View Full Version : Do You Promote Germanic Supremacism?

Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 04:22 AM
Hello people,

First of all let me tell you that I think all the best ( how can I not to ) about nordics. Please do. Ot be offended by my questions.

My question(s) is: Do you on this forum promote nordic nationalism or supremacism? If this is a forum about germanic people why is there so many threads about classification of other european races and opening threads about other european white races if this forum is called skadi forum? I think that the most important thing to you is securing your lands out of other races and even other European subraraces so I can say that you do not have any supremacist thoughts on your mind.

So I would also like to know do you respect other European white subraces or is there anyone among you who thinks that they all should go out of Europe because Europe belongs to you?

- Physically, what is that characterizes a nordic person? For example not all nordics have light hair, light eyes, narrow, long skull... some can have all, some can have none, some can have something out of that. are haplogroups important?
Slavic, Noric, Dinaric can have almost everything described but they are not nordics. I am for example relatively tall ( 1 90 ), have black hair, light brown eyes and I do not have rosy complexion because I look pale and probably way lighter than most nordics. I think my haplogroup ( because it is dominant haplogroup in a part of cou try where I live ) is I2 which makes me a dinaroid but I have ceriphal index of 70. So you see it is all relative. I know nordics who come on summer vacations and look very brown in the end of the summer so do not think you will look the same if you live southern like greece.

So my question what else is what defines Nordic men and women?

Thank you for you answers

Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 10:29 AM
Hello Escuzimio,

You are seeing some (a lot) of things wrong here and are mixing up a lot of terms.

First of all, this is a forum for Germanics. When someone is Germanic, he or she has the ethnicity of a Germanic country, meaning his or her ancestry is from Germanic peoples, speaks a Germanic language, see themselves as Germanics, etc.
'Nordic' is a somewhat vague description, because it can either mean someone from a northern country or someone of the Nordic (or often spelled Nordid) subrace/subtype, a racial type.
We are using the term 'Germanic', because that is what we are. People who descend from other Germanics. This is a better term than Nordic, because someone who is of the Nordic type doesn't have to be Germanic, but can also be for example Slavic.
And that is another thing you are mixing up. Terms like Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Hellenic, aren't racial descriptions like for example Noric and Dinaric, but they are ethno-linguistical groups.
Germanics, just as other ethno-linguistical groups consist of different racial subtypes, some more typical of the group than others and a lot are overlapping with other ethno-linguistical groups.

Just take a look at all the sub-categories on the site index. All are important subjects about/to Germanics, you are probably seeing it a bit one-dimensional ;) But i think these are common misunderstandings about this forum. A lot of people think we are all nazi's here (of course, there are always some), but when they take a better look they see most of us are not that way.

Edit: banned for not being Germanic i guess :P Now that i'm looking at his username a little better, it seems like a joke account too. All the work on this post for nothing... ;)

Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 05:00 PM
I am new here, and I've not seen many who are outright promoting any form of white supremacism (there are a couple, it seems to me, who are). I see some threads or posts on "racial purity," which is personal point of view or preference (and I urge all such people not to get involved in any form of genetic analysis of their bloodlines, unless they are ready for surprises). Several people here admit to having a bit of Native American blood or non-Germanic blood and they seem to be as welcome as anyone else.

I am not, by blood, purely Germanic (I have several other groups represented in me, particularly Celtic as well). But, in my family, the line that has kept the best records, done the most to inspire me, been ready with information about our family history - and who have joined together from around the world to research our roots - is the Celtic/Germanic branch.

As a scholar in this area, I have questions about some of the terminology in use here, but it is very useful shorthand for the members, who truly do share a common understanding (and an enormous amount of factual information - the people here are, by and large, very well educated on their subject and passionate about it).

For example, the assumption that all tribes that lived north of the Roman boundary were "Germanic" occasionally pops up here (as it does in academia as well). Frequently, the term "Germanic" here is used to refer to a set of people speaking languages that underwent a sound shift (Grimm's law) around 1000 BCE, but of course, that wasn't strictly correlated with any type of genetic shift - or even any cultural shift (linguistic shifts are fascinating to study, but they sometimes occur without much relationship to genes or culture).

Sometimes the word "Germanic" is used to refer to the ancestors of the same people just mentioned (but that becomes problematic, as if any group of people moved around a lot, it was the prehistoric tribes of northern Europe). Keeping track of peripatetic people isn't easy, archaeologists and anthropologists use genes and material culture. When this view is applied, "Germanics" don't emerge as clearly as distinct entities (as tribes) as one might hope. The Franks, for example, although going through Grimm's law's sound shift, had many other sound shifts that other "Germanic" tribes did not have, with the Ripuarian Franks arising in Normandy and Belgium, and rarely setting foot in any territory considered Germanic - indeed, they spring from Celtic stock, and, as I just said, had a language that took them in a different direction than, say, Eastern Frankish or Gothic. The term "proto-Germanic" in terms of linguistics makes little sense, as a sound shift doesn't make a language "proto".

Shared genes is a different issue yet again. Blue eyes appeared around 8000BP (some say 6000BP and I'm beginning to think they are correct). But many people who spoke (and still speak) Germanic languages did not and do not have blue eyes (although many do, of course). If a person has neither 1 or 2 genes for blue eyes, they can still be of Germanic stock, as the epicenter of blue-eyedness is nearby (and since I am claiming the early Germanic peoples moved around a lot and no one had a clear idea of where their own territories began and ended), the Germans clearly interacted with the blue-eyed people (who could be called Nordid nor Nordic, although since they blue-eyed people have their own prehistory and patterns of migration (somewhat easier to find, actually, now that we know the alleles - and there are more than one - involved in blue eyes).

Germanic, Celtic and Slavic people are very closely related (and for myself, dividing out the Baltics who are offshoots of the Slavs, needlessly complicates discussions unless one has a reason to discuss more recent history and ethnic/national identity).

As to national identity, yes there are some here who think that Germany should be and is a homeland for Germanic people (however they mean the term). This is a quite human thing to want.

As a descendant of Celtic and Germanic people (Goths, Ostragoths, Neustrians, Thuringians) and even some proto-Slavic stock (Lethra and Heruli - my opinion), I find this forum very interesting. In my own mind, the very blue-eyed groups (Normans, Saxons, Juts, Frisians, Suede, Danes) span a very large area, pick up many linguistic twists and turns, and methods of self-administration that lead directly to the modern world and therefore are worthy of study on their own - but I would not call all those groups "Germanics" simply because of Grimm's law. The Normans, Juts and Frisians quite naturally view themselves as French or Dutch or Belgian (or something else) when they speak about themselves - and that's their right to do.

Still, the history of Europe is represented by and intertwined with the Goths, Visigoths, Ostragoths, Eastern Franks, Saxons, Neustrians, Thuringians and other groups that I think most scholars correctly shorthand as "Germanic." These peoples were powerhouses in driving Europe to the place where it is today and much deserving of attention (and there's nothing wrong with descendants of those groups wanting to preserve the heritage or feeling proud of their ancestral accomplishments).

Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 05:09 PM
The banned person is likely still reading. I have no idea why they were banned, but if they are actually Italian, I suspect the questions asked were genuine (and the person's syntax sounds like Italian English).

Thursday, March 24th, 2011, 09:38 PM
The banned person is likely still reading. I have no idea why they were banned, but if they are actually Italian, I suspect the questions asked were genuine (and the person's syntax sounds like Italian English).
Well, the questions asked may be genuine and thatīs the reason why the thread is still open. :) But we donīt accept memberships of people with non-Germanic heritage, and "Italian" is fully non-Germanic.

So you can discuss the questions of the threadstarter but membership is restricted to people whoīre at least mainly of Germanic heritage. Non-Germanic users can start threads in this sub-forum (and only in this sub-forum) as "guests" without registration.