PDA

View Full Version : Dutch New York and Swedish Philadelphia, Anglo-German America



Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, December 23rd, 2017, 02:49 PM
What forms of cultural transmission have gone to America from Germania and vice versa?

What are the shared values between colonist and colony?

The Dutch government became insistent on a magisterial Reformed Calvinism rather than the Anabaptist belief held by the people, along with a full-fledged Orangist monarchy and the success of a more aristocratic church and state model could be traced to the originator of Jacobitism, the Duke of York.

It is noticeable that Swedish pacifism and a lack of public religion is not native to the Stockholm of the Vasa dynasty, so it must be inferred that this influence is from William Penn's "Sylvania".

What is it that we know from English history? First, Mary married William III of Orange, then Anne married George of Denmark-Norway, followed by the inheritance by Palatine Sophia and marriage to her Hannoverian husband George. In the same orderly fashion, Dutch, Swedes and Germans have occupied and populated the English colonies.

Despite the fact that Dutch and Swedish folks founded the original Middle Colonies, it is Germans who have really made their mark and the other two seem to be cultural curiosities of an older time. It's as if Holland-Belgium and Sweden-Finland, the furthest Southwest and furthest Northeast of Germanic countries, on the borders of Romans and Finns, were averaged out by Germany in between, since Denmark-Norway had Iceland and Greenland, needing no presence among them.

Anglo-German royalty caused Anglo-German society to form in America. Is it a real shock that America's Anglophile German majority would survive the Revolution against the Hanoverians? Once Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Anglicised as Windsor and sacrificed the Imperial Crown for Wallis Simpson, an American woman, along with transforming into the Commonwealth, it could be said that all that's missing is Germany, since the Prussians stole Hannover and two world wars were fought, although the League of Nations mandates may have made up for it.

Saxony could have been joined with England, but the Oldenburg dynasty is back in style now and this presents an opportunity for the Danes to gain ground where Germans once were supreme in England and so, Saxons, Angles and Jutes will all have their day in the sun once again. Bring on the new Viking movement...Take back South Schleswig. Align Iceland and Greenland with North America.

Elizabeth
Saturday, December 23rd, 2017, 07:20 PM
I don't understand the point of this thread but the thread title got my attention because I have Dutch ancestry from New York (New Netherlands), and a little bit of Swedish and German too. I'm mostly British descent (English, Scottish, & Welsh).

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, December 24th, 2017, 10:35 AM
Lizzie, pardon my absence. I just spent 8 hours composing a reply on another thread (https://forums.skadi.info/showpost.php?p=1214500&postcount=28), because it took me through twists and turns of cyberspace. Go ahead and look. I'll get back to this thread when I can. Thanks for your patience.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, December 26th, 2017, 05:42 AM
All right. A few issues and observations.

You know how some cities are "twinned", like probably Boston in Massachusetts with Boston in Lincolnshire? Well, I'm wondering about the cultural transmission from Amsterdam and Stockholm to NYC and Philadelphia and any reverse influence upon Holland and Sweden by New York and Pennsylvania. I also noticed that those real estates seem tied up with dynastic developments (Orangist and Oldenburg) in the British Royal Family, which occurred rather simultaneously with colonization.

New Brunswick was named for the Germans who succeeded to the Throne after Jacobitism imploded the Stewart Clan, but most of them have their cultural hearth and nuclear basis in the Middle Colonies (just as New Jersey was named for the French who actually lived beyond the Royal Proclamation Line of 1763 with the Indians), seemingly averaging or balancing the types of Germanic that quasi-Romance Dutch/German and quasi-Finnic Swedish/Norwegian settlers represented, by being both West Germanic and Lutheran, rather than West Germanic and Calvinist or North Germanic and Lutheran. It is obvious that British is quasi-Celtic, between Danish (England) and Irish (Scotland). The Germans came as a result of King James's heiress Elizabeth of Bohemia and her husband Friedrich, Elector Palatine of the Rhine along with their Hanoverian descendants.

The Braunschweiger family lost the Koningreich von Hannover to Prussia and was succeeded by the Saxons before they likewise lost their kingdom, so they're now known as Windsor and they are unabashedly pro-American, pro-Parliamentarian and pro-Commonwealth. Hanoverians and Saxons weathered their losses by holding the Indian Empire, but I wish it was the other way around, regardless if India is Aryan. The dynasty next in line to QEII is also Oldenburg aka Mountbatten-Windsor, which may be of strategic benefit to integrating Iceland and Greenland with America and Canada. ATM, Greenland is under Oldenburg rule, whereas Canada will be sometime under Prince Chuckie, whilst Iceland's only King was Oldenburg.

The Oldenburgers were key to maintenance of the Dannevirke, the earthworks dividing Jutland and Anglia from Saxony, because Schleswig-Holstein straddled the ancient border of Denmark and Germany (just as Watling Street in England divides Mercia between the Danes and Wessex), that the Prussians and Austrians conspired to invade and deprive Denmark of any semblance of a defensible position on the ground. This was a betrayal of fellow Protestants by Germany under Bismarck, but he left Papist Austria-Hungary in the cold anyway. The loss of the Oldenburgers' Schleswig-Holstein made Denmark easy pickings for Nazi Germany and that doesn't sit well with my conscience, because Denmark is forced into an unnatural disadvantage by the so-called "democratic" plebiscites approximating nothing more genuine than the status of Bleeding Kansas when non-resident Missourians forced the Lecompton Constitution upon the actual territorials.

I hope that Nordic popular culture can help sway an otherwise German and EU-heavy majority in America to embrace the proto-Kalmar Union of Cnut the Great as ultimate geopolitical ideal, rather than obsessing over the realms of Charlemagne. I want Brexit to spark a Nordic revolt and alliance, regardless of how in the tank that "South Germanics" are for White Nationalism in Continental Europe. Otherwise in America, we will be stuck with these rotten Italian and Mexican intrigues, under the German delusion of a White Esperanto culture. I want Trump's America and the Brexit Commonwealth to stoke Nordicism, because Celts and Finns can be assimilated by Germanics, whereas the Latins and Hispanics refuse to. We need NAFTA to comprise of all the lands North of the border and disavow of the Organization of American States as well as the EU. NATO ought to be a Germanicist club.

Juthunge
Tuesday, December 26th, 2017, 01:50 PM
it could be said that all that's missing is Germany, since the Prussians stole Hannover and two world wars were fought, although the League of Nations mandates may have made up for it.
Do you really believe Prussia “stole” Hannover and that the two world wars were fought over that?


Bring on the new Viking movement...Take back South Schleswig.
[…]
that the Prussians and Austrians conspired to invade and deprive Denmark of any semblance of a defensible position on the ground. This was a betrayal of fellow Protestants by Germany under Bismarck, but he left Papist Austria-Hungary in the cold anyway.
South Schleswig has been mostly ethnically German for centuries now, being in a personal union with Denmark due to its ruler doesn’t change that fact, just like a personal union didn’t make Hannover ethnically English or England ethnically German.
Things get admittedly blurry up there though, the picture being further complicated by the nominally neither German nor Danish Frisians. But the actual differences are slight and nowadays it doesn’t matter much if they belong politically to Denmark or Germany, so we might as well leave it with us.


seemingly averaging or balancing the types of Germanic that quasi-Romance Dutch/German and quasi-Finnic Swedish/Norwegian settlers represented, by being both West Germanic and Lutheran, rather than West Germanic and Calvinist or North Germanic and Lutheran.
[…]I want Brexit to spark a Nordic revolt and alliance, regardless of how in the tank that "South Germanics" are for White Nationalism in Continental Europe. Otherwise in America, we will be stuck with these rotten Italian and Mexican intrigues, under the German delusion of a White Esperanto culture.
“Quasi-Finnic” Swedes and Norwegians and “quasi-Romance” West Germanics, “German delusion of a White Esperanto culture”. What?


I don’t understand why you’re trying to drive a wedge between North and Continental Germanics in every single post of yours(how unrelated to the actual topic it might be) with made up issues existing only in your head, while all Germanic countries are being overrun with non-Germanic Europeans and especially non-Europeans.
And then you rave about “papist” and “romance” Germans trying to dominate North Germanics and what not. You possess mostly a dangerous, self-righteous sciolism and draw all the wrong conclusions from that, which is worse than knowing nothing at all.

I hope one day you grow out of those “Papist, Romance, Esperanto West Germanics” gibberish delusions/hallucinations. :insane

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, December 26th, 2017, 03:30 PM
It was better for English folkishness to have Holland and Hannover than India. If you want to turn a blind eye from how demoralized and humiliated Denmark has been since the Germanic Urheimat in the Danes' Kingdom has been railroaded and carved up like a Christmas ham by Germany and Sweden too, that's because you Germans are accustomed to such things and count them trivial, but that's tyrannical.

How typical of you to observe a truth and then throw it out the window, as inconvenient for your statist mindset. You brought up Frisians, who are perhaps the oldest extant relatives of the Anglo-Saxons. They alone would be justification for more freedom of self-determination in lands denied this by hochdeutsch supremacy. Frisia is England's Sudetenland, with "folcsanglisc". Plattdeutsch don't need subordination.

Whenever Amsterdam and Berlin give the EU the middle finger; whenever the multicultural states of Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland dissolve by partition to make a clean break (and recombine) between Germanic and Romance; whenever Liechtenstein and Austria embrace Luther...that's when Germanic unity will be achieved and that's what I want. Maybe you should hop to it if you believe in a distinct Germanic society.

Using Stormfront arguments to keep the status quo of actual division (by diversity) between Germanics is what you are doing, by sacrificing our integrity for White Nationalism. If you argue for a pan-Germanic Northern Alliance that has fuck all to do with other Whites, then you would be in step with Wittekind and not making apologetics for the deified traitors and butchers of Germanics: Clovis, Charlemagne and Ol' Boney.

Continental Germanics claim that Nordicism is divisive, when their own lot maintain a very real patchwork of states not at all complementary to the purpose of nationalism supposedly sorted out by the German Confederation, but exacerbated by the secession of Belgium for the cause of aristocracy. Loyalty to statism is treason to nationalism, so own up to Switzerland and Austria-Hungary as original multiculturalism.

Assimilation of Celts is almost a complete project. Assimilation of Uralics has been a bit harder. Assimilation of Romans was supposedly accomplished by the Volkerwanderung, but the reverse is true. South Germanics have since been lost in Eurocentric rather than Germanocentric orientation. Far be it for them to call Angles or Swedes apples fallen far from the tree. Luther himself would agree, for I echo his own ideas.

If you want to eulogize the Holy Roman Empire, you put a veneer of respectability upon ethnic cleansing of Germans, your own people, because the genesis of that government was purchased for 30 pieces of silver in the deaths of free Frisians and Saxons, whom you obviously have utter contempt for as "disloyal" by association with Angles and Jutes outside the "German" establishment with a Roman heart.

If apostate Franks wanted to become assimilated within Rome, then they automatically forfeited the right to represent and govern actual faithful Germans. Consider what side of the fence your bias sits. Divide and conquer is what the French have done to Germania. It's hardly the fault of some evil British-American ZOG that the Continent runs itself into the ground. The EU is the slippery slope to the Earth Union. Oh Brexit...waah!

It's sad that I see excuses for Continental associations with the original terrorists, the French, with antipathy for my nation of shopkeepers, despite how much freedom Angles have kept with our legal system and religion. Considering how much supposedly "Germanicist" mindset corresponds with Romance people instead, to the point where now both Sweden and Denmark are getting Bearnaise monarchies: Bourbon puppets.

Juthunge
Tuesday, December 26th, 2017, 09:59 PM
It was better for English folkishness to have Holland and Hannover than India. If you want to turn a blind eye from how demoralized and humiliated Denmark has been since the Germanic Urheimat in the Danes' Kingdom has been railroaded and carved up like a Christmas ham by Germany and Sweden too, that's because you Germans are accustomed to such things and count them trivial, but that's tyrannical.

How typical of you to observe a truth and then throw it out the window, as inconvenient for your statist mindset. You brought up Frisians, who are perhaps the oldest extant relatives of the Anglo-Saxons. They alone would be justification for more freedom of self-determination in lands denied this by hochdeutsch supremacy. Plattdeutsch don't need subordination.[/
What are you even talking about? That Prussia annexed Nordschleswig in 1864 to begin with, was wrong from an ethnical point of view, but the ethnically predominantly Danish part of Schleswig already reverted to Denmark in the plebiscite of 1920. Probably the single half-way fair and correct plebiscite after WWI.

The remaining Danish and Frisian minorities have every possible right accorded to it and they even have a political party of their own together. Which unfortunately usually votes and allies with the Socialists and Greens and supports multiculturalism. So much for that.

In what way is/are Low German(s) “subordinated”?

As for Skane, I’ll leave that to a Swede or Dane to explain, as should you. Thank you for finally openly admitting your hatred of Germans, by the way.


Frisia is England's Sudetenland, with "folcsanglisc".
“Ok”. Whichever way you look at it, this is a ridiculous statement. But for logic’s sake, England would be Frisia’s Sudetenland, since the Anglo-Saxons came from the continent, not the other way round. ;)


Whenever Amsterdam and Berlin give the EU the middle finger; whenever the multicultural states of Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland dissolve by partition to make a clean break (and recombine) between Germanic and Romance; whenever Liechtenstein and Austria embrace Luther...that's when Germanic unity will be achieved and that's what I want. Maybe you should hop to it if you believe in a distinct Germanic society.
Not sure when and how you arrived at the conclusion, that I don’t already support a distinct Germanic society.

But a few things: there’s a strong Flemish movement trying to break away from Wallonia or at least gaining a maximum of autonomy, Luxemburg historically wasn’t multicultural but German with unfortunately a strong strain of Francophilia and German Switzerland has parted ways with the rest of the German(ic)s a long time ago and probably sadly beyond recovery.

No idea why you rave on about Luther and religion in general, confession is effectively irrelevant in north-central Europe by now, especially politically. We’re not living in the times of the Thirty Years’ War(even then the actual relevance of religion to the war is debatable) anymore.

As for the unfortunate Dutch and German membership in the EU, which I, obviously, don’t support(I can’t believe I even have to state it), that’s probably beyond the understanding of a mind which’s historical knowledge is restricted to pre-20th century epochs.


Using Stormfront arguments to keep the status quo of actual division (by diversity) between Germanics is what you are doing, by sacrificing our integrity for White Nationalism. If you argue for a pan-Germanic Northern Alliance that has fuck all to do with other Whites, then you would be in step with Wittekind and not making apologetics for the deified traitors and butchers of Germanics: Clovis, Charlemagne and Ol' Boney.
More hallucinations. I’m (obviously) not a White Nationalist, have no idea what you mean by “Stromfront arguments” and never even mentioned either Clovis, Charlemagne or Napoleon.
All I wanted to know from you is, in what way Continental Germanics are supposed to be Romance and North Germanics Finnic.


Continental Germanics claim that Nordicism is divisive, when their own lot maintain a very real patchwork of states not at all complementary to the purpose of nationalism supposedly sorted out by the German Confederation, but exacerbated by the secession of Belgium for the cause of aristocracy.
Looking at this sentence, I don’t think you know what Nordicism means.


Loyalty to statism is treason to nationalism, so own up to Switzerland and Austria-Hungary as original multiculturalism.
Apparently you don’t know the meaning of statism either, as one can be a nationalist believing in statism or liberalism or believe in statism or liberalism without being a nationalist.


South Germanics have since been lost in Eurocentric rather than Germanocentric orientation. Last time I checked, Denmark and Sweden were still members of the EU, Norway is closely associated with it without being an actual member and the UK didn’t effectively leave yet. None of them is exclusively Germanocentric or even merely nationalistic either. We all face the same problems of nihilism, apathy and mass migration.


Far be it for them to call Angles or Swedes apples fallen far from the tree. Luther himself would agree, for I echo his own ideas.

If you want to eulogize the Holy Roman Empire, you put a veneer of respectability upon ethnic cleansing of Germans, your own people, because the genesis of that government was purchased for 30 pieces of silver in the deaths of free Frisians and Saxons, whom you obviously have utter contempt for as "disloyal" by association with Angles and Jutes outside the "German" establishment with a Roman heart.

If apostate Franks wanted to become assimilated within Rome, then they automatically forfeited the right to represent and govern actual faithful Germans. Consider what side of the fence your bias sits.
Again, hallucinations. When did I ever say anything like this?


Divide and conquer is what the French have done to Germania. It's hardly the fault of some evil British-American ZOG that the Continent runs itself into the ground. The EU is the slippery slope to the Earth Union. Oh Brexit...waah!
These matters have been discussoed on here over and over again and I have no intention to restart such a discussion right now.


It's sad that I see excuses for Continental associations with the original terrorists, the French, with antipathy for my nation of shopkeepers, despite how much freedom Angles have kept with our legal system and religion. Considering how much supposedly "Germanicist" mindset corresponds with Romance people instead, to the point where now both Sweden and Denmark are getting Bearnaise monarchies: Bourbon puppets.

It's well known on here that I’m anglophile and have no love for the French at all. And you’re American, not English(or Swedish, as you seem to think at times, too), stop larping.

“Bourbon puppets”…Both Swedish and Danish monarchy are entirely symbolic by now anyway and had connections to various European houses for centuries, as did about any other house.
You should really try to come back to our current reality and not debate like we’re still in the 17-19th century.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, December 26th, 2017, 10:18 PM
I just realized that I referred to Sophia of Hannover as if her husband was "George", but his name was Ernest. I meant to correct this error during my original editing time frame window. Their son George united England and Hannover, although surviving sons of Anne and George of Denmark might have united the Danes or at least the Faroe Islands with England, as William of Orange likewise united Holland with England--itself predated by the Elizabethan protectorate of the Low Countries, administered by Leicester in the common cause of Protestant liberty from Habsburg invasion.

The French dominate so much of Europe. Their President is co-ruler with the Romanist Bishop of Urgell, of the semi-theocratic Andorra. Monaco is French. The Bourbons own Spain and Luxembourg and their Bearnaise retainers are the Bernadottes of Sweden, Monpezats of Denmark. Wallonie suffocates Flanders. French Geneva strangles Switzerland and its Reformed heritage does no favor for Bern and the German cantons, save ironically keep them in a stalemate, from being entirely overwhelmed by French, Italians and Rhaetians. Alsace-Lothringen is a constant reminder of French supremacy that Germany supposedly isn't allowed to match in your own lebensraum. Geneva, Strasbourg, Brussels and the Hague are all to keep a close watch on Germanics, with Merkel's exercise of power as an illusion.

My aspiration for American interests, is to harness the Romance-leaning South Germanics for peopling of the ex-Roman Catholic territorial acquisitions from France, Spain, Texas and Mexico, entailing the original Dutch colonial foundations, with the help of Belgians and Germans. Uralic-leaning North Germanics, of Swedish colonial derivation, would find the most compatible expansion in ex-Balto-Slavic Russian Alaska, buttressed by Finns and Norwegians. As for the original 13 American States, Oregon and Hawaii, all of them have West Germanic colonial origin and are good depositories for Irish as well as Danes, to account for the Scottish and English halves of Britain's folks who founded and chiefly settled my country. In this way, the divergent branches of Germanic folks can find harmonious distribution in virtual kingdoms, all within one country. Further Germanic unity can be achieved by exchanging Mexico for Iceland and Greenland within NAFTA. Spanish Mexico belongs with French Haiti and Portuguese Brazil, not merged within an Anglo-state of Germanic Protestant orientation.

For those unfamiliar readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Germanic

I have seen posts alleging that Nordicists are un-Germanic, that English are just Celts in denial, with both positive and negative agendas, depending upon the individuals commenting. If that is true, then so are the Dutch Romance and the Swedes are Uralic. A Wikipedia argument about the Finnish heritage of a Swedish Founding Father in American history is what got me to second guess the Germanic heritage taken for granted, as did finding out Pamela Anderson's Swedish last name is a Germanic mask for Finnish ancestry, much like how Irish names are Anglicised. I explored the relationship of Uralics to Swedes here, without much cooperation and it left me frustrated, so I abandoned my thread for three years before getting back to it:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=40127

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, December 27th, 2017, 04:44 AM
What are you even talking about? That Prussia annexed Nordschleswig in 1864 to begin with, was wrong from an ethnical point of view, but the ethnically predominantly Danish part of Schleswig already reverted to Denmark in the plebiscite of 1920. Probably the single half-way fair and correct plebiscite after WWI.

Look, I love when Prussia was the bannerbearer for the North Germanic Confederation and how they blocked Austria from retaking their position that the Bonapartes actually got right in removing from them. That's the only good thing from the Bonapartes, but Prussia shouldn't have allied with Austria (the ex-HRE) and just respected an 1100 year old border established precisely to defend the Danes from Imperial Roman Catholicism. So, the Hohenzollerns were just being selfish in fighting to be top dog in Germany and keep the Habsburg-Lothringens out, but couldn't give a shit about fellow Protestant powers in København and London and sold their souls by reneging on their vow to oppose Romanists and protect Evangelicals. I would be cheering Prussia invading Warsaw, Prag, Pressburg, Moscow, etc. I just don't appreciate so-called "friendly fire" and be expected to swallow it by Nazi apologists who can only envision Magna Germania according to the designs of those who bait and switch with supposed pan-Germanic rhetoric and then overrun and occupy fellow Germanics.

Yes, the Oldenburgers themselves were German and that is largely how Schleswig-Holstein became both Germanized and yet integrated into the Danish realm, but I'm sure Denmark (an underdog compared with big bad bully Germany) would have found it more natural to split up Schleswig and Holstein, because that is more sound than splitting up either, especially when Germany became a federal republic. The Duchy of Schleswig would still be intact and it could be seen as the last remnant of the Anglian homeland, from the Danish POV and in relation to Jutland. Then again, I do compare the Danevirke with Watling Street in England. Perhaps Schleswig is comparable to Danish Mercia and Holstein with Saxon Mercia, so the border could have been wrong to begin with, to divide the Angles in half, rather than have the line be south of Holstein or north of Schleswig. Apparently, the Danish-German border is not the same as that between Jutes and Angles and Saxons. What would be wrong in having a pure Germanic buffer state as a third option? I would rather that exist than something fake like Luxemburg, which is itself partitioned from Belgium, itself partitioned from Nederland, itself partitioned from Germany going back to the time of Augustus.


The remaining Danish and Frisian minorities have every possible right accorded to it and they even have a political party of their own together. Which unfortunately usually votes and allies with the Socialists and Greens and supports multiculturalism. So much for that.

I agree that they are lunatics with disgusting laws about child pornography and bestiality, but sovereignty is their right. :/ Then again, what about the cartoonists? We at Skadi supported their cause many years ago:

https://forums.skadi.info/images/logos/images/Support%20Denmark!%20(Old).jpg


In what way is/are Low German(s) “subordinated”?

Hochdeutsch, aka "German" is the tongue of those with ties to Roman multiculturalism in the Alpine States going back to Ripuarian Austrasia/Franconia, who were largely responsible for translating the imperial crown from Salian Neustria/France in the Low Countries. Plattdeutsch is the tongue of those native to Germany, but whose ties are Germanic outside the state, like in Jutland, Frisia and England. Prussia ideally should be based upon an ostsiedlung extension of Saxony and even Thuringia. Germany's official tongue ought to be Plattdüütsch, to respect the native, uncorrupted Germans. This is what I mean about the difference between nationalism and statism. The way you conflate them is injurious to genuine Germanic German character, by falsely claiming that those whose Germanic nature has been compromised, is equally valid if not more so than nativistic Germans who have unfortunately been made to seek fortune elsewhere than the confines of the "German" state.


As for Skane, I’ll leave that to a Swede or Dane to explain, as should you. Thank you for finally openly admitting your hatred of Germans, by the way.

I understand that some Swedes anachronistically attempt to portray Skane as having an originally Swedish, or at least Geatish background, but Skane is 1/3 of the lands of Denmark and Bornholm is all that's left of it, the others being Jutland at 1/3 (including Hedeby/Schleswig) and Zealand at 1/3. According to oral history, Danes originally came from Skane, while others say that the Angles lived on Zealand before moving to the coast. Of course, the Slavs claim all North and East of the Elbe for themselves. I can see Germans claiming that the Ingaevones are not Scandinavian and therefore, Jutland belongs to Germany, that maybe Denmark ought to consist of Zealand and Skane instead. Tough luck, huh, since Skane already is controlled by Sweden. Should Denmark merely be Zealand and Bornholm? Real convenient for so-called Germanic preservationists, to whittle down our Urheimat into a micro-state for the cause of neighborly aggrandizements...

On the contrary, completely. My maternal grandmother is proud of her German heritage, whereas my mother-in-law has both German ancestry and phenotype. I named my only two sons after my Dad's cousins who have a Volksdeutsche mother. My grandfather's other cousin in the US Army also married a German woman and raised her daughter as his own. I love German food although I do not drink beer or any other alcohol--I used to drink at Oktoberfest, the only part of which I did not understand being Volga Germans' folk dancing and music. My town is getting an Aldi store and I already bought the entire selection of German meats and cheeses at the store location already open in the next town over. The tearoom I frequent was established by a German woman. Where do you think I get my smoked herring from, but Germany (along with Scotland, Poland and Latvia)? Whose composers do you think I listen to? Handel and the Grimms came to England with the Hanoverians. All I've done is argue FOR Anglo-German relations, unencumbered by Roman yoke. The conditions that Germany has expected of England as junior partner are typically more insulting than those demanded by France, because we are kin and there ought not be some unnatural pecking order.


“Ok”. Whichever way you look at it, this is a ridiculous statement. But for logic’s sake, England would be Frisia’s Sudetenland, since the Anglo-Saxons came from the continent, not the other way round. ;)

https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=146759
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=39822


Not sure when and how you arrived at the conclusion, that I don’t already support a distinct Germanic society.

https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?p=977095
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=48025


But a few things: there’s a strong Flemish movement trying to break away from Wallonia or at least gaining a maximum of autonomy, Luxemburg historically wasn’t multicultural but German with unfortunately a strong strain of Francophilia and German Switzerland has parted ways with the rest of the German(ic)s a long time ago and probably sadly beyond recovery.

Well, then...we agree and argue over nothing, so why "come at me "bro"?".


No idea why you rave on about Luther and religion in general, confession is effectively irrelevant in north-central Europe by now, especially politically. We’re not living in the times of the Thirty Years’ War(even then the actual relevance of religion to the war is debatable) anymore.

Ideologues and demagogues ideally sync up into a mutual framework. Have you been living under a rock? There are volkische religions abounding in Germanic preservationism that predate different strands of Protestant conviction and arraignment, so there is an undercurrent that you are willfully being naive about. One could easily dismiss this movement in contrast to Germanic Christendom, however, I do not. I validate the inheritance of one from another. Much like the differences between Germanics, differences between Protestant confessions are less significant than between Germanic and Romance, Protestantism and Catholicism--but they do exist and influence us to argue as much as we are doing.


As for the unfortunate Dutch and German membership in the EU, which I, obviously, don’t support(I can’t believe I even have to state it), that’s probably beyond the understanding of a mind which’s historical knowledge is restricted to pre-20th century epochs.

As we discussed in another thread, it would have been better for England, (Orangist) Holland and (Hanoverian) Germany to stay loving each other (and America), instead of marking our territories with pissing contests in Indian and European theatres of operation. I also argue for a Scandinavian presence and participation in the great questions affecting us all, not merely the Big Three Germanic powers.


More hallucinations. I’m (obviously) not a White Nationalist, have no idea what you mean by “Stromfront arguments” and never even mentioned either Clovis, Charlemagne or Napoleon.
All I wanted to know from you is, in what way Continental Germanics are supposed to be Romance and North Germanics Finnic.

The thing is, if I am on a soapbox tirade and you disagree with me, for no apparent reason it seems, it is difficult not to see you as agreeing with that which I expressly do not. It's a tempest in a teapot.

Anyway, Continental Germanics (Dutch and Germans) cohabit with Romance peoples in multicultural states, Peninsular Germanics (Swedes and Northmen) cohabit with Finns and Lapps, whilst Insular Germanics (Angles, arguably including Danes) cohabit with Celts.


Looking at this sentence, I don’t think you know what Nordicism means.

Nordicism can be either anthropological and/or geopolitical.


Apparently you don’t know the meaning of statism either, as one can be a nationalist believing in statism or liberalism or believe in statism or liberalism without being a nationalist.

You attack me when I complain about statism overriding Germanic nationalism, but then comment indifferently on the movements of Vlaams with equanimity. You either care or you don't, but if you do, why not add more insight instead of just be a stick in the mud?


Last time I checked, Denmark and Sweden were still members of the EU, Norway is closely associated with it without being an actual member and the UK didn’t effectively leave yet. None of them is exclusively Germanocentric or even merely nationalistic either. We all face the same problems of nihilism, apathy and mass migration.

Denmark and Sweden are unlikely to bolt the EU, with their dynasties coming from the same hellhole in France that Spain and Luxemburg derive their rulers from. The oldest royal family in Europe is the Bourbons, from the Robertians aka Capetians of Paris, who succeeded the Carolingians. The Habsburgs were nothing compared to their influence. At least England, Norway, Holland and even Belgium seem to have secure Germanic dynasties. I might even say that the French dynasty is technically Frankish, but their interests are inimical to all that is Germanic. You can say that self-hatred is royal where the French are concerned. The Franks would rather not let the Gauls have a Celtic independence, if they themselves could not have everybody speaking Frankish, so they allied with the Romans of Provence to hold down the native people of Gaul in exchange for temporal authority and agreed that Romance would bind up all three peoples. Basically, the three estates of the realm: Latin Church, Frankish State, Gaulish People...


Again, hallucinations. When did I ever say anything like this?

It doesn't benefit you to argue against me, if you do not identify with what I am arguing against.


These matters have been discussoed on here over and over again and I have no intention to restart such a discussion right now.

Stormfront fodder.


It's well known on here that I’m anglophile and have no love for the French at all. And you’re American, not English(or Swedish, as you seem to think at times, too), stop larping.

Then why dispute me? We have a natural common interest. I have sometimes wondered who the French burned worse, Germans or English and who has done them worse in revenge for their treachery. Americans ARE English, with significant Dutch, Swedish and German interests. That's the point of this thread; to ascertain how the New World has been influenced by the Old and vice versa, along with what to take from that as inspiration on how to move forward together. Just so you know, if anything, I have only ever LARPed at my grandfather's Danelaw heritage in Yorks, Northumbria, but this broke down when I was forced to acknowledge my maternal heritage from English Mercia close to Watling Street near Wendover in Bucks, while my Dad's mother came from a noble family in Somerset, Wessex--whose namesake led the army into annexation and occupation of Mercia--the General of Wessex was beheaded by Eadric Streona for his resemblance to Ethelred the Unready. So, I have Danish, Mercian and West Saxon ancestors. My wife's parents on both sides go back to Surrey and have huge London connections, which forced me to rethink my provincialism in addition to finding out that my grandfather had a great-grandmother born in London, to a London mother, regardless of my maternal grandmother's family also being from London, whilst Bucks where my maternal grandfather's family is from, is one of the Home Counties, as is Kent, where my paternal grandmother's family is from (more recently than Somerset).

My interactions with Vestmannr here @Skadi taught me that it is possible to represent subcultures found in both British and American states entirely of English origin (the four major identities of my grandparents in Albion's Seed), without even getting to Anglo-Celtic differences (minor ancestral differences dispersed in the family tree). Intellectual confidence aside, I find myself too often emotionally conflicted by having ancestors on both sides in the English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War, etc. I'm more interested in commonalities than differences, like those between Scandinavia and England, between England and America. I don't focus too much on ties wherein Germany plays this role that Scandinavia fits for my own case. I suppose if I was my father's mother's brother, I would find pride in my North German heritage, as it formed the backdrop of Wessex. Dutch and German interests of mine are not paramount, but certainly positive. I'm one of the few people you might meet that loves Limburger cheese straight out of the wrapper, but you won't catch me dead with Raclette in my mouth--that stuff stinks and you cannot melt it like fondue and taste good at all. I know this, because I melt cheese in the microwave all the time, or used to when I had more money.


“Bourbon puppets”…Both Swedish and Danish monarchy are entirely symbolic by now anyway and had connections to various European houses for centuries, as did about any other house.
You should really try to come back to our current reality and not debate like we’re still in the 17-19th century.

There are certain threads or trends that last for eras and not just generations. Is it all mere coincidence that the dynasties of four countries come from the same French province? The War of the Spanish Succession was fought to maintain a balance of power in Europe, but even though France and Spain did not unite as they were legally allowed to do, however we would feel, they still dominate Europe to this day. Denmark and Sweden are as much satellite states of France as Andorra and Monaco, Spain and Luxemburg, Belgium and Switzerland. That's a lot of countries and it's clear that the EU is nothing more than a French club, or for Francophiles. As France leads, Germany follows.