Germanicism's Ideological Influences

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

I'm just wondering why is it, that so many "Germanicists" base their ideology in mid 19th century-mid 20th century philosophies and movements, from the time of the Communist Manifesto to the fall of Nazi Germany and the perpetual victim complex that many Germanicists find deplorable in Jews or other people, such as the French or Slavs, holding grudges against supposed traitors to Germanicism.

I almost always see references to Nietzsche and Hitler...among other particularly infamous people, not to stress the point on those two, whom are apparently absolute given to fascination and idolizing by Germanicists...but the point remains that it seems Germanicism as a "movement" tends to gravitate to the indefensible and unpopular.

What would you say is neutral, simply folksy and truly traditional and patriotic (not materialist, revisionist, cathartic, New Age or Hippie) about your Germanicism, that is not against religion and God (the word God [i.e. Odin] itself is Germanic and predates Christian use, just as Deus is a transliteration of Zeus) or percieved flaws in other people? What do you treasure that is positive and uplifting about Germanicism, without contrasting it by negative caricatures of other cultures, or some alleged historical wrongs?

Do any here have a pre-Napoleonic sense of Germanicism?

[Hauke Haien]

I'm just wondering why is it, that so many "Germanicists" base their ideology in mid 19th century-mid 20th century philosophies and movements

They are the results of a history of ideas that, if continued and modified further, eventually arrives in the present and carries into the future. I think it is easy to overlook that this process can also be applied to much older ideas.

holding grudges against supposed traitors to Germanicism

When people find out that things are not going well, they usually try to identify a single cause that, if removed, would allow things to go back to "normal". It takes a while to sort through and come to the realisation that a complete overhaul in organisation is needed and that the primary motive is not to defend what is against erosion by traitors (although latent pattern maintenance is necessary), but to push through what should be against enemy resistance.

What would you say is neutral, simply folksy and truly traditional and patriotic (not materialist, revisionist, cathartic, New Age or Hippie) about your Germanicism, that is not against religion and God (the word God [i.e. Odin] itself is Germanic and predates Christian use, just as Deus is a transliteration of Zeus)

Germanic *guda- is an invocation, which may derive from PIE *gheu-, libation. Although the Lombardic name Godan may be an allusion to it, the proper etymological roots of *Wōđanaz are more commonly seen as stressing his mantic character, which in a restricted sense finds continuation in German 'Wut' (fury, temper). Zeus is derived from *Dyēus phter (sky father. shining father), which is related to *deywos (celestial being), which is the root of our very own *Teiwaz (Tyr).

As for your question, I am drawing a blank. All my Germanicism is Hippie.

What do you treasure that is positive and uplifting about Germanicism, without contrasting it by negative caricatures of other cultures, or some alleged historical wrongs?

I find it fascinating to find out why things are the way they are, more specifically, why we are the way we are, and more importantly, what we could be (again).

Do any here have a pre-Napoleonic sense of Germanicism?

I like goose-stepping.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

Germanic *guda- is an invocation, which may derive from PIE *gheu-, libation. Although the Lombardic name Godan may be an allusion to it, the proper etymological roots of *Wōđanaz are more commonly seen as stressing his mantic character, which in a restricted sense finds continuation in German 'Wut' (fury, temper). Zeus is derived from *Dyēus phter (sky father. shining father), which is related to *deywos (celestial being), which is the root of our very own *Teiwaz (Tyr).

Most of these words are related and ancient, but their modern meanings should not be devalued for their practical purposes. We would not have devalued the practical use of those words a thousand years ago, so revisionism which attempts to drive a wedge in the meanings and uses of these words is in itself, anti-Germanic. Attacks on our customs from revisionists are just as deadly, if not more so, than by foreigners with their natural prejudices against Germanic cultures. Revisionists go out of their way to eradicate Germanic culture, rather than accept it for what it is and what we've already fought for. So, their claim of cultural treason and compromise is hypocritical. Who wants to be subject to all of their complaints about other people or developments, which may in fact, more legitimately uphold Germanic cultures than they could fathom?

As for your question, I am drawing a blank. All my Germanicism is Hippie.

There are those who treasure "Germanicism" as a cultural or counter-cultural manifesto and then there are those who simply like whatever Germanic qualities are present in the normative culture of their society and look back at their ancestors to see how it has come down to them. There are those who seek utopianism with it and then there are those who don't look at it in a vacuum. Guido von List is another mystic who means nothing to me, because he cheapens the legitimate nature of Germanic character where it already exists, by supplanting it with some fantasy. I don't know what effect Wagner has had on modern myth making and the dissolution of factual Germanic culture. I can appreciate Tolkien without using his world as a substitute or a guide for real Germanic qualities, because fantasy worlds like that only obfuscate the real sense of Germanic culture which has existed in history. It is obvious that the Nazi usage of revisionist fantasy and myth to ply the minds with false populism, was utilitarian and dishonest.

I can find nothing true or sacred in it, so it is anathema. I have no real interest in, nor respect for intellectual constructs of Germanicism. Germanic characteristics exist for me without the Napoleonic treatment. My bias is extra-European, i.e. non-Continental and thus, not led by the nose to all of these trends which became a byword for the ideology of fallen Central or Axis Powers. Yet, the "Anglo-Saxons" are considered traitors for their originalism and refusing to follow (the English form of "western betrayal" to Continental Germanics) Napoleon and the Confederation both as well as their successor governments. Scandinavians are idolized like noble savages and not treated as equals, i.e. the invasion of Slesvig-Holsten and occupation of Denmark and Norway in WWII. Those are examples of the idealists showing disrespect for the realists who actually live Germanicism, not use it as rhetoric.

I find it fascinating to find out why things are the way they are, more specifically, why we are the way we are, and more importantly, what we could be (again).

Is this an interest in regressionism, anti-progressivist in focus? Is it an anybody but Christ sort of thing? You know, with all the blood spilled in their own defense, while rallying under the banner of Christ to save and protect them, the Germanic peoples did nothing then that they did not do before. Therefore, I have no "fundamentalist" scruples with regards to what constitutes Germanic culture, to restore what was essentially, part of the problem. In the cosmology of the Christian tradition, heathen traditions trailed off of the original religion, so it is indeed validated by tradition of peoples stemming from Noah and Adam, but not the ultimate and objective truth. I notice some over-reliance on German philosophers in the Germanicist movement, but their works are all derivative anyways, so why bash that which came before them? It is defeatist and delusional. Germanic culture itself is a subset of the Latin West and the Latins are half of the European experience. We have brought these groupings of subculture and culture all around the globe. Why think twice and devalue it as it has evolved to be bigger than the world we had before? All of this revisionism is just part of today's problems, by not in fact, treasuring Germanic culture as our ancestors promulgated it. Blame the Athanasians in their triumph over the Arians. Blame Charlemagne in his triumph over the Saxons. It goes on and on, this denial of our actual cultural inheritance because progress of time "offends" small minded men. Blame, blame, blame and not take it for what it's worth. This is the problem.

I like goose-stepping.

Maybe you don't, but for many Germanicists, it seems, they don't know Germanicism outside of caricature, choosing to conform to this caricature and embarrassing as well as spoiling the experience for others who are educated and take it seriously.

[Einsiedler]

I really appreciate your question and do feel very similar to you, when it comes to revisionism, though I don't hold a grudge against Wagner.

Towards your question. I consider myself first and foremost a Saxon, and I feel like a Saxon, that means: I'm against feudalism, pro direct democracy, being defensive, aware of your nature, hard on yourself and others, nature loving, pantheistic, stoic, pessimistic... well... enjoying silliness too.

I love the German musical tradition, its "Wehmut", like it can be found in many folk songs, classical music and nowadays in some movie scores too. I know it's mostly alpine, ranging from Bohemia to Strasbourg. So, that's something I picked up outside of my Saxonism.

Germany can be proud of it's medieval society, the cities it brought forth, the social peace and the prosperity.

I like traditional festivals in the northern German protestant style, though nowadays you'll find more of them in Sweden then in northern Germany.

I like protestant church songs, again the "wehmütigen".

English people are all like 12yearolds, they possess no maturity. And deception has been engraved into their culture that thoroughly that they are deceiving themselves without ever noticing. I like the intellectual ancientness of German thinking, when present. I'm not such a big fan of Goethe, Schlegel and so on. Too much dreaming up of sense that is supposed to be there, but just isn't.

Oh... and I like the idea of an elegant women that popped up with Queen Louise in the north eastern part of Germany and adjacent territories.

I really love 80 year old women from Eastern Prussia. But they are dying out.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

I really appreciate your question and do feel very similar to you, when it comes to revisionism, though I don't hold a grudge against Wagner.

Towards your question. I consider myself first and foremost a Saxon, and I feel like a Saxon, that means: I'm against feudalism, pro direct democracy, being defensive, aware of your nature, hard on yourself and others, nature loving, pantheistic, stoic, pessimistic... well... enjoying silliness too.

I love the German musical tradition, it's "Wehmut", like it can be found in many folk songs, classical music and nowadays in some movie scores too. I know it's mostly alpine, ranging from Bohemia to Strasbourg. So, that's something I picked up outside of my Saxonism.

Germany can be proud of it's medieval society, the cities it brought forth, the social peace and the prosperity.

I like traditional festivals in the northern German protestant style, though nowadays you'll find more of them in Sweden then in northern Germany.

I like protestant church songs, again the "wehmütigen".

English people are all like 12yearolds, they possess no maturity. And deception has been engraved into their culture that thoroughly that they are deceiving themselves without ever noticing. I like the intellectual ancientness of German thinking, when present. I'm not such a big fan of Goethe, Schlegel and so on. Too much dreaming up of sense that is supposed to be there, but just isn't.

Oh... and I like the idea of an elegant women that popped up with Queen Louise in the north eastern part of Germany and adjacent territories.

I really love 80 year old women from Eastern Prussia. But they are dying out.

What's this Saxon vs Angle problem you have? They kept their freedom from Charlemagne as equals, whereas your Widukind became a vassal, so Saxony was incorporated into France, claiming a Roman inheritance as though you were the legitimate Empire of the West, to parallel the Byzantines. Please explain how that makes you more traditional or conservative in your Germanic culture. Yes, Germania was part of Rome since Augustus and Britain also was non-Germanic originally. I also have no idea what you're referencing with regards to elegant or old women.

[Einsiedler]

The women part is not for me to explain.

You know, what I said about the English is no attack on the Angles.

England has been under Norman rule since the battle of Hastings. And that killed the Saxon virtues I described. On the other hand, those values where never killed where I come from. So I'm in the ancient tradition and they are not.

And... where I come from is Saxon territory for at least 2000 years. Yes, makes me a bit of an incest stricken individual, hard to deny that.

So... the Saxon's were subjugated by Charlemagne, but rose again with King Heinrich and his son Kaiser Otto. Sure, they didn't restore the old Germanic social order. But in places it survived quasi intact.

Anyway, you shouldn't overestimate my remark on the English. It's just that I don't think they have much cultural potency, that's all. Other than that, I like them. And I have nothing against English civilisation when compared with French civilisation. On the contrary.

You see, Tolkien started with creating truly English folklore. But then he changed the approach and started to rewrite Roman and Greek folklore (Silmarillion) only to end up to rewrite the Ring of the Nibelung.

The weird thing about it is: apart from the Hobbits, who have no tales and want no adventure, the only English thing about it is its precision, the technological brilliance, if you want so. I consider it very ironic. Almost as if Tolkien would have ridiculed the English mythological void.

Not that I think that the Nibelungenlied is particularly important, i.e. I don't think that Germany is in a very different situation, I mean, there is no German Homer. But at least Germany did bring forth more music than Henry Purcell.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

The Normans did not incorporate England into France--in fact, Normandy was founded by Danes from Denmark who took over Friesland and settled much of England, along with their Jute and Angle brethren. Normandy has such illustrious men as Ragnar Lodbrok in her wings and this is why England went to war for conquest of France so many times. Ragnar's sons went on to live in England and this was all long before the events of 1066. Besides, the Saxons are not their own people, but are split evenly between the Franks of Charlemagne and Danes of Canute the Great. England is not a German country, but Saxony is as French as German, as France is German. England is Danish, as evidenced by the origins of the tribes and the national saga being Beowulf. I take offense at your very Hanoverian and Saxon (i.e. Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) opinion of England. It is unfortunate that England and Scandinavia had to be ruled by your kind, with such a condescending tone. Your attitude is entirely French, as that is how Germany was born, in more than one era. France and Germany are two sides of the same kind--not quite Nordic, not quite Mediterranean. Your Alpinism sets you apart, yet together, from/with the rest.

[Hauke Haien]

Most of these words are related and ancient, but their modern meanings should not be devalued for their practical purposes. We would not have devalued the practical use of those words a thousand years ago, so revisionism which attempts to drive a wedge in the meanings and uses of these words is in itself, anti-Germanic.

These words no longer carry a Germanic sense, it is overlayed and buried underneath. This is not a mere detail of culture in a simple sense, like the accepted way to hold a fork, but it informs what we live and die for and who we think we are.

Attacks on our customs from revisionists are just as deadly, if not more so, than by foreigners with their natural prejudices against Germanic cultures. Revisionists go out of their way to eradicate Germanic culture, rather than accept it for what it is and what we've already fought for.

Different Germanic peoples have fought for different things and they will have to continue until the end. Even internally, greater minds will have to fight hard to impress their thoughts on matter. That is not an act of destruction, it is one of clarification.

So, their claim of cultural treason and compromise is hypocritical. Who wants to be subject to all of their complaints about other people or developments, which may in fact, more legitimately uphold Germanic cultures than they could fathom?

I am listening to you.

There are those who treasure "Germanicism" as a cultural or counter-cultural manifesto and then there are those who simply like whatever Germanic qualities are present in the normative culture of their society and look back at their ancestors to see how it has come down to them.

There are also those who look back at their ancestors to see how it has come down to them and then begin to treasure "Germanicism" as a counter-cultural concept.

Guido von List is another mystic who means nothing to me, because he cheapens the legitimate nature of Germanic character where it already exists, by supplanting it with some fantasy.

He innovated from the basis of Germanic inspiration, which did not delete but only add to the work of those who came before.

It is obvious that the Nazi usage of revisionist fantasy and myth to ply the minds with false populism, was utilitarian and dishonest.

Nationalsocialism has myths of its own, which are certainly populist, utilitarian and sometimes deliberately deceptive, but nevertheless meant to be right and true. What they are not meant to be is a mere reenactment of the past.

Yet, the "Anglo-Saxons" are considered traitors for their originalism

The Anglo-Saxons are not my people to begin with and they owe me no loyalty. No, they cannot be traitors. Their originalism is another name for idiocy, though, and they will soon be gone as a reward.

Scandinavians are idolized like noble savages and not treated as equals, i.e. the invasion of Slesvig-Holsten and occupation of Denmark and Norway in WWII.

The links between Germany and Scandinavia are old and that gives rise to a somewhat exaggerated fascination. Warfare between us is likewise ancient and intense, with ever changing fortune. Condemning it would mean condemning the best part of our relationship.

Is this an interest in regressionism, anti-progressivist in focus?

Yes. It is archaeofuturist and progressive, which is to say anti-progressivist.

Is it an anybody but Christ sort of thing?

No, Christ has no special significance.

You know, with all the blood spilled in their own defense, while rallying under the banner of Christ to save and protect them, the Germanic peoples did nothing then that they did not do before.

Perhaps, but they made themselves agents of a cause that should not be theirs, a cause that does not care for them and their nature.

Germanic culture itself is a subset of the Latin West and the Latins are half of the European experience. We have brought these groupings of subculture and culture all around the globe. Why think twice and devalue it as it has evolved to be bigger than the world we had before?

The European experience is more than anything a system of control that non-Germanics are meant to be subjected to. The fact that it has backfired on us so horribly is one of the reasons why the status quo cannot be accepted under any circumstances, even if it breaks progressivist delusions.

Maybe you don't, but for many Germanicists, it seems, they don't know Germanicism outside of caricature, choosing to conform to this caricature and embarrassing as well as spoiling the experience for others who are educated and take it seriously.

The solution for differences in opinion and conduct is always power.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

These words no longer carry a Germanic sense, it is overlayed and buried underneath. This is not a mere detail of culture in a simple sense, like the accepted way to hold a fork, but it informs what we live and die for and who we think we are.

Germanic character can be held under an umbrella of higher culture. This is what Charlemagne achieved.

Different Germanic peoples have fought for different things and they will have to continue until the end. Even internally, greater minds will have to fight hard to impress their thoughts on matter. That is not an act of destruction, it is one of clarification.

Revisionism is "sour grapes" and nitpicking, not high brow thought.

I am listening to you.

Well, you are hearing what you want to hear.

There are also those who look back at their ancestors to see how it has come down to them and then begin to treasure "Germanicism" as a counter-cultural concept.

I don't see the value behind trashing one's own Germanicism by proclaiming "Germanicism".

He innovated from the basis of Germanic inspiration, which did not delete but only add to the work of those who came before.

He made false claims about traditional culture and invited ridicule.

Nationalsocialism has myths of its own, which are certainly populist, utilitarian and sometimes deliberately deceptive, but nevertheless meant to be right and true. What they are not meant to be is a mere reenactment of the past.

That's right. The Aryans' only direct connection to Europe is through the Greek East, from Macedonia to Scythia. The Latin Roman and Germanic heritage is by proxy.

The Anglo-Saxons are not my people to begin with and they owe me no loyalty. No, they cannot be traitors. Their originalism is another name for idiocy, though, and they will soon be gone as a reward.

Here is the conflation of Germanicism with Germany once again. I ought to stop using "Germania" and "Germanicism" now, I suppose, since Germania was assimilated three times by Romans, whether the Augustan, Carolingian, or Napoleonic kinds. Germania did her best to impress her own brand of institutions onto these Romans and thus, there is a mirror relationship, inextricable due to realpolitik and geopolitical conditions. I should instead always use the term Scandinavia, because that connection rests well with the British Isles, in being tertiary to Franco-German issues which you maintain to be paramount for your concerns.

The links between Germany and Scandinavia are old and that gives rise to a somewhat exaggerated fascination. Warfare between us is likewise ancient and intense, with ever changing fortune. Condemning it would mean condemning the best part of our relationship.

Germany's attacks on Scandinavia are condescending and based in Gallo-French policy, which was Roman policy to assimilate Germania.

Yes. It is archaeofuturist and progressive, which is to say anti-progressivist.

Not if it undermines Germanic culture's underpinnings in common with others.

No, Christ has no special significance.

Correct: anything larger than the provincial world of Germania has no bearing on the locals?

Perhaps, but they made themselves agents of a cause that should not be theirs, a cause that does not care for them and their nature.

Myopia is the end of Germania through infighting. Realize that the scope and focus of Germanicism ultimately determines how Germania survives.

The European experience is more than anything a system of control that non-Germanics are meant to be subjected to. The fact that it has backfired on us so horribly is one of the reasons why the status quo cannot be accepted under any circumstances, even if it breaks progressivist delusions.

I well understand that Tacitus knew of Germania's nativism, but this cannot be well correlated to Aryan-Oriental exotic fetishism, except in drawing Greco-Roman parallels of East and West in the Mediterranean. You lot simply have an Alpine appreciation for the same thing.

The solution for differences in opinion and conduct is always power.

Yes, dog-eat-dog is the way of revolution.

[Einsiedler]

The Norman's changed quite a bit during their stay in Normandy.

They started to speak French, for instance.

But I will not let this glide into incoherency.

So, systemically.

Germany - France, differences and commons.

The idea of kingdom under God on a mission to increase the level of the local civilisation was indeed the same, i.e. the churches are the same, the historical perspective was the same.

What is a major difference though is that Germany wasn't much colonised by the Romans and hence did have quite different customs and social structures. That might be different in Cologne, say, but in Germany as a whole it is fair to say that the general way of life was quite different.

Btw., all medieval cultures were designed by one church or another anyway.

Saxons.

Saxons in Germany also had their traditional system of laws (Sachsenspiegel), that isn't restricted to the Saxons in England. Saxons were at no time colonised by the Romans and obviously were friends enough with Danes and Angles in order to join forces and conquer Britain around 500 a.D.

They lost a battle against Charlemagne around 780 a.D. and remained suppressed until around 900 a.D. As a result of this, they lost their social structure, which was by far more democratic than Charlemagne's empire. Anyway, as is common in such cases, their defeat turned them subversive and to this day Saxons in the north-west of Germany have not identified themselves with Charlemagne's creation. As Wilhelm II visited Bremen, a worker threw a metal piece in his face. The German state Saxony has absolutely nothing to do with Saxons. That is also important to note.

This is a very big difference to the English Saxons who did first still call themselves "Gewisse", but of that spirit nothing has survived in England.

I did not say much more than that.

Btw., I do not claim that any particular Saxon was a great man. And there are no better German Saxon composers (Buxtehude, Händel) than Purcell in England. I didn't want to give that impression. I just said that I enjoy aspects of German culture, which is more than just Saxon culture, even though I see myself primarily as a Saxon.

Perhaps I should say a word to the 80 year old women, because what I like in them has to do with me being a Saxon, namely that I like their "Haltung", their self discipline, their back bone, their style.

However, Schopenhauer could have been born in London, but he could never have been the child of an English family. His thinking is incompatible with English thinking. That does not exclude that some English people may like it, but his attitude, what he did as he wrote it, it is inconceivable to me that any English person would ever have mustered this brashness.

And yes, English peoples' minds also tend to waver.

You see, I do believe that England's long history of racially based nobility has screwed the minds of the English people up to some extend.

And this works in subtle ways. Take Bertrand Russell for instance. (He was an Earl.) How much substance is in his thought? Mostly, he's just complaining about people not being able to think. And he gets away with it. People parrot him and think that would be some sort of an achievement. But there was no achievement to begin with. You're just pretending to belong to the guys who get it.

However, there have been some noble men who made considerable contributions to science. I'm just speaking about the sort of culture the whole thing spawned, namely one of a lot of pretense.