PDA

View Full Version : The Germanic Idea in England


Nordgau
Saturday, November 8th, 2003, 02:32 PM
The following text (of course "critical" against nationalism and the non-"Western" Germanic idea) throws light on the differences of the Germanic idea between Germany and England over the centuries. I translated it from Klaus von See, "Deutsche Germanen-Ideologie. Vom Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart", Frankfurt am Main 1970, p. 44-46, 82-84.


Romanness and Greekness in the idea of Germans and English

The German poetry of the time of Goethe provides a contribution to the theme of the Germanic idea at the best indirectly. Namely in it a characteristical German bent in the sttitude towards the ancient culture shines through again: the strong preference given to the Greek before to the Roman. Without doubt purely artistic assessments play a part, especially in the time of the original genius (Originalgenie) of course the high esteem for the original in contrast to the alledgedly only imitated. To this adds an affinity in political respect, from the own political situation a better understanding of the Greek minor state particularism than of the greater-space organization of the Roman Empire. But the background of this attitude is a general anti-Roman affect, a through traditional clichés dogmatized feeling of alienness to the Roman nature.
Already the Humanists are endeavour to emphasize the merits of the Greeks at the expense of the Romans, because they want to owe as less to the Romans as possible: Celtis thinks that the Germanics got first used to Christianity through Greek "druids" who were driven out of Gaul by Tiberius, and for that one had "to know now and always great thanks for the Greeks". And the Greekness of Schiller, Goethe, Humboldt and Hölderlin is followed then in the decades after World War One by a so-called "third humanism": the effort of Werner Jaeger to surmount the aestheticism and individualism of the time of Goethe with the turn to the idea of political formation of man at the Greeks, an effort which is not only characteristical for the idea in which it is developed, but also again characteristical German so far as itself wants to see poitical thinking orientated by a quite irrational concept of the state, more based on ethical demands than on institutions.
It is now interesting to compare with all that the total other attitude of the English towards antiquity. In England, one stays always conscious of once having been part of the Roman Empire. In the early Middle Ages, the Christian-Latin educational tradition joins together fast and easily with the folk-language poetry - as late as today, Virgil plays in England a greater part than Homer -. And the more the British Empire grows, the more one becomes conscious of the analogies to the Imperium Romanum with regard to organization and the civilisatoric mission. Greece on the other side steps - in spite of Byron and Keats - noticeably into the background. Lord Cromer, a high British colonial officar and leading advocate of the Empire idea is elected in 1909 to president of the "Classical Association" in London and makes for this reason a speach with the title "Ancient and Modern Imperialism". He says there "that the un-disciplined and idealistic Greek with his pronounced individuality is much less suited for realizing an Imperialist policy than the strict and practical Roman who not only made laws, but obeyed them". To this type of the strict, sober, practical Roman the Englishman is attached. The ancient Germanic tradition plays in contrast to this a very little part, or ot is indeed from the start more regarded from the Roman-Christian-Occidental point of view and less out of the feeling of an inner-mental relationship. [...]

Vikings and Anglo-Saxons

An even minor part than at the Scandinavians does the ancient Germanic tradition play at the the third partner of the Germanic union, at the English. It was already said in a former paragraph that the Germanics were seen there from the Christian-Occidental point of view and less out of the feeling of an inner-mental relationship. Surely that is historically explainable: the English know - in their literary tradition - the Germanics above all as Vikings, that means as cruel, plundering invadors who striked the island at a time when it has been already for a long time part of the Christian Occident. Erik Linklater describes these "Danes" in his novel "The Men of Ness" (1932) as Barbarians who are brave until to the death, brutal, boastful and greedy for possession - an image that has a so much desillusioning effect, as Linklater follows formally the style of the Icelandic saga. As late as on the eve of World War One the English-German antagonism is put in the phrase "Christ or Odin".
The mental relationships between England and Germany are quite loose during the 19th century - in spite of Coleridge and Carlyle on the one and Wagner on the other side. So much the tighter are the relationships to France. The old Roman-Christian educational tradition may be one of the conditions for this Western European direction; but much more decisive is of course the influx of French culture after the Norman conquest. And at last something third adds to this: the Celtic heritage which connects England Gallo-Romance France and helps to underpin the political "Entente cordiale" of 1904 mentally. By the way, one needn't think here only of the historical idea of a Celtic original population - also the mental tradition plays a part: what the world of the Germanic myths is for the illustrators of the German Jugendstil (art nouveau), that are for the pre-Raffaelits the legends around King Arthur.
All that combines to sever England out of the union of the Germanic nations and to move it into the union of Romance-Western European nations. The "Saturday Review" of September 29, 1876, compares the emergent German Reich with those nations that possess an old civilization: England, France and Italy!
In Germany, one was always little conscious of these ties of England to the Romance-Western European civilization, and that lead at the beginning of the first as well as at the beginning of the second world war to a deep, but totally groundless disappointment in the so-called "English cousin". Emperor Wilhelm II. who fancies himself in stylizing World War One - similar to the National Socialists with World War Two - to a race war and to give to it with this the character of a principle and final conflict, writes already in 1912 in one of his affected-brisk marginals: "The real trader nation! That is what it calls peace policy! Balance of power! The final struggle of Slavs and Germanics finds the Anglo-Saxons at the side of Slavs and Gauls." The saying of the "trader nation" (Krämervolk) shows that one knows on the German side to class the English ties to Western Europe fast to the usual clichés which actually goes for the contrast between Germanics and Romans. Werner Sombart calls in 1915 this contrast most concise with the already quoted alliterative phrase Händler und Helden ("traders and heroes"). In his book with this title he says in respect to English and Germans: "The trader... wants to make a profitable deal with life... The hero... wants to give, wants to waste himself, wants to sacrifice himself - without counter gift... But the virtues of the hero are are those that are contrary to those of the trader: they are positive, giving and waking life, they are 'giving virtues': the sacrificial courage, faithfulness, innocence, awe, bravery, piety, obedience, goodness".

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 8th, 2003, 07:17 PM
Thank you for the translation. Your english is superb! :)

friedrich braun
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 02:14 AM
Yes, thank you for the translation.

Barbara Tuchman in her monograph on WW I ("The Guns of August") writes that Germans referred to the English as "race traitors" during and in the aftermath of WW I. Of course, this would have perplexed the English since they don't, and never did, regard themselves as being of the same race as Germans.

The "Perfidious Albion" (in common continental parlance) views himself or self-identifies, psychologically speaking, as a "Romano-Celt", and ***not*** as a Germanic.

This little fact had very profound repercussions for romantic Germans (such as AH) who, being Anglophiles to a fault, based much of their foreign policy on an erroneous basis -- with catastrophic consequences.

Germans always had a very poor understanding of the English. I sincerely hope that this one-way love affaire is at a historic end. Good bye and good riddance.

Nordgau
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 08:05 AM
Thank you for the translation. Your english is superb! :)

Not really. It's more the looking-up-every-fucking-third-word-in-the-Langenscheidt method. ;)

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 09:13 AM
Not really. It's more the looking-up-every-fucking-third-word-in-the-Langenscheidt method. ;)

Ok, let me rephrase that: Your Langenscheidt is superb! :D

Milesian
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 11:26 AM
Yes, an interesting article.
It strikes me that the English are in an uncertain position.
On the one hand, they disdain the Germans (particulary since both World Wars) and the word German likely conjurs up more negative connotations for an Anglo, that positive ones. The fact that the Royal Family had to change their name to a less Germanic sounding one tends to highlight the point. Even dogs weren't spared, the German Shepherd being renamed the Alsatian :)

On the other hand, they are far too distinct from the Scots, Welsh and Irish and despite some half-hearted attempts, cannot even convince themselves they belong in the Celtic grouping.
Not that they would be allowed to suffer such a delusion - The other people's in the British Isles are at all times conscious that the English somehow "do not belong", but are rather a foreign influx of people who suffer from an identity crisis.
Being obviously not Celtic, and loathe to identify themselves as Germanics, it is really quite a fascinating mind-set they find themselves in.

Gladstone
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 04:52 PM
Not that they would be allowed to suffer such a delusion - The other people's in the British Isles are at all times conscious that the English somehow "do not belong", but are rather a foreign influx of people who suffer from an identity crisis.

Hi Milesian

I'd be curious if you might describe this sense that the English do not belong felt by Celtic peoples. Is it almost an unconsciouse sense, or is it much more palpable, ie appearance, accent, etc? Can a Celt almost at times "smell" an Englishman without the said Englishman even having said a word?

Milesian
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 05:20 PM
Hello Gladstone,

I guess it's difficult to explain. The sense of them not really "belonging" is probably a combination of factors. It seems that history dictates a sense of greviance by all the Celtic peoples against the English. Irish, Scots and Welsh are all taught by their parents, families and even at school that they have been struggling to maintain their cultures, languages and distinctiveness against the encroaching Anglo-Saxon influence. Ireland had Pearse, Emmet, Father Murphy, etc. Scotland had Wallace, Bruce, etc. Wales had Owen Glendower (sp?), etc.
These people represent some of the greatest heroes of these nations and they all share one trait in common. They were men who fought against English culture trying to encroach on their own culture and people.

In addition, I think the English temperament and outlook is different as well.
It's hard to explain, however.
Most of the time, the English are viewed as soft, wimpish, passive.
On the other hand they tend to view the Celts as impulsive, wild, somewhat untamed. I've noted that English people are sometimes intimidated even when just confronted by a friendly Scot. They have made it known that the accent alone is enough to make them nervous at times :)
It seems to be that in their subconscious, Scots and Celts in general are linked with tough, hard-drinking, not-to-be-messed with indivduals.
A look a British Soap Operas reveals this in good detail.
Irish and Scots actors tend to be recruited as the villains, the wife-beaters, the gangster who's going to break a few legs, the hardened types.
On the other hand, the English appear often to be meek, hen-pecked, civilised to the point of being docile. More than once I have heard of their temperament as being that of "a defeated and dying people". Their lack of passion is viewed with suspicion and is not fully comprehended. They are often seen as eccentric, which tends not to be a Celtic charecteristic.

Of course, they are not always so passive, as anyone who has seen English football hooligans rampaging across Europe can attest to.
It seems they go to extremes - if they are not being overly civilised and reserved, they are being loud, violent and all too willing to engage in drunken and yobbish and loutish behaviour.
It's ironic that it is the normally quiet and reserved English who suffer from this inclination to thuggery, while the Celts who are tend to be viewed in a similar vein, are actually a very friendly and gregarious bunch who are much more interested in making friends and enjoying themselves in similar situations.

As for "smelling" an Englishman.....I suppose it is possible. ;)
In general you probably can't, but there are some people who you can look at and conclude that they are probably English. I think of someone like Manchester United's defenders, the Neville brothers, who I have heard often described as having "English faces". I suppose the sub-racial mix of England could well include types or mixes which are not as frequent or even non-existant in the more remote parts of Britain and Ireland.

Of course, my points are subjective and I don't intend to claim everyone feels this way. This is a generalisation (I have English family after all, although they probably fit in with my points if truth be told ;) ).
However, I do propose that among Scots at least, the above views are quite widespread

Gladstone
Sunday, November 9th, 2003, 05:37 PM
All very interesting. What you describe as to the English sounds remarkably similar to what some have described of America. It would make sense as America was founded by Anglo-Saxon England and in a sense continued on with its own Empire building after the Revolution. America too is having an identity crises and like with all too many of the English, many in America are also not wanting to face the problems (ie past actions/errors, and current mess) squarely but is instead opting for what amounts to suicide :( (aka multi-culturalism). Hopefully enough will gain courage so as to avert an untimely end.:)

friedrich braun
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 12:44 AM
When I was in my late teens I went out with an Irish-Catholic girl (born and bred in London, England, however). I recall her saying that the English viewed everyone else as subhuman/inferior, EXCEPT the Germans for whom they had a sneaking admiration coupled with profound loathing.

Yes, an interesting article.
It strikes me that the English are in an uncertain position.
On the one hand, they disdain the Germans (particulary since both World Wars) and the word German likely conjurs up more negative connotations for an Anglo, that positive ones. The fact that the Royal Family had to change their name to a less Germanic sounding one tends to highlight the point. Even dogs weren't spared, the German Shepherd being renamed the Alsatian :)

On the other hand, they are far too distinct from the Scots, Welsh and Irish and despite some half-hearted attempts, cannot even convince themselves they belong in the Celtic grouping.
Not that they would be allowed to suffer such a delusion - The other people's in the British Isles are at all times conscious that the English somehow "do not belong", but are rather a foreign influx of people who suffer from an identity crisis.
Being obviously not Celtic, and loathe to identify themselves as Germanics, it is really quite a fascinating mind-set they find themselves in.

friedrich braun
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 01:02 AM
Dr. Brandt,

Do you think it possible that the Third Reich so terribly miscalculated concerning the English (or had a poor understanding of the English) because so few high-ranking National Socialists could speak the language? How many National Socialists travelled or lived in England or socialized with them or had any substantial contacts with the English. Ribbentrop ("my Canadian Champagne salesman" as AH used to call him, and Ribbentrop wasn't a particularly strong individual) spoke English, anyone else?

I know that during the Putsch trial English journalists sitting behind AH spoke English amongst themselves to the great ire of AH -- he is reported to have turned around at one point and admonished them to "speak German in my presence!" But this sounds like an apocryphal tale.

Milesian
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 01:04 AM
When I was in my late teens I went out with an Irish-Catholic girl (born and bred in London, England, however). I recall her saying that the English viewed everyone else as subhuman/inferior, EXCEPT the Germans for whom they had a sneaking admiration coupled with profound loathing.


Hmmm...well she is perhaps more of an authority than me being born and raised in England. I would agree that the English basically see everyone else as "Johnny Foreigner", but as to having a sneaking regard for the Germans, whilst possible, I've never seen trace of it. Quite the contrary, to be honest as they seem to reserve a particular place for their dislike of the Germans (generally speaking of course). What I find interesting is that when asked to pick out the attributes they particulary dislike, they tend to list characteristics which best suit themselves. It's almost like they dislike Germans because it reminds them of themselves and they seem to have a fundamental problem with that.

blut-ehre
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 05:17 AM
When I was in my late teens I went out with an Irish-Catholic girl (born and bred in London, England, however). I recall her saying that the English viewed everyone else as subhuman/inferior, EXCEPT the Germans for whom they had a sneaking admiration coupled with profound loathing.

Yes, I went out with a English girl who studied German and seemed to have a slight admiration for Germans. Relationships like that don't work, sadly ;)

Nordgau
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 07:18 AM
I know that during the Putsch trial English journalists sitting behind AH spoke English amongst themselves to the great ire of AH -- he is reported to have turned around at one point and admonished them to "speak German in my presence!" But this sounds like an apocryphal tale.

As far as I know, Hitler could read, understand and also speak English to a certain degree, but he didn't want to speak English, because as he didn't use to speak it perfectly, it could be misunderstood if he used in a converstion with an Englishman a word or expression incorrectly - and he was someone of whom every word was taken with a pinch of salt. He also didn't use to speak English with ambassadors because he then had more time to think of an answer while the translator was translating into German.
I don't know exactly where I read this, but I remember having read already several times in Hitler biographies or memories of people from Hitler's surrounding about Hitler's knowledge of English - hardly of course the knowledge of the language of someone who studies Anglistic, but the average knowledge of a German who knows enough of it to read texts and make conversations.
The same goes for Hitler's knowledge of French.

Other top Nazis who had quite private relationships with the Anglo-Saxon world were von Schirach and Hanfstaengl. Then of course one should think of Hitler's relations to Winifred Wagner and Unity Midford.
I don't know how much Göring could speak English, but Goebbels - who had quite a good knowledge of French and Latin - couldn't,as far as I remember. I think he tried to learn it a bit in the twenties and thirties, but he had already some problems in the pronounciation of English names...

cosmocreator
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 09:44 AM
Dr. Brandt,

Do you think it possible that the Third Reich so terribly miscalculated concerning the English (or had a poor understanding of the English) because so few high-ranking National Socialists could speak the language? How many National Socialists travelled or lived in England or socialized with them or had any substantial contacts with the English. Ribbentrop ("my Canadian Champagne salesman" as AH used to call him, and Ribbentrop wasn't a particularly strong individual) spoke English, anyone else?

I know that during the Putsch trial English journalists sitting behind AH spoke English amongst themselves to the great ire of AH -- he is reported to have turned around at one point and admonished them to "speak German in my presence!" But this sounds like an apocryphal tale.

As thorulf already stated, the Führer could understand english very well. Ribbentrop tried his best to come to an agreement with England. He was the first to recognize that this was impossible and then urged Hitler to abandon this courting of an unfriendly nation. Unfortunately Hitler had his fix ideas and was convinced that if Germany was pacifist towards England, they will not see us as danger and be our partners. Unfortunately he got his impression of the english only from people who were friendly towards him and his movement (Lord Beaverbrook, Mosley, Lloyd George ect.)
English are very pragamatic and ruthless. At one momment they will smile in your face, compliment your achievements, praise your cultre, show their so called "fair play", do a lil chitt-chatt and lull you in a state of security and then when you least expect it, stab you in the back. Hypocricy is a Anglo-Saxon "virtue", one might even say, part of their national identety.

Ribbentrop was probably one of the very few who recognized their true intentions. Their "apeasement" was nothing but stalling for time. they realy duped us good. The english have virtualy betrayed and screwed every one of their partners they ever had. They fucked Russia in WW1, then they dumped Czechia and Poland in 1939 and 1945, they betrayed the serbian Royalists and supported Tito, while at the same time granting asylum to the serb King. After WW1 they screwed their allie Japan. English History is just a record of treachery.

It is also untrue that Hitler spoke of Ribbentrop in that fashion. Thats another myth created by allies. I recomend Ribbentops memoirs "Zwischen London und Moskau". Maybe it's available in your librarys.

friedrich braun
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 04:08 PM
"It is also untrue that Hitler spoke of Ribbentrop in that fashion. Thats another myth created by allies. I recomend Ribbentops memoirs "Zwischen London und Moskau". Maybe it's available in your librarys."

Thank you for the tip.

I'll look for it in my University library and if I can find it's German original so much the better.

cosmocreator
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 04:58 PM
Thank you for the tip.

I'll look for it in my University library and if I can find it's German original so much the better.

I know it is available in an english translation, because a comrade has found it in his library.

88

friedrich braun
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 05:03 PM
I know it is available in an english translation, because a comrade has found it in his library.

88

Yes, but I should stop being lazy and start reading more stuff in German (I have a kid's vocabulary in German, since I only talk German -- actually a melange of German, French and English -- at home).

88

Ullr
Friday, August 27th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Actually, you all have it wrong. English consider themselves a two-ply branch cut off of Scandinavia and Germany, left alone under pressure by Latin Gaels. One might compare them to the Franks who've been assimilated into Gaul despite their prevelance as the original upper class in the Frankish country, and compare the Icelandish as a more extreme or purer form of England due to it's isolation. You can see clearly that the Revolution in France ended Frankish traditions and reimposed Latin dominance. England's position on the larger portion of a major island has given them more fortitude against assimilation and so the English use this advantage to stay afloat. Consider how Cromwell's Commonwealth did not destroy the monarchy as Bonaparte's ambitions had done later, after a spell. England is a blend of the Scandinavian monarchical regimes and the federalism of German countries.

America is Cromwell's Commonwealth come to fruition, as are the rest of the British Commonwealth nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, today following shortly behind. The difference here is in American's settlers being upset over the Act of Settlement in which a German king stole the throne by proxy. The Americans had much greater ties to the Old Regime through the Stuart monarchs who were deposed and setup as Jacobites in France. If the Stuarts had been reinstated, America may very well have remained with the Crown. America is mainly a Tudor-Stuart-Cromwell creation. The Houses of Nassau and Hanover were not invited because it meant Dutch and Germans reclaiming and seeking land in the Mid-Atlantic colonies. America was founded on the skeleton of Welsh Tudors, given it's flesh by Scottish Stuarts and its soul by English Cromwells.

Vestmannr
Friday, August 27th, 2004, 03:34 PM
. America was founded on the skeleton of Welsh Tudors, given it's flesh by Scottish Stuarts and its soul by English Cromwells.

Well, New England might have gotten its soul by Cromwell - but not the rest of the country. The Mid-Atlantic states got their 'soul' though Dissenters - Quakers and the sort, the sort of folk Cromwell would have hung. The South had a soul long before Cromwell - a very 'Celtic' soul as well as a very 'Old English' soul. The rest I'd agree with, however, Cromwell's England made no settlements in America - his major impact was in driving his enemies *to* America.

Ullr
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 02:42 AM
Well, New England might have gotten its soul by Cromwell - but not the rest of the country. The Mid-Atlantic states got their 'soul' though Dissenters - Quakers and the sort, the sort of folk Cromwell would have hung. The South had a soul long before Cromwell - a very 'Celtic' soul as well as a very 'Old English' soul. The rest I'd agree with, however, Cromwell's England made no settlements in America - his major impact was in driving his enemies *to* America.
The soul I spoke of is what unified the nation into a federal system in clear memory of English institution yet in outspoken variance from them at the same time. New England is to England what New France was to France. Virginia was a newer, more experimental form of English lifestyle as it diverged the most in its economic institutions, possibly due to New England dominance. New England had merely shorn off it's requirements for such things as noble families and royalty. It was a veritable Middle Class establishment run by Gentry, Clergy and those of Parliament but not Peerage. Virginia stayed with the social convention but introduced an entirely new lifestyle that probably intimidated New England. In any event, New England resulted in something like the Earldom of Northumberland(Northern/Maine) and Prince Bishopric of Durham(Southern/Massachusetts). New York became America's Yorkshire and the Confederacy became something akin to Wessex-Florida our Cornwall. I tend to look at each state as its own shire.

Vestmannr
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 03:02 AM
Virginia was a newer, more experimental form of English lifestyle as it diverged the most in its economic institutions, possibly due to New England dominance.

Whatever are they teaching in the schools up there? Virginia exactly copied things as they were in Wessex and Sussex in the early 17th c. (pre-Cromwell.) Not 'newer' at all. New England was the experiment, with the 'City on the Hill', and the attempt at creating the first Protestant society. It was Providence they were blown off course and away from our fair Virginia.

Virginia stayed with the social convention but introduced an entirely new lifestyle that probably intimidated New England.

Rather, New England was always intimidated by Virginia because Virginia stuck stubbornly to English tradition, and would not recognize any such Utopian eccentricities or religious fanaticism. Virginia stayed true Anglican, New England made sectarian mainstream.

I tend to look at each state as its own shire.

I'll have to admit I have no clue how one would see such an idea. There were differences, and I think David Hackett Fischer set them out pretty clearly in "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." New England and Pennsylvania were clearly the experiments, divergences from European culture in an attempt to replace heritage and tradition with new sectarian Utopian ideas. Or at least, since they did bring local traditions with them (New England particularly from East Anglia, and Pennsylvania particularly from the Midlands), they were new traditions connected with new sects and cults based upon personal interpretation of the new English Bibles (particularly the Geneva Bible.) Virginia and the Backcountry were merely transplants of two British cultures wholesale into America: Southern England to the Tidewater, and the Borders to the Piedmont. If there was anything 'new' and experimental in the South, it would be related to the French Huguenot and Palatine German colonies there.

Added: It might be wise to consider that the time between the first Prayer Book and the first Colony was barely over half a century. America was born on the cusp of this new battle between tradition and novelty. Read Eamon Duffy's "Stripping of the Altars" for a discussion about what the 'average Englishman' was really about in Tudor England, and what the radicals like Cranmer and Cromwell were about, as well as others who smashed English art to pieces and persecuted those who kept old English customs (considered 'idolatry' by Puritans/Roundheads/Calvinists.)

Ullr
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 03:44 AM
Whatever are they teaching in the schools up there? Virginia exactly copied things as they were in Wessex and Sussex in the early 17th c. (pre-Cromwell.) Not 'newer' at all. New England was the experiment, with the 'City on the Hill', and the attempt at creating the first Protestant society. It was Providence they were blown off course and away from our fair Virginia.I meant the initiation of massive estates based on racial labour and not mere house servants. They made a new peasantry and thrived upon it, while New Englanders were intent on abolishing the peasant class so that those who had been in bonds could work their way up in society and that is what the freedom was about. Peasants were made yeomen by New England so that they would not suffer the indignance of a Roman institution any longer. Yes, I was born in Providence and all of my early raising has been imprinted upon me from that lowly place, now in virtual control by the Mafia and other degenerates. My mother's maternal side is from the Virginia-Kentucky Commonwealth connection. Despite some Unionist claims of inbredness in the South, I married a Southern Belle too. I believe in preservation of familial ties even if not the Roman system. My wife's family is mostly Oxfordshire except her father is Aberdeenshire through North Carolina. It feels different being from Yorkshire with Kentish, kind of odd to be truthful.

Rather, New England was always intimidated by Virginia because Virginia stuck stubbornly to English tradition, and would not recognize any such Utopian eccentricities or religious fanaticism. Virginia stayed true Anglican, New England made sectarian mainstream.Virginia had huge amounts of land and an unlimited peasantry under its yoke, which made New Englanders jealous, if anything. They were forced to deal with the scraps of land to farm and work at the ports and industrial towns. It is true that the religious multiplicity was due to New England. The Baptists of the South owe their prominence in America due to Roger Williams of Rhode Island.

I'll have to admit I have no clue how one would see such an idea. There were differences, and I think David Hackett Fischer set them out pretty clearly in "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." New England and Pennsylvania were clearly the experiments, divergences from European culture in an attempt to replace heritage and tradition with new sectarian Utopian ideas. Or at least, since they did bring local traditions with them (New England particularly from East Anglia, and Pennsylvania particularly from the Midlands), they were new traditions connected with new sects and cults based upon personal interpretation of the new English Bibles (particularly the Geneva Bible.) Virginia and the Backcountry were merely transplants of two British cultures wholesale into America: Southern England to the Tidewater, and the Borders to the Piedmont. If there was anything 'new' and experimental in the South, it would be related to the French Huguenot and Palatine German colonies there.I know that the colonies were very provincial in attitude, however, the states come across as super-counties today, in one super-land.

Added: It might be wise to consider that the time between the first Prayer Book and the first Colony was barely over half a century. America was born on the cusp of this new battle between tradition and novelty. Read Eamon Duffy's "Stripping of the Altars" for a discussion about what the 'average Englishman' was really about in Tudor England, and what the radicals like Cranmer and Cromwell were about, as well as others who smashed English art to pieces and persecuted those who kept old English customs (considered 'idolatry' by Puritans/Roundheads/Calvinists.)But what about the Templars and other orders with ties to Switzerland, did they not have some connection to this fall of England's religious tradition? I have a sneaking suspicion that they were involved and do you think Rosicrucianism is a part of this too? Didn't Switzerland follow the Vatican? Perhaps it was all from the fucking Vatican. Goddamn the Continent, they could never leave England alone!

Vestmannr
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 04:10 AM
I meant the initiation of massive estates based on racial labour and not mere house servants. They made a new peasantry and thrived upon it, while New Englanders were intent on abolishing the peasant class so that those who had been in bonds could work their way up in society and that is what the freedom was about. Peasants were made yeomen by New England so that they would not suffer the indignance of a Roman institution any longer.

Virginia's estates primarily depended upon indentured servants who were of the peasant class in Britain and other countries for the most part, as well as others who had been 'reduced' because of poverty, rebellion, etc. If New England intended to abolish the peasant class, they failed. The existence of a 'yeomanry' class largely only existed in the inland South. I would say that the idea of a peasant-noble relationship was not Roman at all, but the Norman's had it from their Germanic-Scandinavian heritage. A serf or peasant is the same as a thrall. Thralls were most often from conquered peoples. The later historical fact of African servitude has largely to do with a scandal involving one of the principals of the London Company and his relationship with the Cornish captain of a Dutch slaver and the first Africans in Virgina. However, servitude and slavery after the fuedal model early on included the English underclass, Gypsies, aboriginals, Irish. I don't think it owed anything to Rome: it did owe much to labor requirements with the technology, climate, and standard of living expected.

They were forced to deal with the scraps of land to farm and work at the ports and industrial towns.

Which created the later enslavement of White Americans to the Corporations beginning with the slums of New England industrial towns, as well as the burgeoning and unchecked immigration.

The Baptists of the South owe their prominence in America due to Roger Williams of Rhode Island.

Yes. I am also a descendant of Anne Hutchinson, so I do have a connection there.

But what about the Templars and other orders with ties to Switzerland, did they not have some connection to this fall of England's religious tradition? I have a sneaking suspicion that they were involved and do you think Rosicrucianism is a part of this too? Didn't Switzerland follow the Vatican? Perhaps it was all from the fucking Vatican. Goddamn the Continent, they could never leave England alone!

Rosicrucianism is part of the development of Freemasonry. The Templars were simply coopted after the fact by Freemason writers, the same way the Druids were. There is no direct physical connection, but merely a mythology. Switzerland was under Calvin's influence primarily (Calvin being an agent of the DeMedici's.) The Vatican was a prize, which many forget. It has changed courses many times (one cannot forget the anti-Popes, the Avignon papacy, and worse - the DeMedicis placing their own in the Papal office.) I don't think it is the Vaticans fault as much as that of a small European group of Occultists selling out to a Judaic philosophy. Of course, much of this is used by conspiracy theorists, or turned on its head by their ilk (most conspiracy theorists I know are about as Calvinist as one can get, they don't seem to have a clue about John Calvin's death by syphilis, or his cult behavior with murder of critics in his own group - not 'hidden' stuff, but mainstream history.)

Ullr
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 04:37 AM
Virginia's estates primarily depended upon indentured servants who were of the peasant class in Britain and other countries for the most part, as well as others who had been 'reduced' because of poverty, rebellion, etc. If New England intended to abolish the peasant class, they failed. The existence of a 'yeomanry' class largely only existed in the inland South. I would say that the idea of a peasant-noble relationship was not Roman at all, but the Norman's had it from their Germanic-Scandinavian heritage. A serf or peasant is the same as a thrall. Thralls were most often from conquered peoples. The later historical fact of African servitude has largely to do with a scandal involving one of the principals of the London Company and his relationship with the Cornish captain of a Dutch slaver and the first Africans in Virgina. However, servitude and slavery after the fuedal model early on included the English underclass, Gypsies, aboriginals, Irish. I don't think it owed anything to Rome: it did owe much to labor requirements with the technology, climate, and standard of living expected.Well, it surely made New England envious and sought to take from Virginia her wealth by carpetbagging, am I right? I'm not personally sure about American things before WWI except the industrial boom and it's effect upon the working classes.

Which created the later enslavement of White Americans to the Corporations beginning with the slums of New England industrial towns, as well as the burgeoning and unchecked immigration.How do you think the colonies started? The charters were corporations not families. They used disadvantaged folks from Britain and later the colonies used the Dutch and Germans to avoid killing allies against the French. That is how the multiculturalism started, the Mid-Atlantic colonies. Canada's experience had been with allying to the Indians, although America has that too. It was really to destroy the potency of the tribes while learning everything and taking everything from them likewise.

Yes. I am also a descendant of Anne Hutchinson, so I do have a connection there.My mother's father's family had been there since the early days I believe-they owned much of Woonsocket- and because their records extend to all the New England colonies but the only placenames are from Plymouth.

Rosicrucianism is part of the development of Freemasonry. The Templars were simply coopted after the fact by Freemason writers, the same way the Druids were. There is no direct physical connection, but merely a mythology. Switzerland was under Calvin's influence primarily (Calvin being an agent of the DeMedici's.) The Vatican was a prize, which many forget. It has changed courses many times (one cannot forget the anti-Popes, the Avignon papacy, and worse - the DeMedicis placing their own in the Papal office.) I don't think it is the Vaticans fault as much as that of a small European group of Occultists selling out to a Judaic philosophy. Of course, much of this is used by conspiracy theorists, or turned on its head by their ilk (most conspiracy theorists I know are about as Calvinist as one can get, they don't seem to have a clue about John Calvin's death by syphilis, or his cult behavior with murder of critics in his own group - not 'hidden' stuff, but mainstream history.)I never knew about the deMedicis being puppeteers of Cauvin, interesting. That stuff was all scandalous back then when Italy was a fragmented nation; I seem to understand the popularity of soap operas now. Are the Sicilians in with this whole tragedy? So, all the conspiracies were started by these cults who were in fact the ones committing themselves to our ruin?

Vestmannr
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 01:27 AM
Well, it surely made New England envious and sought to take from Virginia her wealth by carpetbagging, am I right?

Eventually, yes. At first tariffs and subverting the South's economy was the method. Outright genocide was even suggested (by no less than one of the 'New England Brahmins'.) Occupation and 'carpetbagging' (looting, raping, etc.) were part of the later methods. And, there are various other hostile actions that still continue.

How do you think the colonies started? The charters were corporations not families. They used disadvantaged folks from Britain and later the colonies used the Dutch and Germans to avoid killing allies against the French. That is how the multiculturalism started, the Mid-Atlantic colonies.

Sure, and the Corporations were not trusted by most of the settlers. Which is why the many scandals (such as that over the first Africans in Virginia) led ultimately to the loss of such charters, and the various Corporations (at least in the South) losing the colonies when they became Crown Colonies. I'll agree that the seeds of multi-culturalism were first sown in Penn's experiment: I don't think it may be said of Maryland, Delaware, or anything south of those states.

Are the Sicilians in with this whole tragedy? So, all the conspiracies were started by these cults who were in fact the ones committing themselves to our ruin?

The Sicilians, afaik, had no major impact until the 1890s and early 20th c. - having their first visible presence with the formation of the original Mafia.

Personally, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. ;)

Ullr
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 05:31 AM
Eventually, yes. At first tariffs and subverting the South's economy was the method. Outright genocide was even suggested (by no less than one of the 'New England Brahmins'.) Occupation and 'carpetbagging' (looting, raping, etc.) were part of the later methods. And, there are various other hostile actions that still continue.That genocidal idea is the same apathetic feeling that gives us contraception, which I think is ridiculous. I don't remember rape as part of the carpet bagging, just taking away all the business and economy. Trust me, the jobs are taken away from most Anglo-Americans these days as they are overseas. Some people think we can live a comfortable life by having foreigners labour for us.

Sure, and the Corporations were not trusted by most of the settlers. Which is why the many scandals (such as that over the first Africans in Virginia) led ultimately to the loss of such charters, and the various Corporations (at least in the South) losing the colonies when they became Crown Colonies. I'll agree that the seeds of multi-culturalism were first sown in Penn's experiment: I don't think it may be said of Maryland, Delaware, or anything south of those states.Yes, Penn allowed the Germans, Dutch and Swedes stay in order to make a bulwark against the French and their Continental Imperial Roman Catholicism. Look at how the New Englanders worked side by side with England to fight off the French and make Canada and America English for the most part. WE English employed those Northern Europeans as our servants in OUR chess game and because they were fellow Protestant Northern Europeans, they recieved land instead of none like the Blacks. Lincolnshire in England had been partially populated by the Hollanders before the Pilgrim exile to Leyden and Amsterdam, so it's happened before. We did have a Dutch king anyways. We had German kings, too. We did eventually allow the French to stay because they weren't from southern France, they were Norman in Quebec and Breton in what's left of Acadia, yet Louisiana is mostly Basque.

You must not have studied the situations of Old and New England history yet you still judge so harshly in conspiratorial terms. Your ancestors, did they suffer King Phillip's War and retaliate against the Indians? Did your ancestors get scalped? Who are you to judge New England? We as Americans had to compete with Britain to justify our existence, so many of our policies were meant to one-up the Hanovers on the throne and show Parliament that we could have our own Congress from our foundation and not be ignored and used by an usurping monarchy to rake in their funds. It was really George Washington vs Frederick North, in case you didn't know how each side of the Revolution was led.

The Sicilians, afaik, had no major impact until the 1890s and early 20th c. - having their first visible presence with the formation of the original Mafia.Wasn't that out of the issues with the fragmented Italy and De Medicis, the Muslims and the Normans?

Personally, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. ;)It is the lack of public assembly in the South that has prevented you from seeing what the hell's been going on, and what you believe is a gossip of halftruths.

Vestmannr
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 06:13 AM
I don't remember rape as part of the carpet bagging, just taking away all the business and economy.
It was indeed. Look at the record of the 'Beast' Butler, the occupation of Louisiana. It continued during Reconstruction when gangs of Negroes were encouraged to commit atrocities.

You must not have studied the situations of Old and New England history yet you still judge so harshly in conspiratorial terms. Your ancestors, did they suffer King Phillip's War and retaliate against the Indians? Did your ancestors get scalped? Yes, I have studied it. And no, not in 'conspiratorial terms.' As for my ancestors getting scalped: not a one we have record of. Their neighbors, yes: but generally it was we who were doing the scalping.

Who are you to judge New England?

One whom New England deems to still pass judgment upon.

in case you didn't know how each side of the Revolution was led. I know our history, probably better than yourself. Don't patronize me.

It is the lack of public assembly in the South that has prevented you from seeing what the hell's been going on, and what you believe is a gossip of halftruths.

Ah, I see: attempting to force the idea of the 'Yankee town meeting' as normative? We did have public assembly in the South, often as a way to take care of problems. ;) As for a 'gossip of halftruths', I believe you accuse yourself.

Ullr
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 07:34 AM
It was indeed. Look at the record of the 'Beast' Butler, the occupation of Louisiana. It continued during Reconstruction when gangs of Negroes were encouraged to commit atrocities.One must not blame merely New England for the expansion which happened around the Great Lakes and Great Plains when the presence of immigrants, just like the presence of slaves, formed to divide us needlessly.

Yes, I have studied it. And no, not in 'conspiratorial terms.' As for my ancestors getting scalped: not a one we have record of. Their neighbors, yes: but generally it was we who were doing the scalping.The problem is, you make it seem like New England has never been prey to another force on the outside. You are duped by Londoners attempting a divide between the different traditions of English culture as though yours is more valid than ours because they wanted your raw materials. That only beings us all under London's wing, at our expense, for sure. We shouldn't be attacking eachother, but the immigrants and former slaves.

One whom New England deems to still pass judgment upon.Really, so you love this bickering? Sorry, it just doesn't lighten my day. I only try to bring peace between two disadvantaged sections of America. The North, invaded by immigrants and the South, overturned by former slaves. Yes, it does have to do with those other Europeans we both allowed in the Mid Atlantic colonies just as much as those slaves bought from West Africa and populating much of the Deep South.

I know our history, probably better than yourself. Don't patronize me.Just touching ground to see how the discussion is going from your end. Don't worry, it wasn't intended to insult. Seeing where we agree is better than expounding upon our differences. You are allowing the Jews to win.

Ah, I see: attempting to force the idea of the 'Yankee town meeting' as normative? We did have public assembly in the South, often as a way to take care of problems. ;) As for a 'gossip of halftruths', I believe you accuse yourself.That's not forcing, you sound like the minorities that try to demonise the White man. It's true that life in the Southern tradition was more tied to families and not merely the town, except perhaps the Virginia/Maryland area, which was a blend of both. The Yankee form is more professional and business like, but they have nothing on Dixie hospitality. I am not intending to push lies, I am trying to learn more of the truth, and not put up with propaganda of either side, as it allows the immigrants and niggers to get what they want from us.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 06:18 PM
One must not blame merely New England for the expansion which happened around the Great Lakes and Great Plains when the presence of immigrants, just like the presence of slaves, formed to divide us needlessly.

Two things:
1) The division was already there. The New England culture was primarily Calvinist, which Hillaire Belloc rightly describes as a return to Pharasaic Judaism as well as Roman Paganism (the worship of Fortune, Luck, Fate.) New England culture leaned towards avarice and usury, which required them to develop wholesale immigration. Their development of a primarily materialistic philosophy (from their Calvinism) made them the natural partners of the Judeo-Marxist '48ers from Germany. During the colonial period North and South were already distinct nations, the American Revolution brought about an experiment in Union with the agreement that either party could withdraw at any time. Lincoln's Putsch broke that agreement.

The problem is, you make it seem like New England has never been prey to another force on the outside. You are duped by Londoners attempting a divide between the different traditions of English culture as though yours is more valid than ours because they wanted your raw materials. That only beings us all under London's wing, at our expense, for sure.

I'm sensing some 'LaRouche' in your arguments? How is London and New England any different to a Southerner? Both are 'outside' and wanted our raw materials.

Really, so you love this bickering? Sorry, it just doesn't lighten my day. I only try to bring peace between two disadvantaged sections of America.

No, I don't love bickering. I love being left alone, and the assaults on my culture and nation defeated. My nation (the South, the original Confederation of the United States of America as laid out in the Articles under Pres. Thomas McKean) is not disadvantaged, just occupied and under assault. Me and my people will stop when the warfare against us stops.

Seeing where we agree is better than expounding upon our differences. You are allowing the Jews to win.

A fallacy. The idea of 'Union' is a Jewish idea, so submitting to the idea is 'allowing the Jews to win.' The problem is that the differences *do* exist. To ignore them is to do so to one's and other's detriment.

That's not forcing, you sound like the minorities that try to demonise the White man.

Another fallacy. It doesn't 'sound like' victim mythology, or Afrocentrism, or any other the other -isms that folk like to say "You sound like..." in attempt to argue from false metaphors.

I am not intending to push lies, I am trying to learn more of the truth, and not put up with propaganda of either side, as it allows the immigrants and niggers to get what they want from us.

Then the simple answer is that one must get rid of Bush and his cronies if one wants an America free from Zionist over-lordship and wholesale immigration. The two greatest dangers in American political life at present are the Neo-Conservatives (Trotskyite Likudniks, many of them Mossad agents) and the 'Evangelicals' (Zionist Calvinist Protestants). Then the true Conservatives, and Classical Liberals and Libertarians could move that part of American politics back to a healthy 'self rule'. For the 'Left', the same can be said: remove Bush, and keep Kerry from exerting too strong a control over the whole government (as Clinton expanded powers to such an extent that Bush has been able to misuse them, and Kerry will probably not back down from such powers.) Break the Israel Lobby's influence on the American Left, as well as that of the NAACP - then the true Democratic tradition can come to the fore again. That being done, and the natural thing would be to let the North be the North, and the South be the South and not tied together in some sort of Judeo-Marxist prison camp.

Ullr
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 07:30 PM
Two things:
1) The division was already there. The New England culture was primarily Calvinist, which Hillaire Belloc rightly describes as a return to Pharasaic Judaism as well as Roman Paganism (the worship of Fortune, Luck, Fate.) New England culture leaned towards avarice and usury, which required them to develop wholesale immigration. Their development of a primarily materialistic philosophy (from their Calvinism) made them the natural partners of the Judeo-Marxist '48ers from Germany. During the colonial period North and South were already distinct nations, the American Revolution brought about an experiment in Union with the agreement that either party could withdraw at any time. Lincoln's Putsch broke that agreement.I do not see much difference in the two charters of England, except one was loyal to King and the other loyal to Parliament. Economic differences were built by geography. Each part of England's conquest was similarly touched by the fads of the day. You cannot properly single out all of Virginia as separate. That is a fallacy. Regardless, I do not like the adoption of Romano-Judaic interests in either part of the colonies. It seems alien and the Georgian style of architecture is a perfect example of this, aside from the vast amount of birth names based upon the Old Testament.

I'm sensing some 'LaRouche' in your arguments? How is London and New England any different to a Southerner? Both are 'outside' and wanted our raw materials.True, yet it would make sense to have stayed in a protective union, such as the United Colonies of New England to stave off the French, Dutch and Injuns. Or the Royally imposed Dominion of New England by James II. It was attempted by colonies on a whole in the Albany Plan of Union.

No, I don't love bickering. I love being left alone, and the assaults on my culture and nation defeated. My nation (the South, the original Confederation of the United States of America as laid out in the Articles under Pres. Thomas McKean) is not disadvantaged, just occupied and under assault. Me and my people will stop when the warfare against us stops.Hey, I love Southern culture and some of my favourite television programmes are the Virginian and Walker, Texas Ranger. I just don't like the heat and sunlight on my skin all day long in some southern areas. I don't like the adoption of Tex-Mex food. I prefer seafood, much as Marylanders do.

A fallacy. The idea of 'Union' is a Jewish idea, so submitting to the idea is 'allowing the Jews to win.' The problem is that the differences *do* exist. To ignore them is to do so to one's and other's detriment. How is Union a Jewish idea? Care to provide references? As far as I have known it to be, a Roman tradition which included foreigners to their Empire and it failed. We will probably experience the same fallout.

Another fallacy. It doesn't 'sound like' victim mythology, or Afrocentrism, or any other the other -isms that folk like to say "You sound like..." in attempt to argue from false metaphors.Your tirade is misplaced and could be altered to not be so ad hominem to other Englishmen. As a child, I had always admired Virginia and its colonial foundings. I had always felt alien to the mass amount of other cultures in America. I have tried to keep in touch with New England's Oregon Trail and the Pacific Northwest, except for the Japanese and Injuns. Likewise, I have tried to stay in touch with Virginia's California Gold Rush except for the Chinese and Mexicans. Trust me, I appreciate each English heritage without feeling the need to trash one or the other.

Then the simple answer is that one must get rid of Bush and his cronies if one wants an America free from Zionist over-lordship and wholesale immigration. The two greatest dangers in American political life at present are the Neo-Conservatives (Trotskyite Likudniks, many of them Mossad agents) and the 'Evangelicals' (Zionist Calvinist Protestants). Then the true Conservatives, and Classical Liberals and Libertarians could move that part of American politics back to a healthy 'self rule'. For the 'Left', the same can be said: remove Bush, and keep Kerry from exerting too strong a control over the whole government (as Clinton expanded powers to such an extent that Bush has been able to misuse them, and Kerry will probably not back down from such powers.) Break the Israel Lobby's influence on the American Left, as well as that of the NAACP - then the true Democratic tradition can come to the fore again. That being done, and the natural thing would be to let the North be the North, and the South be the South and not tied together in some sort of Judeo-Marxist prison camp.I prefer Kerry to win and impose a despotic communistic rule so that Bush can stage a bloody coup d'etat and realign America to Britain. I like how him and Blair worked together despite the immigrants' confusion over the interest.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 08:06 PM
Economic differences were built by geography. Each part of England's conquest was similarly touched by the fads of the day. You cannot properly single out all of Virginia as separate. That is a fallacy.

The Economic differences had to do with differences inside England/Britain of the time as well. The various parts of England were still quite distinct in that era. Virginia was quite definitely separate in every part of its society from the things that made the various New England colonies distinct.

Regardless, I do not like the adoption of Romano-Judaic interests in either part of the colonies. It seems alien and the Georgian style of architecture is a perfect example of this, aside from the vast amount of birth names based upon the Old Testament.

It is a fact of history with the Calvinist religious foundation of the New England colonies, which was entirely foreign to the Southern colonies.

True, yet it would make sense to have stayed in a protective union, such as the United Colonies of New England to stave off the French, Dutch and Injuns. Or the Royally imposed Dominion of New England by James II. It was attempted by colonies on a whole in the Albany Plan of Union.

Which was the purpose of the Articles of Confederation, which established the Confederacy of the United States of America: a voluntary confederation which existed until Lincoln's unpopular election. Not a 'Union' of Federalism, but a Confederacy of States.

Hey, I love Southern culture and some of my favourite television programmes are the Virginian and Walker, Texas Ranger. I just don't like the heat and sunlight on my skin all day long in some southern areas. I don't like the adoption of Tex-Mex food. I prefer seafood, much as Marylanders do.

Yeah? What does that prove? :D Some people have 'Black friends' : http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com I love Southern culture too (don't like Walker, Texas Ranger - though I hear it is popular in Palestine.) Can't say I feel the same about New England or other parts of the North (the Midwest). I've lived in some of those parts, and it was hell to me. Folk up there don't like us Southerners, and they aren't coy about it either.

How is Union a Jewish idea? Care to provide references? As far as I have known it to be, a Roman tradition which included foreigners to their Empire and it failed. We will probably experience the same fallout.

The idea of American Union was formulated by the Radical Republicans to elect Lincoln. The formulators were Carl Schurz, Franz Siegel, and other (primarily Jewish) Marxists from Germany. Previous to that the idea of a 'perpetual union' was non-existant in American politics. Even NYC and New England, and various Northern states had considered secession. Secession was taught as a right of the States even at West Point, even by the great Northern political theorist Webster (he agreed with Calhoun, who along with Jefferson represents Southern political theory.) The idea of Federalism was primarily pushed by the Jewish bankers and investors of New England in the Revolutionary period, especially with the attempt to tie America to the continental European banking interests. Federalism was discredited as 'un-American' with the end of the War of 1812, and the idea only resurrected by Siegel's Marxists to create the 'American Civil War' (which wasn't a Civil War, being fought between two nations not one.) The fact that some New England merchants bought into Federalism, and the machinations of foreign agents like Hamilton is why we've had such troubles from the beginning.

Your tirade is misplaced and could be altered to not be so ad hominem to other Englishmen. As a child, I had always admired Virginia and its colonial foundings. I had always felt alien to the mass amount of other cultures in America. I have tried to keep in touch with New England's Oregon Trail and the Pacific Northwest, except for the Japanese and Injuns. Likewise, I have tried to stay in touch with Virginia's California Gold Rush except for the Chinese and Mexicans. Trust me, I appreciate each English heritage without feeling the need to trash one or the other.

I am not making a tirade, nor am I 'trashing' anyone. However, I don't feel a connection or relevance to the 'Oregon Trail', Mormon pioneers, California Goldrush, Plymouth Rock, New York City, Chicago, or any of that other stuff. They weren't my nation, my people: they are alien to me. My people founded Virginia, the Carolinas...pushed across through the Cumberland Gap. Took over Spanish Florida, the Louisiana Purchase, beat the Mexicans at Goliad, trapped the Rockies, ran cattle up the Great Plains from Texas to Kansas: that is what I know and am part of. Sure I'd have something to admire in New England if they were not the ones being hostile (with a three hundred plus year history of hostility) towards the South. The attempt at assimilation and demonization still continues against us Southrons. So, don't try to blame me as 'trashing' - it isn't trashing. All us Southrons have ever wanted is to be left alone, and not forced to try to be Puritans too.

I prefer Kerry to win and impose a despotic communistic rule so that Bush can stage a bloody coup d'etat and realign America to Britain. I like how him and Blair worked together despite the immigrants' confusion over the interest.

You think that is what is happening? Do you mind if it happens to make both Britain and America the permanent lapdogs of the Zionist state? Because, I don't see how one can separate Blair, Bush, or New England/New York's powerbase from the Zionist State of Israel. They are just the beginning of the plans for global domination with Jews as the Over-class ruling all the 'dirty Goyim'. Bush and Sharon are the same beast with one difference: don't bet that the Goy is pulling the leash on the one that has been Bar Mitzvahed. Union with a destroyed Britain is no good goal. Being part of a commonwealth that is Anglo, no problem. But union with Britain's failure and Tel Aviv's triumph: no thanks.

Ullr
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 08:48 PM
The Economic differences had to do with differences inside England/Britain of the time as well. The various parts of England were still quite distinct in that era. Virginia was quite definitely separate in every part of its society from the things that made the various New England colonies distinct.That is how they fell upon the land after scrambling to assert their land grabbing.

It is a fact of history with the Calvinist religious foundation of the New England colonies, which was entirely foreign to the Southern colonies.I've heard many trample Jean Cauvin, although my family wasn't really privy to much Continental stuff until I took it upon myself to be educated in European things that aren't especially English-and still I mostly ignored that part of history because it wasn't as interesting as the Royal families and cultural history. Church was been one big pain in the neck throughout my teenage years, so I avoided learning about religious conflict unless it was old style European when the Catholic Church was supreme.

Which was the purpose of the Articles of Confederation, which established the Confederacy of the United States of America: a voluntary confederation which existed until Lincoln's unpopular election. Not a 'Union' of Federalism, but a Confederacy of States.Yes, I agree. Hahaha, Lincoln, Lincolnshire-where the Dutch immigrated in England. isn't it Brussells and the Hague which control the EU?

Yeah? What does that prove? :D Some people have 'Black friends' : http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com I love Southern culture too (don't like Walker, Texas Ranger - though I hear it is popular in Palestine.) Can't say I feel the same about New England or other parts of the North (the Midwest). I've lived in some of those parts, and it was hell to me. Folk up there don't like us Southerners, and they aren't coy about it either.I like Chuck Norris, even if he seems corny. I have always liked Southerners, except the battle cry that always seems to come out of nowhere and then I get shy and feel attacked. I implore upon you, take it out on the immigrants and not other British Islanders and just ignore the Scandinavians(I told some Minnesota Vasa people that I have Swedish viking descent and they would act strange-besides I am not into worshipping Gustav Vasa). I never wished you harm and I want to preserve much of our combined heritage without care to the immigrants.

The idea of American Union was formulated by the Radical Republicans to elect Lincoln. The formulators were Carl Schurz, Franz Siegel, and other (primarily Jewish) Marxists from Germany. Previous to that the idea of a 'perpetual union' was non-existant in American politics. Even NYC and New England, and various Northern states had considered secession. Secession was taught as a right of the States even at West Point, even by the great Northern political theorist Webster (he agreed with Calhoun, who along with Jefferson represents Southern political theory.) The idea of Federalism was primarily pushed by the Jewish bankers and investors of New England in the Revolutionary period, especially with the attempt to tie America to the continental European banking interests. Federalism was discredited as 'un-American' with the end of the War of 1812, and the idea only resurrected by Siegel's Marxists to create the 'American Civil War' (which wasn't a Civil War, being fought between two nations not one.) The fact that some New England merchants bought into Federalism, and the machinations of foreign agents like Hamilton is why we've had such troubles from the beginning.How do these people get power and influence if they are hated so much?

I am not making a tirade, nor am I 'trashing' anyone. However, I don't feel a connection or relevance to the 'Oregon Trail', Mormon pioneers, California Goldrush, Plymouth Rock, New York City, Chicago, or any of that other stuff. They weren't my nation, my people: they are alien to me. My people founded Virginia, the Carolinas...pushed across through the Cumberland Gap. Took over Spanish Florida, the Louisiana Purchase, beat the Mexicans at Goliad, trapped the Rockies, ran cattle up the Great Plains from Texas to Kansas: that is what I know and am part of. Sure I'd have something to admire in New England if they were not the ones being hostile (with a three hundred plus year history of hostility) towards the South. The attempt at assimilation and demonization still continues against us Southrons. So, don't try to blame me as 'trashing' - it isn't trashing. All us Southrons have ever wanted is to be left alone, and not forced to try to be Puritans too.I am not hostile to Virginia. My maternal grandmother's name is Virginia and she's from Whitesburg, KY. I also like the region of New England and it's climate, despite the mass amount of immigrants. I used to have a Puritan tint in my outlook, but now and probably my source of interest, all I see it is good for is organisation and labouring thrift. It certainly is good for industry, and that's probably why I don't find it absolutely problematic.

You think that is what is happening? Do you mind if it happens to make both Britain and America the permanent lapdogs of the Zionist state? Because, I don't see how one can separate Blair, Bush, or New England/New York's powerbase from the Zionist State of Israel. They are just the beginning of the plans for global domination with Jews as the Over-class ruling all the 'dirty Goyim'. Bush and Sharon are the same beast with one difference: don't bet that the Goy is pulling the leash on the one that has been Bar Mitzvahed. Union with a destroyed Britain is no good goal. Being part of a commonwealth that is Anglo, no problem. But union with Britain's failure and Tel Aviv's triumph: no thanks.I have a question for you...do you think John Kerry would enforce a British-American partnership or declare it irrelevant and ignore us traditionals? Do you believe the Jews made the Roman Empire? Do you believe that Jews made every empire?

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 09:59 PM
Yes, I agree. Hahaha, Lincoln, Lincolnshire-where the Dutch immigrated in England. isn't it Brussells and the Hague which control the EU?

Yes, strange coincidence? :D Whether Brussells and the Hague 'control' the EU, I wouldn't say. Rather, I think they are controlled. Britain has always had close links with the Low Countries, and it would probably be best to say none of the countries mentioned are 'free' at present for their native people.

I like Chuck Norris, even if he seems corny.

He's alright. I've met him. I have a relative travelling with him this year.

I have always liked Southerners, except the battle cry that always seems to come out of nowhere and then I get shy and feel attacked.

Consider it cultural Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It isn't likely to go away for quite awhile on our part.

I implore upon you, take it out on the immigrants and not other British Islanders and just ignore the Scandinavians(I told some Minnesota Vasa people that I have Swedish viking descent and they would act strange-besides I am not into worshipping Gustav Vasa). I never wished you harm and I want to preserve much of our combined heritage without care to the immigrants.

We don't so much as 'take it out on immigrants' as we aren't boot-boys so much down here. The South is still pretty safe from immigrants, most of our problems across the South come from Yankees and their allies the 'African-Americans'. Some parts like southern Florida are nearly Jewish and Cuban entire, but I think us Southerners had pretty much given up that area to the Seminoles back in the day anyways. The only real immigration I'm aware of in our region besides Hispanics (Mexican and Central American) is from the Midwest and New England: mostly folk who hate Southerners and the South, complain constantly - but can't seem to leave or let us alone. I suppose we'll view things differently when we can distinguish between 'immigrant' Yankees and 'Anglo' Yankees, but so far I'm not sure any of us can tell the difference behavior wise (and behavior counts with us, good breeding has to show to be good breeding.)

How do these people get power and influence if they are hated so much?

How these people got power was by greed. The Calvinist idea removed the sense of history: now all of history was 'pagan ignorance and papism', so they rejected their heritage. Their new heritage they borrowed from the Old Testament, which brought about their natural admiration of Jews (thus allowing them to immigrate.) It went so far that even some Harvard and Yale folk pushed for Hebrew to be our official language in the early Republic (voted down solidly by the Southerners: Greek and German were also considered.) So, their identity became based upon their religion as the 'chosen ones' and prosperity as the evidence. So, the 'Protestant Work Ethic' that developed, and the rush after more wealth leading to industry and the need for more workers. They brought in the workers, and those who preached the same materialistic ideas were rewarded (specifically Siegel, Shurz and company.) It is just further along down the road today: people in America want 'more stuff' and security, and to heck with liberty or right. They've become soulless, no history, no connection to soil, family, people, or God. That, and these folk had *outside help* from those who have wanted to loot America.

I also like the region of New England and it's climate, despite the mass amount of immigrants. I used to have a Puritan tint in my outlook, but now and probably my source of interest, all I see it is good for is organisation and labouring thrift. It certainly is good for industry, and that's probably why I don't find it absolutely problematic.

Then it might be a good place for you to stay. You might want to consider a reevaluation of the Dutch influence however.

I have a question for you...do you think John Kerry would enforce a British-American partnership or declare it irrelevant and ignore us traditionals?

He'll do nothing different from Bush. It will just take him a little longer to get the machinery running again. So, out with Bush, then out with Kerry as quick as possible after...

Do you believe the Jews made the Roman Empire? Do you believe that Jews made every empire?

No, the pagan Roman Empire was made by a few Greeks at Rome who absorbed some native Etruscans, and a whole lot of Cisalpine Gauls. The pagan Roman Empire gave a sort of privileged stats to Jews which they used to persecute the Christians. The Christian Roman Empire was founded by St. Constantine the Great, who was primarily of Germanic-Balkan descent and raised in Britannia, and along the Rhine. That Empire was not as kind to the Jews, so they tended to head out to the 'fringes' of the Empire until it broke apart into East and West. I don't see Jews as Empire builders but Empire looters. Their goal is for only one Empire, a world Empire controlled out of Jerusalem with Jews as 'humans' and Goyim as 'subhumans'. They don't intend any other civilization or society to survive: Rome, Moscow, or London not in the least. Reading the right-leaning newspapers from Israel should show that right out in the open, no 'conspiracy theory' needed. Do you happen to know who Kahane and Goldstein are/were?

Ullr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 04:21 AM
Yes, strange coincidence? :D Whether Brussells and the Hague 'control' the EU, I wouldn't say. Rather, I think they are controlled. Britain has always had close links with the Low Countries, and it would probably be best to say none of the countries mentioned are 'free' at present for their native people.Painstakingly true.

He's alright. I've met him. I have a relative travelling with him this year.Awesome...His wife...well, Christie Brinkley is cute.

Consider it cultural Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It isn't likely to go away for quite awhile on our part.I knew that the first moment I felt it. My mother in law is prejudiced against me because of the institution I was raised in.

We don't so much as 'take it out on immigrants' as we aren't boot-boys so much down here. The South is still pretty safe from immigrants, most of our problems across the South come from Yankees and their allies the 'African-Americans'. Some parts like southern Florida are nearly Jewish and Cuban entire, but I think us Southerners had pretty much given up that area to the Seminoles back in the day anyways. The only real immigration I'm aware of in our region besides Hispanics (Mexican and Central American) is from the Midwest and New England: mostly folk who hate Southerners and the South, complain constantly - but can't seem to leave or let us alone. I suppose we'll view things differently when we can distinguish between 'immigrant' Yankees and 'Anglo' Yankees, but so far I'm not sure any of us can tell the difference behavior wise (and behavior counts with us, good breeding has to show to be good breeding.)I have a question...Do you honestly think I watched the fucking Cosby Show or Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? That stuff was always considered degenerate by us English out in New England. You must also compare Dutch and English as too different animals.

How these people got power was by greed. The Calvinist idea removed the sense of history: now all of history was 'pagan ignorance and papism', so they rejected their heritage. Their new heritage they borrowed from the Old Testament, which brought about their natural admiration of Jews (thus allowing them to immigrate.) It went so far that even some Harvard and Yale folk pushed for Hebrew to be our official language in the early Republic (voted down solidly by the Southerners: Greek and German were also considered.) So, their identity became based upon their religion as the 'chosen ones' and prosperity as the evidence. So, the 'Protestant Work Ethic' that developed, and the rush after more wealth leading to industry and the need for more workers. They brought in the workers, and those who preached the same materialistic ideas were rewarded (specifically Siegel, Shurz and company.) It is just further along down the road today: people in America want 'more stuff' and security, and to heck with liberty or right. They've become soulless, no history, no connection to soil, family, people, or God. That, and these folk had *outside help* from those who have wanted to loot America.Yeah, it all seems pretty nasty. You do understand it was these peoples' way of becoming wealthy without having to work their way up the system. As soon as America built its own formula, we have had looters come here. No difference.

Then it might be a good place for you to stay. You might want to consider a reevaluation of the Dutch influence however.No, it's because I hated the ethic and did nothing to improve my work performance. I was always praised for my brilliance of intellect and my capability, but my refusal to work at it in the same pace required of Wall Street had turned down many opportunities. Few people would hire my lazy butt until I recently decided to make some peace with the workplace in my heart, knowing that a reckoning of my diligence had some good pointers and may get me promoted if I am polite to my supervisors-the immigrants they are.

He'll do nothing different from Bush. It will just take him a little longer to get the machinery running again. So, out with Bush, then out with Kerry as quick as possible after...Kerry is going to weaken America to any clawing at the government. We will be left with more social disputes by all the pinkos wanting to get benefits.

No, the pagan Roman Empire was made by a few Greeks at Rome who absorbed some native Etruscans, and a whole lot of Cisalpine Gauls. The pagan Roman Empire gave a sort of privileged stats to Jews which they used to persecute the Christians. The Christian Roman Empire was founded by St. Constantine the Great, who was primarily of Germanic-Balkan descent and raised in Britannia, and along the Rhine. That Empire was not as kind to the Jews, so they tended to head out to the 'fringes' of the Empire until it broke apart into East and West. I don't see Jews as Empire builders but Empire looters. Their goal is for only one Empire, a world Empire controlled out of Jerusalem with Jews as 'humans' and Goyim as 'subhumans'. They don't intend any other civilization or society to survive: Rome, Moscow, or London not in the least. Reading the right-leaning newspapers from Israel should show that right out in the open, no 'conspiracy theory' needed. Do you happen to know who Kahane and Goldstein are/were?I don't know those people, but I surely understand you. So many timid Christians are unwilling to sacrifice Israel for our stability. They believe that trying to use it as a buffer state will protect us from the Muslims. I believe they fear it will turn it into another fallout like what happened with the Ottomans.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 05:03 AM
My mother in law is prejudiced against me because of the institution I was raised in.

Yes, and trust must be won. Normally Southrons trust first, but lose trust quickly with abuse. The historical record up to the present has inclined Southrons to find 'D--nYankees' in every Yankee, and to suspect them all until proving trust.

You must also compare Dutch and English as too different animals.

I still don't see the connection of the Dutch with the abuses, however. If I can find solid historical/sociological/anthropological evidence, I'd consider it. However, the Dutch (especially the Frisians) still seem the closest kin of the English genetically.

You do understand it was these peoples' way of becoming wealthy without having to work their way up the system. As soon as America built its own formula, we have had looters come here. No difference.

Yes indeed. Because the way of becoming wealthy was borrowed from a certain marginal fringe culture in Europe - a sort of criminal class. Others have remarked on this: that because that destructive system worked, people who should have known better abandoned *good* ways of doing things, to use the system promising fast/easy/cheap gain. Mimic the devil, I think it should be called.

I was always praised for my brilliance of intellect and my capability, but my refusal to work at it in the same pace required of Wall Street had turned down many opportunities.

So you equate this environment with the Dutch? I've always considered it a Jewish construct.

Kerry is going to weaken America to any clawing at the government. We will be left with more social disputes by all the pinkos wanting to get benefits.

The fear many of us have is we might be left with nothing but death if Bush continues, however. So, we pick our battles - the question I would ask is: who is more dangerous? Whom do you fear? Which man could destroy you faster through malice rather than idiocy?

I don't know those people, but I surely understand you. So many timid Christians are unwilling to sacrifice Israel for our stability. They believe that trying to use it as a buffer state will protect us from the Muslims. I believe they fear it will turn it into another fallout like what happened with the Ottomans.

That might be true. So you know: Goldstein was the Rabbi that murdered in cold blood the worshippers at the mosque in Hebron at Abraham's tomb. His tomb is a place of worship today for Israeli settlers: he's become a new sort of 'Patriarch' for them. They ask Goldstein's blessing on their rifles. Hebron is the pattern for what they want to do to all the rest of the Goyim eventually. Kahane was the 'prophet' of that 'sort of Judaism', which he called 'real Judaism' - I believe he was right in his assessment. Kahane's ideas are no doubt the driving force behind the Zionist state - because they are ultimately not his own, or even Theodor Herzl's, but fall into a long tradition going back through Maimonides to even the Masoretes and the Jews of Jamnia.

I think the danger comes from the false idea that : 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Islam is no friend of Europe, Western civilization, etc. - but neither is Judaism/Zionism. Who is the more dangerous foe is debateable. I don't think we can afford for either to win, and I think the more dangerous one is that which is closer to our heart. Hopefully the recent scandal ongoing in Washington might wake some people up.

Ullr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Yes, and trust must be won. Normally Southrons trust first, but lose trust quickly with abuse. The historical record up to the present has inclined Southrons to find 'D--nYankees' in every Yankee, and to suspect them all until proving trust.Well, they were living in a broken and unsanitary trailer which my girlfriend hated because she hadn't a room of her own...We got married and her mother refused to fully accept me. My father works the wealthiest business in the wealthiest state in the wealthiest nation on Earth. Plainly; Insurance in CT in USA. Obviously, she was envious that I should offer my assistance to their plight by getting a job to help with repairs. Apparently, it had been the same for years, but it isn't so often you hear about such kind self sacrifice offered by a Yankee who tried and won a relationship long distance, in Dixie for those who are lampooned elsewhere in America. I showed that I had heart, but no good for her when I, in my obscure feelings felt ashamed that I had wasted much of my school time goofing off-to the point of uneasiness whether I could live up to my desire to save my girlfriend by getting her to marry into money and my need to help somebody of the same state my mother's mother was poor in(my parents divorced). This hesitance about my own self worth while refusing to court the necessary requirements of NYC's Wall Street wants had me down in the dumps of depression. I was always a great student, but I detested the pomp of fraternities and the mockery which hits every University and Preparatory School tied to Boston. I always wanted to go to a University, but my hardcore rebellions turned me away from the elite while I despised them and envied at the same time, those immigrants who had taken over New England as Englishmen were disrespected continually and relegated to the Northern states of New England where I hadn't the fortune of residence.

I still don't see the connection of the Dutch with the abuses, however. If I can find solid historical/sociological/anthropological evidence, I'd consider it. However, the Dutch (especially the Frisians) still seem the closest kin of the English genetically.Look at the postwar boom of the late 1800s in NYC and see the names, the families, the freaking castles lined up and down the Hudson and also the Mansions like the Vanderbilt Estate in RI.

Yes indeed. Because the way of becoming wealthy was borrowed from a certain marginal fringe culture in Europe - a sort of criminal class. Others have remarked on this: that because that destructive system worked, people who should have known better abandoned *good* ways of doing things, to use the system promising fast/easy/cheap gain. Mimic the devil, I think it should be called.I have often thought of that, especially the privateering which engineered early merchants' funds in the colonies, all copying Sir Francis Drake, he who was commanded by "Good" Queen Bess. Just so you know, y'all did it to us English who stayed in England in some silly revenge scheme for being set adrift and cut off from our net.

So you equate this environment with the Dutch? I've always considered it a Jewish construct.Oh yes, absolutely, in case you haven't noticed once again, I am more recently English than you and notice the differences of ethnicity quite distinctly as if I were in Europe.

The fear many of us have is we might be left with nothing but death if Bush continues, however. So, we pick our battles - the question I would ask is: who is more dangerous? Whom do you fear? Which man could destroy you faster through malice rather than idiocy?I hope Bush institutes a police state that becomes absolute feudalism under WASP yoke. I respect a man who instills fear and wouldn't want a coward Jew in the Federal office.

That might be true. So you know: Goldstein was the Rabbi that murdered in cold blood the worshippers at the mosque in Hebron at Abraham's tomb. His tomb is a place of worship today for Israeli settlers: he's become a new sort of 'Patriarch' for them. They ask Goldstein's blessing on their rifles. Hebron is the pattern for what they want to do to all the rest of the Goyim eventually. Kahane was the 'prophet' of that 'sort of Judaism', which he called 'real Judaism' - I believe he was right in his assessment. Kahane's ideas are no doubt the driving force behind the Zionist state - because they are ultimately not his own, or even Theodor Herzl's, but fall into a long tradition going back through Maimonides to even the Masoretes and the Jews of Jamnia.

I think the danger comes from the false idea that : 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Islam is no friend of Europe, Western civilization, etc. - but neither is Judaism/Zionism. Who is the more dangerous foe is debateable. I don't think we can afford for either to win, and I think the more dangerous one is that which is closer to our heart. Hopefully the recent scandal ongoing in Washington might wake some people up.I don't particularly study those people. The scandal involving Israeli spies?

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 04:58 PM
I hope Bush institutes a police state that becomes absolute feudalism under WASP yoke. I respect a man who instills fear and wouldn't want a coward Jew in the Federal office.

I'll fight to keep that from happening, just so you know. I'd consider such a state far more in the Venetian or Prussian tradition than English as well. The problem I have with the idea also is that Bush himself does not instill fear: the fear comes from his blundering, and his ephemerality. Bush is not forever, and he is only a puppet. The problem with Bush is *precisely* that the Jews are in the Federal office: Podhoretz, Feith, Rove, Kristol, Abrams - they're pulling the strings. We've never had such a Jewish White House as the Bush White House. You are correct, he is trying to institute a Police State - but it would be impossible for it to be a 'WASP' one, as it has a far more Jewish character to it.

I don't particularly study those people. The scandal involving Israeli spies?

Absolutely, which is being heavily squelched by Ashcroft. I've been aware of this problem for over 15 years as regards the Republicans. My father has been aware of it since the late 70s, but never considered it a 'problem' - even though his own father warned him it would happen all the way back in the 1950s. The recent push to remove us from NATO pulls at our best interest: saving our folk, and letting Europe do its own thing. But the Neo-Cons who control Bush are pushing for it with an ulterior motive: to replace NATO with Israel completely. Then the invasion of France or any other European country would be much easier to 'get by' on the American people.

Ullr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 07:04 PM
I'll fight to keep that from happening, just so you know. I'd consider such a state far more in the Venetian or Prussian tradition than English as well. The problem I have with the idea also is that Bush himself does not instill fear: the fear comes from his blundering, and his ephemerality. Bush is not forever, and he is only a puppet. The problem with Bush is *precisely* that the Jews are in the Federal office: Podhoretz, Feith, Rove, Kristol, Abrams - they're pulling the strings. We've never had such a Jewish White House as the Bush White House. You are correct, he is trying to institute a Police State - but it would be impossible for it to be a 'WASP' one, as it has a far more Jewish character to it.

Absolutely, which is being heavily squelched by Ashcroft. I've been aware of this problem for over 15 years as regards the Republicans. My father has been aware of it since the late 70s, but never considered it a 'problem' - even though his own father warned him it would happen all the way back in the 1950s. The recent push to remove us from NATO pulls at our best interest: saving our folk, and letting Europe do its own thing. But the Neo-Cons who control Bush are pushing for it with an ulterior motive: to replace NATO with Israel completely. Then the invasion of France or any other European country would be much easier to 'get by' on the American people.Alright, so how do we turn the tables on making America a nation or colony again that doesn't attack Europe? It is the Zionists of the EU who are trying to get Europe to fight America. The same political processes which you speak of here are on both shores. What if, however, that what happens instead if America and Europe overturn this by uniting instead? Almost certainly, Canada would be drawn into it and likely Mexico too. I don't know about the rest of North America but they might well be satellite states of this machine. BTW, having Kerry as President would institute a full on Jewish Federal Government. He has confessed, Catholic my ass!

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 08:17 PM
Alright, so how do we turn the tables on making America a nation or colony again that doesn't attack Europe?

One has to remove the power of the Zionists as quickly as possible.

It is the Zionists of the EU who are trying to get Europe to fight America.

I'm not so sure about that. I think many Europeans are anti-American because they are actually anti-Zionist: rid American of Zionism, and they won't hate America. Before Zionism, Europe was often optimistic about the Americas.

The same political processes which you speak of here are on both shores.

Yes, but it is Europeans responsibility to do what they can in Europe, and Americans responsibility in America: and my and my kin's responsibility here in the South.

What if, however, that what happens instead if America and Europe overturn this by uniting instead? Almost certainly, Canada would be drawn into it and likely Mexico too.

Make no mistake about it: the ultimate goal of the Zionists is to unite America and Europe, as 'macro-Hebrons' with the Goyim walled in. So, I'm wary of any 'unifying' noise unless it is specific in what it means by unity, and that unity is that which would not make us lose our specific local distinctions or self-rule.

BTW, having Kerry as President would institute a full on Jewish Federal Government. He has confessed, Catholic my ass!

We already have a full on Jewish Federal Government: so you're saying nothing will change? ;) They just called Karl Rove "Co-President" on NPR today - that is pretty 'full on', I would think.

Ullr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 08:36 PM
One has to remove the power of the Zionists as quickly as possible.Aren't the Zionists descended from Crusaders? Wouldn't that be destroying a huge chunk of European history?

I'm not so sure about that. I think many Europeans are anti-American because they are actually anti-Zionist: rid American of Zionism, and they won't hate America. Before Zionism, Europe was often optimistic about the Americas.Zionism merely left Europe for America.

Yes, but it is Europeans responsibility to do what they can in Europe, and Americans responsibility in America: and my and my kin's responsibility here in the South.Coordination of our efforts is the very reason why this website exists.

Make no mistake about it: the ultimate goal of the Zionists is to unite America and Europe, as 'macro-Hebrons' with the Goyim walled in. So, I'm wary of any 'unifying' noise unless it is specific in what it means by unity, and that unity is that which would not make us lose our specific local distinctions or self-rule.What about the Regions administration of the EU? That might succeed here as well. Some have said that giving power back to the regions may give greater power to Brussells. The sword goes both ways.

We already have a full on Jewish Federal Government: so you're saying nothing will change? ;) They just called Karl Rove "Co-President" on NPR today - that is pretty 'full on', I would think.What about King Richard's usage of Jews to finance his Crusade???

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Aren't the Zionists descended from Crusaders?

Absolutely not. The Crusaders killed Jews in the Rhine and other areas. The Zionists are descended from Theodor Herzl, and other Jews who were mostly fleeing in that period of time: from wherever they were being driven by Christian rulers. If you mean 'Zionist Christians': Zionist Christians are traitors against Christianity and their own history. In such a case the maxim would apply: "Don't judge your ancestors, let your ancestors judge you."

Wouldn't that be destroying a huge chunk of European history?

Absolutely not: it would be rescuing European history. Zionism only came 'above ground' through the Marxists in the late 1800s. Specifically, with Theodor Herzl. How much of a traditionalist he was, and how much of an innovator he was is all debatable. (He is presented both ways in the mythology of Zionism.)

Zionism merely left Europe for America.

I wouldn't say 'merely', rather it was driven out of Europe. The Jewish financiers of the slave trade were those whom Spain had driven out to the Americas, first to the Caribbean then to the English colonies. In New England they found a congenial atmosphere due to the idea of the 'City on the Hill' of the Puritans. They were admired as 'Israelites' (contrary to historical Christian theology and factual history.) Later when the mass immigration for the Industrialists and war on the South began, large numbers of the Jews were brought in from southern and eastern Europe... where they were also facing 'pogroms' and such. Mention the wonderful Cossacks to any New York Jew and hear the tirade. ;) (God bless the Cossacks!) Herzl developed his ideas publicly while living in Palestine (where he also 'resurrected' the Hebrew language by listening to Samaritans and Syrians speak the real thing: old Hebrew and Aramaic.) He found ready support in the community in the Americas, the exiles from Europe. Why? Because the ideas were already latent in the anti-Christian writings, attitudes, and theologies of both Sephardic and Ashkenazic Judaism.

Coordination of our efforts is the very reason why this website exists.

Sure. Or at least for preservation. We can encourage each other, but how could I actually help a Russian preserve his unique culture, race, and spirit? By getting out of his way. ;)

What about the Regions administration of the EU? That might succeed here as well. Some have said that giving power back to the regions may give greater power to Brussells. The sword goes both ways.

Most complaints I've heard about that are those who, wrongfully in my opinion, long for lost Empires. They refuse to recognize that the Empire building was a fool's errand and opened the door for wholesale invasion of the homelands. Giving power back to the regions frees Europeans to be who they really are without having to lose to some synthetic identity. Bretons speak Breton, not French: let them be Bretons. I don't see how folk can think of local power as giving more power to Brussels: decentralization does not make more centralized power... it weakens centralized power, and puts the power in the hands of the people themselves. Personally, I have a high enough opinion of Europeans that I don't believe they need centralized power. Africa does, Asia does, the Middle East does: but not Europe and its colonies. Centralized power is needed for children and criminals, not for mature human beings.

What about King Richard's usage of Jews to finance his Crusade???

King Richard was a faggot. I'm glad my ancestor killed him (pinned him to his horse with a crossbow bolt. ;) King John has been maligned since then, but he was the far better King - the story of him being 'forced' to sign the Magna Carta is much mythmaking, he really did it to curtail the abuses of Richard and his ilk. King Richard is the one that made the Magna Carta necessary. But, back on point: he really had no need to do so. He could have easily have raised money elsewise. It does show the hypocrisy of the times in that Europe let the Jews take Usury up in their midst. Usury was forbidden to Christians, it should have stayed forbidden in all of Europe - even to Jews.

Ullr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 09:18 PM
Absolutely not. The Crusaders killed Jews in the Rhine and other areas. The Zionists are descended from Theodor Herzl, and other Jews who were mostly fleeing in that period of time: from wherever they were being driven by Christian rulers. If you mean 'Zionist Christians': Zionist Christians are traitors against Christianity and their own history. In such a case the maxim would apply: "Don't judge your ancestors, let your ancestors judge you."Yes, but what about the Crusader states's descendents...They must be the source of Zionism today, to save the Holy Land.

Absolutely not: it would be rescuing European history. Zionism only came 'above ground' through the Marxists in the late 1800s. Specifically, with Theodor Herzl. How much of a traditionalist he was, and how much of an innovator he was is all debatable. (He is presented both ways in the mythology of Zionism.)Zionism today is the newest version of a Crusader state and reattachment to the Protectorate.

I wouldn't say 'merely', rather it was driven out of Europe. The Jewish financiers of the slave trade were those whom Spain had driven out to the Americas, first to the Caribbean then to the English colonies. In New England they found a congenial atmosphere due to the idea of the 'City on the Hill' of the Puritans. They were admired as 'Israelites' (contrary to historical Christian theology and factual history.) Later when the mass immigration for the Industrialists and war on the South began, large numbers of the Jews were brought in from southern and eastern Europe... where they were also facing 'pogroms' and such. Mention the wonderful Cossacks to any New York Jew and hear the tirade. ;) (God bless the Cossacks!) Herzl developed his ideas publicly while living in Palestine (where he also 'resurrected' the Hebrew language by listening to Samaritans and Syrians speak the real thing: old Hebrew and Aramaic.) He found ready support in the community in the Americas, the exiles from Europe. Why? Because the ideas were already latent in the anti-Christian writings, attitudes, and theologies of both Sephardic and Ashkenazic Judaism.Doesn't the furtherance of Christianity forever pull us into association and battle with the Jews?

Sure. Or at least for preservation. We can encourage each other, but how could I actually help a Russian preserve his unique culture, race, and spirit? By getting out of his way. ;) I understand completely, although some Alaskans might disagree.

Most complaints I've heard about that are those who, wrongfully in my opinion, long for lost Empires. They refuse to recognize that the Empire building was a fool's errand and opened the door for wholesale invasion of the homelands. Giving power back to the regions frees Europeans to be who they really are without having to lose to some synthetic identity. Bretons speak Breton, not French: let them be Bretons. I don't see how folk can think of local power as giving more power to Brussels: decentralization does not make more centralized power... it weakens centralized power, and puts the power in the hands of the people themselves. Personally, I have a high enough opinion of Europeans that I don't believe they need centralized power. Africa does, Asia does, the Middle East does: but not Europe and its colonies. Centralized power is needed for children and criminals, not for mature human beings.Well, it appears to be following the American model.

King Richard was a faggot. I'm glad my ancestor killed him (pinned him to his horse with a crossbow bolt. ;) King John has been maligned since then, but he was the far better King - the story of him being 'forced' to sign the Magna Carta is much mythmaking, he really did it to curtail the abuses of Richard and his ilk. King Richard is the one that made the Magna Carta necessary. But, back on point: he really had no need to do so. He could have easily have raised money elsewise. It does show the hypocrisy of the times in that Europe let the Jews take Usury up in their midst. Usury was forbidden to Christians, it should have stayed forbidden in all of Europe - even to Jews.The whole condemning of some of the kings as faggots is probably fiction by their opponents and I will not listen to it.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Yes, but what about the Crusader states's descendents...They must be the source of Zionism today, to save the Holy Land.

Zionists have no interest in saving the Holy Land. They bomb the holy sites, drive tanks into them, fence them in and fill them with sewage, wall them up - Zionists *are* the Saracens that Crusaders were worried about.

Zionism today is the newest version of a Crusader state and reattachment to the Protectorate. Some Wahabist rhetoric would have it so, but really it is an entirely different beast. The native folk there during the Crusades were the native Christians: the same folk the Crusades were called to protect. Pope Urban called the Crusades to save Palestinians from Muslim and Jewish settlers - today the same Palestinians the Crusades initially were formed to save are suffering under ... Jewish settlers.

Doesn't the furtherance of Christianity forever pull us into association and battle with the Jews?

Not really, as Christianity is the repudiation of Judaism. Only Calvinism attempts to associate with the Jews (hence the 'Hebraist' movement and Christian Zionism.) Historical Christianity (Orthodoxy and Catholicism) can exist without Judaism, and Jews find them both highly 'toxic'. :)

I understand completely, although some Alaskans might disagree.

Many of the Alaskans are still Russian. Ever visit? When the US took over, they sent Presbyterian missionaries up there to force natives and Whites alike to become Presbyterian, a failure all in all. Alaskan Independence is the best bet again for them as well: each election their Independence Party grows by several percent.

Well, it appears to be following the American model.

Depends on what one means by the 'American model'. It is arguable that the American model has not been used in America since 1864. Federalism is anti-American, and devolution does not equal federalism. European Nationalism with power in Brussels is something different than self-rule for Catalans or Bavarians.

The whole condemning of some of the kings as faggots is probably fiction by their opponents and I will not listen to it.

It is history, recorded at that time as King Richard declared himself one in person to the Pope no less while standing in his underwear in Church (after being caught by his young untouched wife who had chased him across several countries in a vain hope to consummate their marriage.) Simple history, as the event was recorded contemporary with the event - King Richard was *not* popular until much later in history when he was 'rehabilitated'.

Ullr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 09:51 PM
Zionists have no interest in saving the Holy Land. They bomb the holy sites, drive tanks into them, fence them in and fill them with sewage, wall them up - Zionists *are* the Saracens that Crusaders were worried about.Perhaps it is an exercise in expanding European hegemony and accessing greater chunks of land for the West by using them to dig into Islam.

Some Wahabist rhetoric would have it so, but really it is an entirely different beast. The native folk there during the Crusades were the native Christians: the same folk the Crusades were called to protect. Pope Urban called the Crusades to save Palestinians from Muslim and Jewish settlers - today the same Palestinians the Crusades initially were formed to save are suffering under ... Jewish settlers.I think the Jews are being tooled with just as much as they are tooling with us. Many think it is an equitable deal.

Not really, as Christianity is the repudiation of Judaism. Only Calvinism attempts to associate with the Jews (hence the 'Hebraist' movement and Christian Zionism.) Historical Christianity (Orthodoxy and Catholicism) can exist without Judaism, and Jews find them both highly 'toxic'. :)The toxicity is nice, but apparently the Calvinists stressed Jesus' loving tendencies for everyone. They believe that the Jews merely brought Jesus to Heaven to save all our souls quicker.

Many of the Alaskans are still Russian. Ever visit? When the US took over, they sent Presbyterian missionaries up there to force natives and Whites alike to become Presbyterian, a failure all in all. Alaskan Independence is the best bet again for them as well: each election their Independence Party grows by several percent.I meant that they have every right to get in the way of the Russians for the participation, rather than ignoring eachother.

Depends on what one means by the 'American model'. It is arguable that the American model has not been used in America since 1864. Federalism is anti-American, and devolution does not equal federalism. European Nationalism with power in Brussels is something different than self-rule for Catalans or Bavarians. Then the Union of Great Britain and Ireland is null just the same, and I'll not put up with that for their enemies using the Irish against themselves. Correct, but they are trying to dupe the locals with a semblance of self rule.

It is history, recorded at that time as King Richard declared himself one in person to the Pope no less while standing in his underwear in Church (after being caught by his young untouched wife who had chased him across several countries in a vain hope to consummate their marriage.) Simple history, as the event was recorded contemporary with the event - King Richard was *not* popular until much later in history when he was 'rehabilitated'.Well, didn't the Pope dislike Richard's style of warring? Besides, if you've seen the Lion In Winter, you'll notice how harsh Henry was on his sons. I wouldn't be surprised if Richard was aghast about providing inheritance in which John or Geoffrey would automatically slay his progeny.

Rhydderch
Monday, June 20th, 2005, 04:41 AM
English are very pragamatic and ruthless. At one momment they will smile in your face, compliment your achievements, praise your cultre, show their so called "fair play", do a lil chitt-chatt and lull you in a state of security and then when you least expect it, stab you in the back.

English History is just a record of treachery.Dutch and Germans are rather blunt-speaking and, in comparison to the English (and probably French), they seem to have somewhat coarse social manners. On the one hand, this German/Dutch characteristic can be seen by the English as rudeness, and on the other hand the relative politeness of the English (especially politicians) can perhaps be seen by Germans and Dutch as treachery. It's probably a matter of cultural misunderstanding, so an Englishman may see a 'stab' coming from another Englishman when a German could not have predicted it.

Todesritter
Monday, June 20th, 2005, 05:20 AM
Dutch and Germans are rather blunt-speaking and, in comparison to the English (and probably French), they seem to have somewhat coarse social manners. On the one hand, this German/Dutch characteristic can be seen by the English as rudeness, and on the other hand the relative politeness of the English (especially politicians) can perhaps be seen by Germans and Dutch as treachery. It's probably a matter of cultural misunderstanding, so an Englishman may see a 'stab' coming from another Englishman when a German could not have predicted it.
This is why as much as I loved my time in England, I felt much more comfortable around the barbarous Germans, and with the Dutch psychology grad-students I worked with.


I prefer honesty to polite lies. I prefer to be punched in the face when I am hated, and have an opportunity to fight it out and make true friends with my opponent, than be stabbed in the back by an English or French *friend*.

To me the dishonesty is barbarous, and the coarseness ascribed to continental Germanics by the French, English, and Americans is a sign of culture – but I may be biased. :D

Rhydderch
Monday, June 20th, 2005, 12:10 PM
I prefer honesty to polite lies.As I indicated, it's treacherous only to those who are not accustomed to the manner.
A German may be caught by surprise, but not a fellow Englishman.

To me the dishonesty is barbarous, and the coarseness ascribed to continental Germanics by the French, English, and Americans is a sign of culture – but I may be biased. :DLikewise the apparent coarse manners of communication are only rude to those unaccustomed to it; I don't think the Dutch and Germans intend to be rude, it's just a blunt manner of speech which can seem rude to people who don't express themselves in the same way.

Todesritter
Monday, June 20th, 2005, 03:27 PM
I guess I must not be English, otherwise perhaps I would get it.:P

Well seriously, those I met in rural England seemed like nice people, not so much into the game of using 'politeness' to posture for a superior position.

Rhydderch
Monday, June 20th, 2005, 11:42 PM
Well seriously, those I met in rural England seemed like nice people, not so much into the game of using 'politeness' to posture for a superior position.Yes, the impression I get of the rural English is that they are generally friendly, and more inclined to be talkative and demonstrative, whereas the Dutch and Germans have a blunter manner of speech (interestingly, Tacitus mentions 'the sullen manners of the Germans'), which can seem less friendly, but as I said, I don't think they are necessarily less friendly, they just have a different temperament.

But it's the educated, 'cultured' English who have more of that politeness.

Telperion
Tuesday, June 21st, 2005, 02:41 AM
To me the dishonesty is barbarous, and the coarseness ascribed to continental Germanics by the French, English, and Americans is a sign of culture – but I may be biased. :D
You're biased.

Todesritter
Tuesday, June 21st, 2005, 02:48 AM
You're biased.
Guilty as charged, and proud of it. :P

æþeling
Saturday, October 1st, 2005, 03:55 PM
I like this thread!

I don't think there is a "hatred" of Germans as such, at least not outside the tabloids. Without being rude most English are generally indifferent to Germans, if they even think of them at all. Part of living on an island means that we don't really have much interaction with those on the continent. The last foreigner, apart from the coloureds, I met was a Hungarian years back.

I dont consider myself as part of a "Germanic race" and I think that was where Germans slipped up in both world wars, in that they thought the English considered themselves "Teutons". We never have. Teuton was only ever a referance to the German. Since 1066 England has always taken its cultural templates from France and the mediterranean world. When the Vikings are mentioned it is always as some "other", without realising the Viking contribution to England. The Anglo-Saxons, until recent decades, were always percieved as illiterate barbarians only civilised by the Normans.

The problem today, for the English, is not an identiy crisis but one of having our identity denied. Most English are, like me, a mixture of Celtic and Germanic ancestry. But we have never fitted into either. I don't consider myself as "Celtic" either. I have a deep interest in my Celtic ancestry, mostly recent, but I don't feel at home in that culture. Just as I don't feel entirely at home in Germanic culture. How can I? Neither of them are mine. As I have argued the English have built up their own unique identity. One that is largely a fusion of Anglo-Saxon with Graeco-Roman and a touch of French. I think this is where we are going wrong. We spend a lot of time trying to put ourselves in boxes, which if they exist at all, don't fit us as a people.

You can argue that the Norman conquest blunted the growth of English identity. Before that we were a largely Germanic culture. But even then we only considered ourselves as arbitrary members. As you can see from the referances to our Viking kin. The Normans pulled us away from our, largely, Scandinavian links and turned us towards Western Europe. When England emerged some four hundred years later it had changed. We were now an imperial nation built on the back of Norman territorial ambitions. This grew into the idea of empire. English identity fruited again under the Tudors mainly due to our champion role as a Protestant power. But also as part of the central government we had largely enjoyed since the late Anglo-saxon kingdom.

Today English identity needs to focus on those things which make us unique. We are one of the most distinctive peoples on this earth. We have had an identity since at least the 730's. We have had a nation-state since the time of Alfred the Great, born at the Treaty of Wedmore in 886. That makes us, probably, one of the oldest nations north of the Alps, if not the oldest. We can never go back to our pre-Norman Germanic heritage. That is dead and gone, we can salvage what we can and nothing more. Even our language is essentially non-Germanic. We are not Celtic and never have claimed it. We are part of the Western culture of Europe. But we are uniquely English. Our people need to realise the sense of pride that they had before the Union. We need to rewaken our native English identity. Only then will we be the nation we once was. Neither German, or Celt, but English.

Rhydderch
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005, 10:51 PM
I think this is where we are going wrong. We spend a lot of time trying to put ourselves in boxes, which if they exist at all, don't fit us as a people.I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

You can argue that the Norman conquest blunted the growth of English identity. Before that we were a largely Germanic culture.It may again be a case of agreeing to disagree, but I think the Celtic and pre-Celtic elements in English culture are one of the main factors in England being unique, and not really Germanic.

Glenlivet
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005, 11:05 PM
That is how you want it to be. You show great bias. Milesian may neglect the elements you overemphasise.

Those elements you mentioned are hardly what set England apart from the other nations that make up Britain. We are speaking of culture, not racial characteristics...

I think the English politeness is more similar to what you find in Scandinavia than Continental Europe. It probably has to do with an insular position.


It may again be a case of agreeing to disagree, but I think the Celtic and pre-Celtic elements in English culture are one of the main factors in England being unique, and not really Germanic.

æþeling
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005, 11:08 PM
It may again be a case of agreeing to disagree, but I think the Celtic and pre-Celtic elements in English culture are one of the main factors in England being unique, and not really Germanic.

I agree that this is the case, to a point. As I have said before, England is the only real colony of the Germanic Volk Movement that survived. But it is our absorption of the British-Celts, Roman, and French elements that moved us away from being Germanic into, well, English.

We English don't really acknowledge the Celts either through cultural bias or because they were so easily assimilated, or exterminated. The Celts to most English are the "other". To show the confusion my father calls the Welsh the true English! He cant grasp the idea that the English were not originally native to this island. As I said most English are a mixture of Celt and German. I have English, Irish, Scots highlander, and Welsh blood all in recent generations. I take pride in both cultures of the Northern Europeans, but I am neither one, or the other.

Cole Nidray
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 03:40 AM
Orginally posted by friedrich braun
When I was in my late teens I went out with an Irish-Catholic girl (born and bred in London, England, however). I recall her saying that the English viewed everyone else as subhuman/inferior, EXCEPT the Germans for whom they had a sneaking admiration coupled with profound loathing.

I know a young Englishman who is absolutely obsessed with King Canute and sees England as part of a greater Germania. :D He is an English Nationalist and he supports his "Northern European Brethren".

No Englishman would identify with any other singular nation but many do with a Germania all the while possessing an almost spiteful infatuation with Germany, 'the nation of nart-zee blitzers'. :-O

We can never go back to our pre-Norman Germanic heritage.
Anglo-Normans and the Franco influence are vastly overblown in my opinion and I descend from them. They were Anglo-Saxon in less than two generations. The Normans weren't really genetically distinct anyway because they were literally, Keltic "Norsemen".

Middle English, especially legal terminology was influenced by Anglo-Norman but the language itself was more Germanic than Old English which was closer ties to Scandinavian languages. ME was stabilized with the re-introduction of Latin influence as the "French" of that time was bastardized Latin.

On the Romans: They influenced all Europeans genetically and culturally so I see that as no outstanding significance for the English.

The brutal fact is that the English downplay and distance themselves from Germanic culture because of their island mentality and psuedo-Nationalistic attitudes imposed by Khazars in the early 20th century that resulted in British involvement in the World Wars.

If not for that idiot Cromwell, the Jews would have been kept out of England and it would have continued very strong relations with Lutheran Germany.

Rarely will the English mention how Holland welcomed the Puritans during the 17th century or the alliance against Napoleon, or how Kaiser Wilhelm was Queen Victoria's grandchild or Edward the VIII's relationship and plans with the NS in Germany for the English thrown, or how Oswald Mosley was married to his wife in Herr Goebbel's house with Herr Hitler being one of the few in attendance.

Even our language is essentially non-Germanic. I disagree.

Old and Middle English are most certainly Germanic root languages. You could look at the Scandinavian influences but Scandinavian languages themselves are heavily influenced by the old Germanic languages.

English is a Germanic language with heavy Latin influence and some French words that superfluously describe things that were already perfectly designated before their introduction.

Embrace Germania or forever be ruled by Washington, Brussels, and Tel Aviv.

http://tinypic.com/e84ky1.jpg

http://tinypic.com/e84y6b.jpg

clucer
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 04:01 AM
Why has England never had an English king?

Rhydderch
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 05:00 AM
That is how you want it to be. You show great bias. Milesian may neglect the elements you overemphasise.OK then, what is it about English culture which you find so thoroughly Germanic? :D

Those elements you mentioned are hardly what set England apart from the other nations that make up Britain.Of course not, and I never said so. They are what makes England closer to its Scottish and Welsh neighbours than to Continental 'Germania'. The Germanic element is obviously what has historically set England apart from the other countries in Britain.

We are speaking of culture, not racial characteristics...Yes, culture :)

I think the English politeness is more similar to what you find in Scandinavia than Continental Europe. It probably has to do with an insular position.English politeness is cultivated, and the English were once quite different. According to a book I read recently on Georgian England, the English (referring specifically the upper class) of that era were yet to develop the 'stiff upper lip'. They spoke their minds, were 'natural' or spontaneous/uninhibited in emotions, were somewhat "Latin" (or Mediterranean) in temperament.

This is also the impression I generally get from other historical descriptions of the English.

Nordgau
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 11:06 AM
As I have said before, England is the only real colony of the Germanic Volk Movement that survived. But it is our absorption of the British-Celts, Roman, and French elements that moved us away from being Germanic into, well, English.

I'd remark here that southern parts of the German and western of the German-Netherlandic folk area are also Germanic settlement or colonial areas of the era of the Völkerwanderung, even if here the new settlement areas didn't--as in the case of England--evolve to own and distant folkish beings, but form one folkish entity (or two, respectively, if the western Low Germans insist on their folkish-national specialness--hello Franz :D) with Germanic core areas. However the pre-Germanic component flew as contribution into the character of these areas and shows itself at the special and unique coining of the respective regions, e. g. of Bavaria, Austria or the Rhineland, within the pluri-tribal structure of the German nation.

We English don't really acknowledge the Celts either through cultural bias or because they were so easily assimilated, or exterminated. The Celts to most English are the "other". To show the confusion my father calls the Welsh the true English! He cant grasp the idea that the English were not originally native to this island.

How do you judge the role which the legends around King Arthur play as historical-mythological reference centre of English identity? I always had the impression that the English generally regard (Celtic) King Arthur as "their" king who defended the country against "foreign" (Germanic) invaders.

Similar to your father's idea about the Welsh, I remember having read in a book on the Arthur legend that he defended "England" from the Anglo-Saxons. Here of course the different elements which may be regarded as historical strata only altogether constituting modern Englishdom take special places for English identity in a retrospective valuation, for a tabulating mind here in a rather mixed-up way. :D

Rhydderch
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 01:27 PM
How do you judge the role which the legends around King Arthur play as historical-mythological reference centre of English identity? I always had the impression that the English generally regard (Celtic) King Arthur as "their" king who defended the country against "foreign" (Germanic) invaders.It's an interesting subject actually, because there is quite good evidence that Arthur was Cerdic of Wessex.

Cerdic is a Celtic name (of which Caradoc, Ceredig etc. are variants), and so were the names of at least three generations of his descendants.

There was an illustrious king Caradoc Vreichvras (strong-arm) in the Welsh genealogies, whose immediate lineal descendants were Kowrda/Cawrdaf, Kydeboc (sometimes Meuric) and Kollen. Cerdic's were Creoda, Cynric and Ceawlin.

It seems likely that these two genealogies describe the same line of descent. There are also strong parallells between the lives, actions and habitations of Arthur and Caradoc Vreichvras, which are evidence that they are the same person, not to mention the fact that 'artur' in Latin means something like strong-arm.

Arthur was said to be ruling around the area of Wessex at the same Cerdic was thriving, which is somewhat problematic; that is, unless they were the same person.

This, of course, raises many questions, which I think are resolvable, but would require a long post to explain.

Sigel
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 02:28 PM
I know a young Englishman who is absolutely obsessed with King Canute and sees England as part of a greater Germania. :D He is an English Nationalist and he supports his "Northern European Brethren".
Good on him!
The truth is, the majority of English haven’t got a clue. They believe that the words “English” and “British” are synonymous. Most don’t even know what an Angle or Saxon was. Most watch Braveheart and cheer when the good guy kicks the bad guy’s feudalistic (didn’t even notice it was English) butt.
Look how the Saxons were portrayed in the latest Arthur film. That will be the first time many English have ever encountered ANY portrayal of Saxons - Yukk! How nasty eh, but how good and kind King Arthur (our bloke) was.
Vikings are colourful pirates kids learn about in history. Horrible and nasty and “thank god they didn’t live here but somehow finally went away”.
At school I did: 1.Dinosaurs 2. The Stone Age 3.The Romans 4.The Vikings & 5.The Victorians - I kid you not!
In our politically correct times an Englishman has been taught not to say anything nasty about anyone, apart from fellow Europeans that is.
Because they are rich and white, they are exempt. The older generations were told how nasty the Germans were, to justify two world wars, the kids just do pantomime nazi salutes and shout Heil Hitler for a laugh.
Racial awareness among the English is just about as low as it can go. Mass immigration and race mixing is the consequence. The old stereotypes of toffs with posh accents stabbing you in the back are history. England is a consumer society obsessed with football, celebrities and junk food.
Just how much Celtic or Germanic blood went into the English mix can be debated, but hurry up otherwise you’ll be asking a bunch of Cuban-looking Mischlings who won’t really give a s**t!

æþeling
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Bjerre
I know a young Englishman who is absolutely obsessed with King Canute and sees England as part of a greater Germania. :D He is an English Nationalist and he supports his "Northern European Brethren".



I see England as racially part of Northern Europe. Culturally we are part of European civilisation. I have a deep love and respect for England's Germanic heritage. But I just don't see England as essentially "Germanic".


Originally posted by Bjerre
No Englishman would identify with any other singular nation but many do with a Germania all the while possessing an almost spiteful infatuation with Germany, 'the nation of nart-zee blitzers'. :-O



This is true to a point. I think it was a German historian who said that the English believe their country sprung out of the ground rather than being born in the forests of Germania. I identify with a few nations, but my loyalty is to England alone. I think the English infatuation with Germany is over rated. I think there is misunderstanding between the two nations, and to be honest I do have trouble relating to Germans.


Originally posted by Bjerre
The brutal fact is that the English downplay and distance themselves from Germanic culture because of their island mentality and psuedo-Nationalistic attitudes imposed by Khazars in the early 20th century that resulted in British involvement in the World Wars.



Well the island mentality is indeed strong. I don't distance myself from Germanic culture, but it is not the sum of what England is. You have to remember that the "Teutonic" link has never been strong in post-conquest England anyway. As for the wars I would not have fought Germany purely on self-interest grounds, not loyalty to a "Germanic" ideal.


Originally posted by Bjerre
Embrace Germania or forever be ruled by Washington, Brussels, and Tel Aviv.



I would rather end all foreign influence on England. Whether it be Jew, American, European, or British. England should be ruled by the English for the English.

æþeling
Monday, October 3rd, 2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Norgau
How do you judge the role which the legends around King Arthur play as historical-mythological reference centre of English identity? I always had the impression that the English generally regard (Celtic) King Arthur as "their" king who defended the country against "foreign" (Germanic) invaders.



King Arthur as a king of England was largely down to the Norman myth making of Geoffrey of Monmouth. I like the tales of Arthur for what they are. But Arthur/Artorius was a Romano-Briton, not English. It is a funny thing that so many legends and ballads were created by the English around a man who may, or may not, have existed. Yet we have none to Alfred a man who did exist, and saved England from extinction.

Nordgau
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 11:19 PM
I dont consider myself as part of a "Germanic race" and I think that was where Germans slipped up in both world wars, in that they thought the English considered themselves "Teutons". We never have. Teuton was only ever a referance to the German. Since 1066 England has always taken its cultural templates from France and the mediterranean world. When the Vikings are mentioned it is always as some "other", without realising the Viking contribution to England. The Anglo-Saxons, until recent decades, were always percieved as illiterate barbarians only civilised by the Normans.


The following is from Alexander Demandt, Der Fall Roms. Die Auflösung des römischen Reiches im Urteil der Nachwelt, Munich 1984, pages 123-128, 130-132. The book is an exhaustive analysis of the different interpretations of Rome's fall by ensuing ages.--Actually this piece is a bit contrary to the text I've posted in the first post in this thread. :P Could be of course that v. See focusses rather on the late 19th and early 20th century (where the English might have tended stronger to define and position themselves contrarily to the Germans), while this here by Demandt is on English thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment (the chapter ends with Gibbon). The Germanic identity probably also became never as strong in England as in Germany; nevertheless a tradition in English thinking of positive valuation of and identification with the Germanics seems to be noticeable enough.

This parallelization won political content in the 17th century. The struggle between the Crown and the House of Commons was equated with the conflicts of the Völkerwanderung era. Did Bacon as representative of the royal power choose the inner-Roman view, so did the Whigs commit themselves to the outer-Roman perspective. Not with the Romans, but with their opponents one identified, and with this Rome’s fall didn’t seem to be deplorable, but welcome. At the beginning of the English Germanics romanticism, called Gothicism by Kliger in 1952, stands Richard Verstegan alias Rowlands whose "Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in Antiquities" (1605) was keen to show what a highly renowmed and moste honorable nation the Germans have always bin, that thereby it may consequently appeer, how honorable it is for Englishmen, to bee from them descended (42). Also French, Spaniards and Italians descended from the Germanics whose German descendants rightly possessed the imperial dignity (15; 44f.; 53). We know these ideas from Italian pen by Campanus in 1471, from German by Wimpfeling in 1505, from French by Hotman in 1573 (II. 3. b!). Verstegan continues: after the brave Northmen had smashed the decadent empire, Angles and Saxons resisted the allures of the South, they avoided its corrupting influence and brought the refuge of freedom to Britain.

It was John Milton who reasoned the political demands of this image of history. In 1651 his polemic pamphlet against Salmasius "Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio" appeared. Following Hotman, the Saxons are now praisen as a people freedom-loving since time immemorial: Saxones Germanis oriundos memineris, qui nec infinitam aut liberam potestatem regibus dedere et de rebus maioribus consultare omnes solebant (1651/1932, 436 cf. 265; 415). In "Pro Populo Anblicano Defensio Secunda" this argument is repeated (1654/1933, 12). While the parliamentary movement in modern early times generally resorted to the Germanics, Milton recollected to the ancient Britons later in his "History of Britain" (1671/1971). [...]

Also James Harrington, the last page of the chamber of Charles I, advocated to republican-democratic ideals. He treated Rome’s decline in his state utopia "Oceana" (1656) and in his political writings which were geared to Machiavelli. [...] According to the Anglo-Saxon Gothicism he was proud of the exemplary constitution of his Germanic ancestors, it is the Gothic balance which’s most important element had been the assembly of the people (59ff.). [...]

The positive image of the Germanics which English Enlightenment had was not bound to a party. This is demonstrated again by Henry St. John Viscount Bolingbroke (+ 1751), who was as Tory foreign minister of Queen Anne and achieved the Peace of Utrecht in 1713. In his "Fragments or Minutes of Essays" (Works V 1754) he interpreted Rome’s fall under the aspect of population balance. Just as Phoenicians, Greeks and Celts (139f.) the Germanics had been forced because of overpopulation to migration. The Romans are seen as robbers, even their most famous men were instruments of ambition, of avarice, of injustice and cruelty (152; 397). Their state declined already since 156 B.C.: The Romans destroyed Carthage and by her destruction prepared the way to their own. Between the loss of freedom and the loss of the empire lay only a succession of tyrants (413f.). The empire, divided by Constantine and weakened by his christian successors, was pitted defencelessly against the Germanics, which settled as a people without space on the ruins (139f.). Goths and Langobards smashed in fact the empire, however: how much less barbarous did they appear even than the Greeks and Romans? What prudence in their government? What wisdom in their laws? (110f.). Bolingbroke especially praised that the Germanics did not, as the Israelites in Kanaan, simply exterminate the former inhabitants—even the Huns were more human than the Jews!—, but had lived together with them under the same laws and finally had amalgamated with them (147ff.). (1)

[Annotation:] (1) A poetic testimony for the Anglo-Saxon Germanic pride gives the patriotic poem "Liberty" by James Thomson, written in 1731. Rome in her vitiation had been punished by imperial monsters and had served on her part as scourge of human-kind. Freedom had migrated from the bankrupt world (III 484 ff.) to the Northern peoples (I 539ff.) who had taken revenge on Rome in the Völkerwanderung (IV 109). [...]

Under a systematic aspect stand the "Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the Ancient Republicks adapted to the Present State of Great Britain" (1759/78) by Edward Wortley Montagu. He interprets the decline of the Roman republic in connection with Montesquieu as consequence of the luxurious life and demoralisation, from decidedly inner reasons (278ff.; 363). The despotism of the emperors was already the downfall for Montagu. His doctrine: a selfish, moneygrubbing policy lead everywhere to the catastrophe, the originally military order of the state by our Gothick ancestors was already lost through wheeling and dealing. The moral position of the author who was representative in the British parliament from 1754 until 1762 stands diagonally to his reputation as sex fiend.

With only few but well-considered sentences did David Hume go into Rome’s fall. His "History of England" (1761, I 1818) describes the takeover of the Roman through the Germanic rule as progress of freedom.We know that from Hedio and Magnus (II. 3. b!). The victorious Germanics with their healthy state constitution replaced the enervated race of the Romans (10-18, App. I.). [...]

His finishing statement [Adam] Smith provided in his chief work "An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776/1976). [...] Nevertheless Smith did not regret Rome’s fall, it was the work (of) our German and Scythian ancestors (V 1b 16). [...]

Among the statesmen who were concerned with Roman history it is after Bacon and Bolingbroke John Adams, the second president of the United States, who deserves attention. [...] The Germanics had been superior to the Romans exactly because of their better constitution: the Teutonic institutions, described by Caesar and Tacitus, are the most memorable experiment, merely political, ever yet made in human affairs. They have spread all over Europe and have lasted eighteen hundred years. They gave the best argument for the quality of a balanced order of the state ([Works IV] 297f.). [...]

Thomas Jefferson, on his part 1801-1809 President of the U.S.A., expressed himself in his "Commonplace Book" (1926) about the end of Rome. [...] Just as much as Adams, Jefferson praised his Saxon ancestors (pp. 57ff.). Through their federalism the Germanics lifted the history of constitutions on a new stage: all Europe was beholden to the Northern nations for introducing or restoring a constitution of government far excelling all others, that we know in this world (§ 754).

The same continued flourishing Germanic pride shows John Pinkerton’s "Dissertation on the Origin and Progress of the Scythians or Goths" (1787): The Goths transcended, even when barbarians, all nations in wisdom and war. They had been superior to the Romans in every respect. They despised the decadent Roman culture rightly, delivered the world from the tyrannic dotage of Rome, and their descendants inhabited almost whole Europe. Pinkerton argued already for a sort of Indo-European theory, because he also believed Greeks and Romans to be of Germanic derivation (VII-X). As source of their force the author regarded the original democracy of the Germanics whose kings had only been elected military leaders. Unfortunately this order had later degenerated to an aristocracy (136-149). Here Pinkerton wins political arguments from history.