If you are however talking about "Northing up" one's area even though it may not originally be of such Nordid influence, it would be a plan that I hold in utter contempt. I did not even hold that opinion when I was somewhat Nordicist/Nordishist. ;)


The poll could also be turned into multiple choice with additional options for the volume of migration.No problem - we can of course affix the options available for voting if you and others supply us with reasonable suggestions to diversify the options available. At that time it also important though that all that have not specified which option they voted for provide us with information as to what they voted for - otherwise the poll would be distorted: lest we renew the poll altogether and request people to vote anew (since this is a little harder to do though, I would prefer the former option). :)


before the Flemish influx (of intelligentsia)

I understand that the excellent Flemish university of Leuven was a major source of intellectual thought in the Flemish/Dutch speaking area and even all of Europe at that point. :thumbup


A Hollander is more outgoing, open, talkative, selfconfident. Flemings are introvert, quiet, distrustful of strangers, and they shun the individual: anybody who establishes himself as a unique persona, professional or otherwise.Could this be why the Flemish tend to be more conservative than the Hollander, as I seem to have gathered by observation?

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 09:04 AM
If I were to emigrate to the Netherlands, for example, being assimilable would mean I would be a Dutch-speaking Afrikaner, but my children would be Dutch, since my ethnicity is close to that of the Dutch (Afrikaner = Nederduits) and my children would have learned the local culture from childhood. In that way I'll remain a "foreign Germanic", but my move would be beneficial to the size of the ethnic Dutch population for the next generation. Comments on this perspective?
Both the individuals (and their children) as such and their numbers have to assimilable. The question in this case is really whether the Netherlands can expect a mass influx from South Africa. It is still not as damaging as non-Germanic immigration, but the mass migration of people from the German East, for example, was not a minor issue at all.


Care to explain as to what you mean by "racially beneficial"?
It is deliberately vague in order to make it a voting option with a wider reach. As for my own opinion, it is deliberately vague as well. Anthropology is not my field and policy should rely on qualified opinions. A sudden mass influx of Nordids is certainly not my plan since that would violate the other principle I mentioned. When I talk about their emigration, I am also referring to certain other destinations we recently discussed at length, which is beyond the scope of this topic. Still, there would be an element of demographic policy involved, no matter where.


If you feel that those accepted should be primarily of phenotypes most readily present in the area of questions - i.e. that a Dinarid Bavarian would look more out of place in Iceland than a Nordid/Borreby or Trønder Bavarian - then I can agree with that sentiment to some extent and at least understand it.
Yes, "looking out of place" is also an important issue for group consciousness and this has to be duly considered.


No problem - we can of course affix the options available for voting if you and others supply us with reasonable suggestions to diversify the options available.
I would suggest adding options for low/medium/unlimited volume of intra-Germanic immigration, but if it is too much of hassle to change the poll type from single options to multiple options, then let's just stick with adding the one option I already proposed.

Angelcynn Beorn
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 10:58 AM
I voted other. I would accept unlimited immigration from countries like Australia, New Zealand, etc, to England without even really thinking of it as immigration. I would also welcome immigration from other Germanic countries, but only if it was at a rate that was easily assimilable.

For example, we have hundreds of thousands of South Africans living in England these days. And despite not being Anglo-Saxon, they speak English, look English, and fit in with remarkably little trouble. 50 years down the line there will be very little to tell their families apart from the natives.

If there were 5 million of them here, then obviously the situation would be different.

Jäger
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 11:23 AM
The state should control the race of the immigrant, and then the rest is a question that should be answered by the targeted rural municipality of the immigrant, they will have to live with him and they need to decide whether they want to accept him, this should go for national migration as well, with cities as exceptions, but Germany needs to be de-urbanized anyways.

forkbeard
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 01:34 PM
I encountered a school party of German speaking children many years ago. They all had black hair and eyes but they weren't Turks. I assumed they were Austrian. If so I would not consider them Germanic or my kin.

Cythraul
Friday, November 28th, 2008, 01:48 PM
I answered 'other' because I'm not so much bothered by who comes in (as long as they are Germanic), but rather how many, and with what attitude. Another important consideration is the wealth of the immigrant's country of origin. By that we can often ascertain their intent. If someone moves from one wealthy Germanic country to another, their intentions are most likely honourable and their courtesy to the country of destination respectful. Though I might add there is not a Germanic country poor enough where I would be concerned about the intent of the migrant.

DanseMacabre
Saturday, November 29th, 2008, 08:35 PM
I would favor immigration from Anglo nations since America is/was an pred Anglo country. Other Germanics would be welcomed in smaller numbers.

Æmeric
Saturday, November 29th, 2008, 10:14 PM
I voted other. Intra-Germanic immigration is preferable but the actual numbers are important. Say all 300,000 Icelanders into Germany versus 30,000 Germans to Iceland, which would be more disrupted or cause the most change? Anglo-America had problems assimilating the German immigrants of the 19th century because of the large numbers of them. Swedes were more easily assimilated because there were fewer of them even though 1/5 of all Swedes were living in the US at the start of the 20th century. As for America, immigrants from the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (assuming they are English speaking Europids) & White South Africans are preferable. Historically immigrants from the United Kingdom (Irish-Catholics excluded) have assimilated the easiest, being practically an invisible immigrant group.

Grimm
Saturday, November 29th, 2008, 11:42 PM
I think a certain amount of homo-ethnos intergration is ok and a smaller amount hetero-ethnos intergration would be as well, although I personally prefer that Germans stay in the land of our forefathers (even though my forefathers did not).

And it also depends on the subrace of the immigrants. I would be wary of Alpinic and Dinaric Austrians coming to Germany. Though Germany has these populations, I would not like to see their ranks grow disproportionately to Nordids, Faelids, etc.

Deary
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 12:22 AM
No. Immigration is not the answer. A single immigrant is one more foreign element that will eventually turn into many as they settle and have families. In the majority of cases, they do not truly assimilate and that gets passed down. It is the reason the South is suffering as it is. In my city, I've met Germans, Dutch, Swedish, British, and Northerners, but I still don't welcome them however preferable they are to certain others creeping about. A non-Southerner is a non-Southerner to me. It don't matter if he's racially compatible. They still do damage.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 06:46 AM
Hi guys...

Miscegenation and migration are generally the result of a failure of a people to be self-sufficient and self-governing.

That reason on its own is enough to tell us that Intra-Germanic Immigration is a bad thing, as it has a tragic basis.

Grimm
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 07:16 PM
No. Immigration is not the answer. A single immigrant is one more foreign element that will eventually turn into many as they settle and have families. In the majority of cases, they do not truly assimilate and that gets passed down. It is the reason the South is suffering as it is. In my city, I've met Germans, Dutch, Swedish, British, and Northerners, but I still don't welcome them however preferable they are to certain others creeping about. A non-Southerner is a non-Southerner to me. It don't matter if he's racially compatible. They still do damage.

An argument can be made that the person most responsible for the south's demise was Texan Lyndon Johnson.

Grimm
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 07:45 PM
So I'd support German immigration from any German-speaking country or enclave.

I think you're playing fast and loose with that. Not only are German-speaking countries' historical genepools different from Germany's, but more recent "foreign" influence is more prevalent as well. In Austria, for instance, didn't a decent number of Hungarians, Serbs, and Croats become mixed into the populace during the 1800's?

I think a certain amount of foreign influence (even non-German and even non-Germanic) is acceptable in Germany. However your open invitation needs to be curtailed.

Haereticus
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 08:54 PM
In my view any kind of intra germanic immigration is allright. Most germanic cultures have many similar traits and I don't think an intra-germanic immigration would deconstruct any of them. Besides...



...we must also note, that it would be hardly imaginable that for ex, a great mass of germans would immigrate to Iceland - nor would this occur vice-versa, that icelanders would immigrate to Germany, only in rare cases.

However, I agree with Hauke Haien, that the immigration should be racially beneficial.

The example of Iceland is an interesting one. Iceland's tiny three hundred thousand population could easily be overrun if (albeit hypothetically) half of one percent of the population of Germany (more than 400 000 people) decided to move to Iceland. The entire population of Iceland could move to Germany with little discernible effect on that country. Intra-Germanic immigration has continued for thousands of years. That is inevitable and, dare I say it, desirable.

Am I missing something here? Has anybody else noticed the billion plus Muslims knocking on the door, the eight hundred million sub-Saharan Africans at the bottom of the garden and nine hundred million Hindus not very far away? I don't even know (who does?) how many of these groups are already established in Eurpope and reproducing faster than the indigenous peoples and interbreeding. It is certainly many millions.

Whilst I agree that, in an ideal world, preservation and protection of sub-groups would be desirable, I fear we missed that particular boat a long time ago. The situation now is serious enough that we would do well to preserve distinct northern and southern European groups.

In the same way as I remain unconvinced of the existence of God, I'd be delighted if some more enlightened soul could persuade me that I'm wrong.

Deary
Sunday, November 30th, 2008, 10:48 PM
An argument can be made that the person most responsible for the south's demise was Texan Lyndon Johnson.
There were and are anti-Southern elements from within the South. Immigration is no solution to that. I see how these outsiders are when they're here. They don't understand our logic, our religion, our politics, they call us all racists, treat us as though we should forever feel guilty, take away our flags, ridicule the way we talk, and almost everything about us. It seems all they come here for is the hospitality and the weather while they set up their English and Irish pubs, their German restaurants, their European food markets, and they even try to have their Octoberfest here (a strange sight for me to see). They become tourguides, museum curators and dare teach us about our own culture. More than a few go so far as to talk badly about it in the process. Those who are not Southern but were born and raised in the South loosen the definition of what it means to be Southern by welcoming others who are like them. As if today's Southerners don't have enough trouble to deal with from their own people. I'm sick of watching as our culture gets destroyed and we become the minority. Germanics need to stand their ground and help their own instead. Less immigrants in and more immigrants out.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008, 05:09 AM
I don't see a problem with inter-Germanic migration.

Non-Germanic migration from racially compatible people (mainly from Eastern Europe, descendants of prior migrations from Germanic lands to these places, possibly some remnants in South American, also from Celtic lands) should be allowed in small amounts so that they are forced to be culturally assimilated.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 02:02 AM
I think you're playing fast and loose with that. Not only are German-speaking countries' historical genepools different from Germany's, but more recent "foreign" influence is more prevalent as well. In Austria, for instance, didn't a decent number of Hungarians, Serbs, and Croats become mixed into the populace during the 1800's?

I think a certain amount of foreign influence (even non-German and even non-Germanic) is acceptable in Germany. However your open invitation needs to be curtailed.
Hungarians, Serbs, Croats, are not Germans. I was referring to ethnic Germans who speak German as a mother language, not non-Germans and non-Germanics who adopted it artificially. I hope that's clear enough.

Waldstein
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 03:42 AM
But where is the multiculturalism if a German immigrates to Austria or a Flemish to the Netherlands? They have the same culture and language. Actually some Southern Germans and Swiss even have the same dialect as we, Austrians. So where is the multiculturalism?

Be careful, little Sissi.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German

If you told a Bernese he speaks "the same dialect" as a guy from Zurich to take one of the "worse" examples (not to mention a Voralberger, they are Austrian and of a whole different, although quite likable kind in most cases, at least more likable than people from Zurich ;) ), he would want to kill you for sure. However, both are high Alemannic dialects according to the link above.

Sissi knows all that very well. I don't want to lecture her but merely would like to give this important explaination for the interested audience in this forum originating from Non-German-speaking countries.

To get back to the main topic of this thread: There are many Germans working and living in Switzerland nowadays. Nevertheless their high work-ethic (similar to the Swiss) and their higher level of inter-human openness we Swiss tend to admire so much, they just have a fundamentally different behaviour in many aspects, and that's what's rooted historically (mainly in the very different experiences in the 20th century), thus culturally. As long as some limits are not surpassed, they are IMO welcome. However, if they became too numerous they would alter a historically well-balanced structure, most probably in a rather negative way. Please note that this is not a problem of race, but for once really one of culture. Admittedly, it is still a minor one compared to immigration from non-European countries, and if we had only this problem, we could consider ourselves quite happy.

AngloTeutonic
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 03:48 AM
If I were to emigrate to the Netherlands, for example, being assimilable would mean I would be a Dutch-speaking Afrikaner, but my children would be Dutch, since my ethnicity is close to that of the Dutch (Afrikaner = Nederduits) and my children would have learned the local culture from childhood. In that way I'll remain a "foreign Germanic", but my move would be beneficial to the size of the ethnic Dutch population for the next generation. Comments on this perspective?

I agree, that is how I look at it.

Sissi
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 04:23 AM
Be careful, little Sissi.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German

If you told a Bernese he speaks "the same dialect" as a guy from Zurich to take one of the "worse" examples (not to mention a Voralberger, they are Austrian and of a whole different, although quite likable kind in most cases, at least more likable than people from Zurich ;) ), he would want to kill you for sure. However, both are high Alemannic dialects according to the link above.
Yes, but I was referring to "some Swiss" (actually a reduced group), not to all Swiss or the majority of Swiss, who speak Austro-Bavarian. ;)

Bärin
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 04:53 AM
Other for me. The Germanic immigrant who wants to come to my country must learn German language and culture and adapt to the German society. Then it's ok.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 08:15 AM
I said "other" as well. If one is truly Germanic he will fit in fine as long as he moves because he loves the place he is moving to, its culture, its people, and desires to assimilate to the ways of the place and not complain that "oh the water is much better in Norway" or some such thing. If he loves Norway he should have stayed there. This should naturally limit the number of people moving. Moving because of economic reasons should be disenabled, as far as I'm concerned. It is not a valid reason, and serves corporate greed rather than the culture or people as a whole.

It would be nice if this could be our only concern, but it seems like this sort of discussion is analogous to looking at the sky and wondering if it might sprinkle a bit, while standing beneath a dam holding back a lake of waste oil which is in eminent danger of bursting. We must prevent people like Sarkozy and his fellow EU snakes from bringing 50 million africans to Europe, using low European fertility as an excuse, the low fertility created by their kind through constant meddling in the government, poisoning in the food and food container industry, and brainwashing in the media.

I would love to see the occasional Frieslander move to Munich if there were no non-Europeans in Europe. Why worry about inhibiting such things when gangs of somali pirates come to Denmark to move in and rape and murder young Danes? Let's see.. other analogies.. swatting that fly while a raging hippopotamus is charging you? Worrying about getting rid of that nasty hangnail while walking across the busy Autobahn? The jews HATE us, and are deliberately manipulating policy to exterminate us in our own ancient homelands. This cannot be allowed to continue. The right of our blood trumps their weasel-ways to power. Let us stop them now, so that Frieslander can argue with the Bavarian about this or that point of their respective cultures without a gang of africans coming by and murdering them.

Waldstein
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009, 03:31 AM
Yes, but I was referring to "some Swiss" (actually a reduced group), not to all Swiss or the majority of Swiss, who speak Austro-Bavarian. ;)

O.K., I understand you were referring only to "some Swiss", but which ones? Where are the Swiss who speak "Austro-Bavarian" ? I don't know any. With all due respect for you personally, the Bavarians and the Austrians as well, I still think this is a funny idea of yours as no Swiss irrespective of his origin would like to see his dialect labeled "Austro-Bavarian".

And what is "Austro-Bavarian" in the first place? Even if Bavarian on one hand and (at least some) Austrian idioms on the other hand sound and actually are quite similar, they are still distinguishable, so "Austro-Bavarian" is not a distinct dialect to my knowledge but rather some kind of artificial generic term based upon phenotypical similarities.

Please advise.;)

@administrator: I hope I didn't go off topic too far.

Winkelried
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 04:59 AM
I am fine with Germanic immigration. Germanics are the most well-behaving immigrants of all, and cause the least problems.

Méldmir
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 11:48 AM
If Sweden would need immigration in a better future, I would like this to be from Germanic countries and I don't oppose that kind of immigration. And now I'm not talking about mass-immigration which I never believe to be very good for anyone. The Germanics should of course also assimilate into the Swedish population, if the case was that they intended to stay for good.

Sweden has good experience of Germanic immigration before, I'm thinking about the (northern) German immigrants that built important cities in Sweden such as Stockholm.

I also believe that higher-birth rates should always be the first option before immigration. Immigration is mainly good when new ideas are spread, such as that with the Germans who came. But population displacement at any level is should never be pursued. Then again I woudn't say no to single families or people who wished to move into Sweden, even if they weren't highly skilled and only working people, if the case were that they came from a Germanic country.

Kogen
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 12:33 PM
I have no problem with it, other than them having to know our language and such.

Ideally, all other Germanic states would become part of Germany. Then we could all speak the same language, have the same general culture, selectively breed the best of us, and so on.

Gefjon
Sunday, March 12th, 2017, 02:20 PM
Germanic states are already in danger of being finished off by multiracialism and non-European immigration. Some states face an ageing and childless native population. So inter-Germanic immigration could even be beneficial, as long as it's done according to similarities. For example, encouraging the diasporas to move to their fatherlands. It's much easier and more productive to integrate people of the same ethnicity and race than to fight an already lost war with incorporating non-Euros. Maybe the worst-case scenario will be one day that Germanics will have to regroup and create new nations, new countries, new borders. It wouldn't be the first time.

Catterick
Sunday, March 12th, 2017, 05:35 PM
Regions should set their own rules, but Germanic tribes always mixed. With so much immigration from (more) foreign sources, it's hard to care about immigration or integration between co-metaethnics.

Mööv
Sunday, March 12th, 2017, 05:49 PM
Massive migrations are generally a problem. The further the distance between the people the bigger that problem is. But it's always a problem, even if it's from a neighbouring region. Having lived through such an experience I can say I very much didn't enjoy having throngs of people with different mentality pouring in.
So, if it's small scale, here and there, I absolutely do not mind it. But en masse it would cause problems, and that I am against. Unless it was a necessity, survival-wise, of course.

LordLoki
Sunday, March 12th, 2017, 06:49 PM
This is a wonderful topic I have debated on myself. When it comes to Germans and Austrians, the genetic, cultural, and linguistic differences are so minuscule I see no problem with immigration. The two countries are literally only divided because of outside meddling and post-war treaties.

Beyond that when we include Danes, Dutch, Frisians etc. they are still very similar so I see little problem with it.

But if we branch out to include the English, Scots or others we are only really addressing their shared genetic heritage. In every other sense all common identity and even history is basically lost.

Does this mean they should be excluded? No. At least in my case my "mixtures" of nationality are all Germanic and I have rejected all national labels in favor of genetics. So my answer to this question is ultimately to permit immigration.

Wyrd
Friday, August 25th, 2017, 09:24 PM
Uncontrolled mass migration even from Germanics, could affect the demographics. My county has become a melting pot where ethnicities are no longer strongly connected to their ancestral cultures. I think intra-Germanic immigration is ok in limited numbers. Some quotas should ideally be set, according to each nation's demographics. This is necessary to protect some vulnerable places/ethnicities. What would happen for instance, if all Americans migrated to Iceland? Or vice versa, if all Icelandics moved to America? The Icelandic ethnicity would be soon gone...

I also agree it could be beneficial in places where Germanics are a minority, but ideally it should be of the same or very similar ethnic background. So for example, if there's a shortage of Germans, Austrians could be brought in. Or Dutch for Flemish, Americans for Canadians and so on.