Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 92

Thread: Thread split: "Anglosaxonism", should Hannover join the U.K.?

  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 03:40 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    388
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    337
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    319
    Thanked in
    157 Posts
    Can we break this line of inquiry off to a new thread?


    Quote Originally Posted by Idis View Post
    Most Americans don't consider themselves English or British, but a people/nation of their own. There are also differences in culture and mentality. For example, Americans are known for their small talk and easy-goingness, even with strangers. The British, on the other hand would never strike up conversation with someone on public transportation, for example. Some might even consider it intrusive or rude. While many of the British don't consider themselves Continentals either, they also consider the Americans as a different nation.
    EDIT:

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Coillearnach For This Useful Post:


  3. #72
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Angelfolc
    Ancestry
    Angles, Frisians, Saxons
    Subrace
    Anglo-Saxon
    Y-DNA
    Y
    mtDNA
    X
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Hannover Hannover
    Location
    Between your ears
    Gender
    Family
    Yorkist
    Occupation
    Once More Unto the Breach
    Politics
    Welf
    Religion
    ex-U.C. of England & Ireland
    Posts
    2,764
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    218
    Thanked in
    188 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ítreksjóð View Post
    Ridiculous. Once again, you prove that you know very little about these South Germanic countries when you call them "Italo-Celtic". Are you for example aware that the majority of Switzerland's population is comprised of Swiss Germans? The Italics don't make up more than 10% put together. And pray tell, how much of Norway's population is Uralic? The Sami are but a tiny ethnic minority, less than 5% in total. There are more speakers of Ebonics in the USA than there are Uralics in Norway.


    Exactly how many Swiss Italians have you seen on Skadi? There are zero and most Skadites wouldn't bat an eye if you asked them whether they consider them Germanic. They are not. On the other hand, Skadi allows for the registration of Finland Swedes and considers them Germanic. The only double standards exist in your imagination.


    There you go again, disguising insults and belittlement in the form of false sympathy. Why should Siebenbürgerin be considered a stranger, or anything but Germanic? This is a perfect example of why you make enemies, you create and imply scenarios which never existed before you started this drama. Nobody else here is obsessed with official statuses but you. This has very little to do with Germanic identity or preservation.


    Right. And Germanic Southern Africans are quasi-Bantu because South Africa happens to recognize Zulu as one of its official languages. Or are they quasi-Hottentot? Are Nigeria or India quasi-English countries, because English is an official language there? Some logic.

    Once again, obsession with official statuses which has very little to do with people's Germanic identity or the preservation thereof.


    It actually can be. Continental Germanics who migrated to America lost their ancestral heritage and culture when they stopped speaking their native languages. It's funny that you imply someone like Siebenbürgerin could be viewed as a stranger, yet Siebenbürgerin still speaks German. How good is yours? One cannot pretend to know and understand the history and mentality of the German countries and their people when one can't understand their language.
    "South Germanic" wasn't meant to be South German, just officially institutional multicultural countries inclusive of Italo-Celtic languages. You hate me for acknowledging simple facts about those countries, but don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. Go to the politicians and demand change if the status quo bothers you, or just double and triple down on the dysfunction and blame an evul Anglo whose rhetoric echoes Luther rather than Hitler. I'm not worried about my fluency in another language and certainly won't learn Spanish, however I have proposed to enshrine Dutch as a second language in at least New York, that the Boers come and move in while all the Blacks can go live on the Cape or Transvaal, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idis View Post
    Most Americans don't consider themselves English or British, but a people/nation of their own. There are also differences in culture and mentality. For example, Americans are known for their small talk and easy-goingness, even with strangers. The British, on the other hand would never strike up conversation with someone on public transportation, for example. Some might even consider it intrusive or rude. While many of the British don't consider themselves Continentals either, they also consider the Americans as a different nation.
    Unfortunate conditions you are all too happy about, basically an Anti rather than Preservationist mentality.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    So, we are not allowed to form a NATION (because it isnt an empire because it is not multi-ethnic) of the German people because the Romans had a multi-ethnic empire? Häh?

    This is also a problem of language, btw. Reich in German is not necessarily identical in meaning to the English translation "empire". If you werent stuck in your education lack you'd probably understand that. But of course, there's a ton of other vitriol and hatred on your part that doesnt allow you to see that this Reich was our destiny. One prepared and worked for over centuries to end all the inner-German squabbling and warring, often caused by indeed a foreign-imposed system that was UNDONE by becoming, finally, a Nation, the German Reich.

    And to rile you up a little more. It's this Reich where Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer originates. And for both the Kaiser, Bismarck and Hitler the order of these (for you maybe meaningless) words is ideology. Volk comes first. And you see, we are ONE Volk, whether we are Frisians or Saxons or Bavarians or Prussians or whatever. The Reich was there to overcome the (artificial) divisions of the former centuries.




    In contrast to the western allies, the Soviet Union created an actual German state (iIrc in 1953 or so) and again gave up all claims in 1990 and withdrew all troops and institutions that had remained due to being within the Soviet bloc of nations. The western allies did not, not somewhen after 1945 and not in 1990 either. The Partition-Occupation was predesigned in 1943(!) by the American Morgenthau that gave the territory that cohencidentially became the GDR later to the then also Allies, the Soviets (yes, keep ignoring that). We are still occupied. We are still under "occupation" law (SHAEF). We are not a sovereign nation.
    And the greatest trick of them all is that the actual sovereign GDR was "unified" back into occupation law of the "state simulation".




    Again, we chose the Kaiser ourselves, and then we chose Hitler, because we wanted a German Nation. And where the Kaiser still failed, Hitler achieved Austria to come Heim ins Reich. All Germans united in one Nation. A dream come true.

    Stuff your libtardist hate for Government where the sun doesnt shine. Democrazy is a clownshow with an inbuilt downward spiral for culture and civilisation. The state of the world is abundant and excessive proof for that.



    Why are you so obsessed with keeping an articifial divide of Germany, all the while claiming that "Britain" and "Germany" are basically the same thing? And why are you so obsessed with drawing borders within Germay where none belong; and why do these borders roughly correspond with Morgenthau's 4-part divide?



    Yes, indeed, it's your "own personal ambition" based on fantasy and misinterpretions and indeed ignorance, and of course, your deeply ingrained desire to keep Germany divided, based on (foreign-imposed) monarchy systems that were not of our making and that we finally overcame with the Reich. You want to bring them back because you confuse it with "actual tribalism" (which it is not).

    And your fantasy of England having an American colony and absorbing racially clearly different peoples into your multi-ethnic empire... wow, just wow



    No, I want my Nation back. There are lot of good Americans and Englishmen who understand that and actually support this desire. You're not one of them, however.



    Maybe Hersir or Thor bothers to explain to you what the "controversy" actually is, although it's probably lost on you anyway.

    Actually it's good that Norway (and Sweden) ended the forced-integration of the Sami and allows them to remain Sami instead of fake-Norwegians. They "inhabit" (they're nomads) the lands there for 10,000 years, they do have a right to be there, deal with it. As a "Bismarck worshipper" I find it rather outrageous that the Nordic Union allows for free movement of people and goods, while at the same time outlawing the Sami lifestyle (ie nomading around with their reindeers, which was also outlawed to even keep for a while; not that reindeers are super happy to be forced into one place, so as someone who thinks animals and nature have a right too, being herded into tiny pieces of land is quite a mistreatment for deer, and the Sami) that happens so far north where no one lives and no one is bothered and forced them into civilisation (and like Canada) 'abducted' children, throwing them into foster care and expecting them to become "Norwegians". This luckily ended and a better approach is being started.

    Does it bother Norwegian or Swedish identity to have nomads following the ice around the arctic? I dont know. Imho there are far more pressing issues, like mosques growing like mushrooms all over the place and multicultism (not Sami) being shoved down the throats of every European. Not even the Soviets cared for their nomads and left them alone.



    With your invented language groups, telling the Frisians that their Frisian is wrong and the English go back to Beowulf/Cadmon language, and "reclaim" the Frisian left-overs in Scottish (not English) to your multi-ethnic "New English" and just for the sake of it mix in some Allemanni maybe? I'm sure the rest of GB would be totally excited to follow your "reconstruction".... not.
    I have stated before that I believe in an England that's openly about Saxons, Jutes and Danes, rather than a monolithic mass of taxable bodies (increased by the Union and mass immigration) and so, to allow actual building blocks of society to flourish, which Continentals used to care about. I am comfortable with any government that preserves resident tribes and doesn't force them to disappear. It's no surprise that when Wessex invaded and annexed Jutish Kent, Danes came in reprisal and then got their vengeance by the Danelaw, so there's always been at least three, if not four groups of Angelfolc and it's reflected in dialectal differences. Germany has basic demographics like this too, but are also at risk due to globalisation beyond unsympathetic centralism, a lot like Parisian policies regarding Alsace, Flanders, Brittany, Navarre, etc. You're either a preservationist or about Borg assimilation of native regional diversity. Keep pointing fingers when you can't help yourself be obsessed with power over defenceless volks like the Frisians. Attack me as Anti when I show empathy; how Orwellian. You can keep stewing in your juices. Who cares if you don't ever figure it out. As for the Uralic Lapps, I have proposed that Sapmi be a nation-state instead of forcing Norwegians, etc to pay for them as welfare recipients, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nachtengel View Post
    Another thing: I'm pretty sure that if someone here suggested that the Saxons in England should join Germany, become integrated into one nation and learn the German language you would immediately cringe and complain about anti-Germanicism, imperialism and "Hochdeutsch supremacy" () Yet you're suggesting exactly the same principle when you want to carve up my nation - same shit, different name.

    Also LOL @calling Norway "Uralic" because of the few Sami who live there. Actually it's preferable that they recognize their own language and culture because that encourages an own identity, separate from ethnic Norwegians instead of assimilated into their Norwegian genepool. This is a reason why multilingualism and ethnopluralism is preferable to your ideal monolingual societies which lead to an ethnic salad - and those mixed Hollywood actors who are 1/4 and 1/8 Injun are the clear result of this. When you have a multilingual society, ethnic separation and secession comes much easier.

    P.S. Look at what I found here:


    https://forums.skadi.net/threads/109...l=1#post112376

    It's no wonder you support assimilationism and all sort of pan ideologies. You are part Injun yourself!
    Twisting and turning. I've always been open to the extant North Sea Germanic linguistic spectrum, including Low Saxon, Frisian and English. We are one body divided by your Hochdeutsch manifest destiny, same as Breton, Cornish and Welsh by other states totally uninterested in their right to exist under one roof. I took two DNA tests and the Elizabeth Warren mythology of Fauxahontas is pretty commonly refuted this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Crazy idea, but maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't advocate partitioning Germany and the Netherlands then, if you care about Germanic brotherhood. And as if your VöLkIsHnEsS doesn't evoke memories of that one time Northern Germany was a British sector during the post-WW2 occupation.

    Why must the German nation be divided once more or, in fact, even more than it already is today, before you can have these warm mushy feelings of unity on the inside? It shouldn't matter one bit. No, the ultimate reason why you want to carve Germany up is due to the utterly surreal designs you have for Northern Germany and Frisia. Splitting them off from the "Italocelts" has nothing to do with lofty ideals - which we don't care for on the continent. Obviously.

    You set yourself up as an enemy of the German nation as well as the Dutch people, hence making all of us continental Germanics more vulnerable to French and Russian schemes, which are just as unwelcome as your own schemes - but you don't think of that, do you?

    And what you mean by Germanic brotherhood is really Anglo-Danish-Frisian-Northern German "Saxon" brotherhood while to hell with everyone else. That's not the Germanic brotherhood advocated on this website.



    What does all of this even mean? Now you're suggesting Bärin may be Russian (I hope for you that is not a reference to what I think it is) and Velvet too - or French. And why are stem duchies not "Roman" while the unity of the German nation is, as well as also being something inherently anti-Anglo (something you've stated several times)? It's bizarre. It's all a bit of a bad joke.

    Furthermore, why would Bärin's national communism, which as an ideology pre-dates WW2, be primarly about some other country on another continent rather than Germany itself?

    One German state for all German people, that's what is truly völkish, it doesn't get more völkish than that. And not your regressive demands and dictates for other nations than your own.

    You crave German approval of your lunatic "Anglosaxonist" delusion so hard it's utterly cringeworthy. And you've been craving it for 16 years, from well before you were an Anglosaxonist and just larped as a German - the Germans didn't grant you that little pleasure back when animals still spoke and hence 'Anglosaxonism'. You will never get anyone's approval. You embarrass not only yourself but all Anglos on Skadi, those with selfconfidence and pride. You're getting too old for this, man. You ain't 19 anymore.



    The U.K. may be an artificial country, but not Germany. It's one of the few true nation-states in Europe.



    It's evidently not tribalism, but even if it was, why would any German in their right mind advocate such a move? Why at all? You want England and America to be truly one, but Germany to be truly divided. Why not independence for *spin the wheel* Essex? This partitioning is not done out of love for Germans or Germanics, it's only to serve your own bigoted agendas.



    Unnatural divisions... like a divided Germany.







    And Irish! And Welsh.

    Well, well, well. This explains a lot indeed, including the Paddy/Welsh love. Above all it explains this:



    And apparently you're 30% non-Germanic. At least.

    It didn't stop you from calling me a half-Germanic, lol:



    Aside from just wrong, that was mildly hypocritical...

    But wait, our archives are full of hidden gems, from over ten years ago... such as:



    Such an academic you are; very true, much science.

    But it doesn't stop there:



    It never stops:





    The Germanophobia is strong in this one. Also, from 2017:



    So academical. You actually admitted to being a larper. You once even pretended to be Swedish, I discovered. And you were banned several times before, including with a completely fake account with which you sought to evade your ban, isn't that true, Reichsmädchen?



    Scholarly:





    All in all, old wine in a new bottle.
    All 19th century Anglo-Saxonists wanted reintegration or reunion with our Frisian and Saxon kin, but "Prussians" (a fake volk) and their agendas spoiled all the hard work of purging England of 1066. I'm only guilty of being a fan of the Dutch, Danish and German dynasties on the throne linking us all back together again, which was the point, mind you, rather than being stuck with the French and Spanish. One might hope truly Germanic Dutch and German völkisch preservationists would prefer to have the West Germanic reunion with English, rather than pine for Italian rule and alignments hostile to Germanics having a common lebensraum. Of course, when I had a hardcore RCC Jacobite bias, I shared your perspective flaws. Simply put: the only virtual environment for exploring reunion prospects is awash with excuses for perpetuating Continental cohabitation with Italics and zero admission that this is the same as the Anglo-Celtic state of Ireland and Scando-Finnic states of Norway and Finland, considered aesthetically displeasing in Continental POV. I'd rather there be no hypocrisy and just do away with all civic states, being left with nation-states, as a true preservationist. Of course, you have all manner of excuses for Continental double standards and yet can't handle being called out for it. You want Jewish Bolshevism in Germany, good for you. When I told my wife about your ban, she insisted: "Oh really? Why don't you let me try and see if they'll let me post?" I tried to warn her and yeah, that was a "told you so" moment, the kind of ribbing that she doesn't like, so I didn't say anything to her when she told me the predictable. I was just nursing a turning stomach and grudge, of course.

  4. #73
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,440
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodskarl Dubhgall View Post
    I have stated before that I believe in an England that's openly about Saxons, Jutes and Danes, rather than a monolithic mass of taxable bodies (increased by the Union and mass immigration) and so, to allow actual building blocks of society to flourish, which Continentals used to care about. I am comfortable with any government that preserves resident tribes and doesn't force them to disappear. It's no surprise that when Wessex invaded and annexed Jutish Kent, Danes came in reprisal and then got their vengeance by the Danelaw, so there's always been at least three, if not four groups of Angelfolc and it's reflected in dialectal differences.
    The Angles were a tiny tribe that completely moved over to Britain, they hardly comprise much of the English population. And while the Saxons indeed established the order that is still in place (Essex, Wessex etc), the English arent (ethnic) Saxons either. The Danish intermezzo of rulership didnt last long and didnt leave an ethnic imprint on the English population either.
    But of course you dont care, just like you dont care that the Tyroleseans are actually Germans and instead twist the entire southern Germanic region (incl up to Bavaria) to "Italo-Celts", confusing "political" structures for ethnicities. Go to Tyrol and tell them they're really Italo-Celts, have fun with the reply muahaha

    Germany has basic demographics like this too, but are also at risk due to globalisation beyond unsympathetic centralism, a lot like Parisian policies regarding Alsace, Flanders, Brittany, Navarre, etc. You're either a preservationist or about Borg assimilation of native regional diversity. Keep pointing fingers when you can't help yourself be obsessed with power over defenceless volks like the Frisians. Attack me as Anti when I show empathy; how Orwellian. You can keep stewing in your juices. Who cares if you don't ever figure it out.
    You see, neither the Prussians nor the Reich nor Hitler "went Borg", quite to the contrary. Regional cultures were not only respected but furthered, along with our "homegrown" minorities (Wends, Sorbs, Danes...). This was so in the Reich and this was so in NS Germany with the Gaus, and interestingly it's still the case with the Bundesländer, although yes, the post-war problem is indeed a Borg-assimilation and ignorance and neglience of regional cultures.
    And really the last thing we need is another foreign freak dividing Germany to his liking along fantasy divides.

    Before you tell other people they dont figure it out you better get rid off your fantasy products of who belongs where and learn some ACTUAL German history, because what you propose is so wrong on so many levels that one doesnt even know where to start.


    Twisting and turning. I've always been open to the extant North Sea Germanic linguistic spectrum, including Low Saxon, Frisian and English. We are one body divided by your Hochdeutsch manifest destiny, same as Breton, Cornish and Welsh by other states totally uninterested in their right to exist under one roof.
    So now you want not only Frisia be assimiliated into your fantasy "New England" but also Lower Saxony? Okay Charlemagne....

    I took two DNA tests and the Elizabeth Warren mythology of Fauxahontas is pretty commonly refuted this way.
    You've claimed so many "ancestors" in this thread alone, you're a walking mythology of your own invention, and even if DNA tests would be more accurate than they are, you'd still invent and twist the data to your liking.

    All 19th century Anglo-Saxonists wanted reintegration or reunion with our Frisian and Saxon kin, but "Prussians" (a fake volk) and their agendas spoiled all the hard work of purging England of 1066.
    The Prussians a "fake volk"?!? No they arent. And they arent "Baltic", they are German.

    And as a Frisian I want to tell you that we have no interest to be "reintegrated" with your "New England" of "19th century Anglo-Saxonists" which is just the other side of the "British Israelism" coin. No thanks.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. #74
    Senior Member
    Sigurdsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 12:17 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    England & Norway
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    21
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Posts
    239
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    79
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    85 Posts
    I’m not sure that this has been mentioned, but a study was done (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art.../#!po=0.609756) showing that the English are around 10-40% Anglo-Saxon reaching the highest of 60% in the North, around Yorkshire (from a separate study). These studies shouldn’t be taken as gospel, but they’re a good gauge.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Sigurdsson For This Useful Post:


  7. #75
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Angelfolc
    Ancestry
    Angles, Frisians, Saxons
    Subrace
    Anglo-Saxon
    Y-DNA
    Y
    mtDNA
    X
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Hannover Hannover
    Location
    Between your ears
    Gender
    Family
    Yorkist
    Occupation
    Once More Unto the Breach
    Politics
    Welf
    Religion
    ex-U.C. of England & Ireland
    Posts
    2,764
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    218
    Thanked in
    188 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    The Angles were a tiny tribe that completely moved over to Britain, they hardly comprise much of the English population. And while the Saxons indeed established the order that is still in place (Essex, Wessex etc), the English arent (ethnic) Saxons either. The Danish intermezzo of rulership didnt last long and didnt leave an ethnic imprint on the English population either.
    But of course you dont care, just like you dont care that the Tyroleseans are actually Germans and instead twist the entire southern Germanic region (incl up to Bavaria) to "Italo-Celts", confusing "political" structures for ethnicities. Go to Tyrol and tell them they're really Italo-Celts, have fun with the reply muahaha



    You see, neither the Prussians nor the Reich nor Hitler "went Borg", quite to the contrary. Regional cultures were not only respected but furthered, along with our "homegrown" minorities (Wends, Sorbs, Danes...). This was so in the Reich and this was so in NS Germany with the Gaus, and interestingly it's still the case with the Bundesländer, although yes, the post-war problem is indeed a Borg-assimilation and ignorance and neglience of regional cultures.
    And really the last thing we need is another foreign freak dividing Germany to his liking along fantasy divides.

    Before you tell other people they dont figure it out you better get rid off your fantasy products of who belongs where and learn some ACTUAL German history, because what you propose is so wrong on so many levels that one doesnt even know where to start.




    So now you want not only Frisia be assimiliated into your fantasy "New England" but also Lower Saxony? Okay Charlemagne....



    You've claimed so many "ancestors" in this thread alone, you're a walking mythology of your own invention, and even if DNA tests would be more accurate than they are, you'd still invent and twist the data to your liking.



    The Prussians a "fake volk"?!? No they arent. And they arent "Baltic", they are German.

    And as a Frisian I want to tell you that we have no interest to be "reintegrated" with your "New England" of "19th century Anglo-Saxonists" which is just the other side of the "British Israelism" coin. No thanks.
    I can take it like a man and cornered animal with a gang going after me. Spin it however you want about your concept of "good Anglos" and "evil Anglos". For once, I figure that it's not worth bothering to present a different POV and you can have a one party state all you like. Just count me out from drinking the Jonestown Kool Aid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurdsson View Post
    I’m not sure that this has been mentioned, but a study was done (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art.../#!po=0.609756) showing that the English are around 10-40% Anglo-Saxon reaching the highest of 60% in the North, around Yorkshire (from a separate study). These studies shouldn’t be taken as gospel, but they’re a good gauge.
    Does that explain my strident affinity? I do also identify with the English majorities in Maine and Vermont, so if Luigi wants to claim that I feel alone in a sea of foreigners, I confess that H. P. Lovecraft is from my specific part of Anglo-American society. If you know his prejudices, you have got me profiled, only I am not a loser in between the sheets like he was. :/

  8. #76
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    115
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    201
    Thanked in
    87 Posts
    I think this thread raises a series of pertinent questions about what it is that constitutes a nation. There was a similar discussion before where I raised a similar question, although I cannot find that thread any longer. Anyway, the point raised back then was how far do we go when we want to define a nation? Who were the first Germans, Englishmen, Norwegians, Swedes, etc.? Were the Vikings a nation? What about all these Germanic tribes, such as the Saxons or the Suebians? According to which criteria do we define a nation? For example, the Low Germans and Dutch have more in common and are more similar culturally and genetically to each other than they are to the Bavarians or Austrians. The Alemannics from Vorarlberg in Austria are more similar to the Alemannics from Germany and Switzerland than they are to Viennese or Styrians. Are the Austrians or Flemish nations of their own, or are they German, respectively Dutch? That depends on whom you ask. Some people consider the Dutch people to be Germans in denial rather than an ethnicity of their own. But are they really German, or have they been separate for long enough to form a nation of their own? Are the Luxembourgers more German or are they Netherlanders? And what about the Afrikaners? German, Dutch, or a nation of their own? What about the people in bordering areas? Are people in Schleswig more German or more Danish? Are the Alsatians German or French? Again, it depends whom you ask.

    Baorn's idea to unite Saxons from different countries is not that far-fetched when you think about the Bajuvarians, Alemannics or Frisians. Which begs the question, are the Frisians a nation? They have a sub-forum here on Skadi, indicating that their tribal identity would somehow supersede their national identity. Some will agree because like the Saxons, they're a tribe that extends beyond a single country, while others will say no, because Frisian is just a local/regional identity, like the Bavarians or Swabians, who are first and foremost German in their eyes. In Canada, there are several types of nationalists. A certain type of nationalist, loyalists, considers Canada a Dominion of the English rather than a separate, newborn nation. Those will usually fly the Dominion of Canada flag instead of our current flag. Anyway, in my opinion there are multiple forms of Germanic preservation, whether it's national, tribal, regionalist of pan-Germanic.

    I also have to agree with Baorn about the attitude towards those who don't support the Axis during WWII. I have experienced it myself and it is rather unpleasant and close minded. Just because someone is not NS does not make them an enemy of Germanic preservation. Actually, there are many aspects of NS that aren't exactly the most Germanic and which some members like Dagna pointed out quite well in another thread. History is not black and white and blindly supporting NS and worshipping Hitler like a Messiah is not the most objective view either. Instead of burning bridges with fellow Germanic preservationists, those bridges should be built. Intolerance and close mindedness leave us stuck in the past instead of progressing forward.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Norman Pride For This Useful Post:


  10. #77
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Angelfolc
    Ancestry
    Angles, Frisians, Saxons
    Subrace
    Anglo-Saxon
    Y-DNA
    Y
    mtDNA
    X
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Hannover Hannover
    Location
    Between your ears
    Gender
    Family
    Yorkist
    Occupation
    Once More Unto the Breach
    Politics
    Welf
    Religion
    ex-U.C. of England & Ireland
    Posts
    2,764
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    218
    Thanked in
    188 Posts
    Since we've all hopefully calmed down a bit, let me explain what I really mean about Italo-Celtic lands. I'm neither bandying empty rhetoric nor courting it, which was rather unfortunate and counterproductive to partake in.

    Only Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada and Ireland are at least partly so, with policies of Italo-Celtic preservation at odds with Germanic preservation and thus, demographically oppositional to Skadi, although their establishments may be perfectly fine for the mission of Stormfront. Perhaps the non-Indogermanic preservationist policies of New Zealand, Finland and Norway would fit The Apricity better likewise.

    That is not to state that I write off the Germanic folks or their lands, only that I support abolitionism of all Italo-Celtic and non-Indogermanic rival establishments frustrating complete and total Germanic lebensraum in our lands. This makes me opposed to the latitudes afforded by SF and TA for non-Germanic diversity of purposes, only wish Skadi didn't treat Ireland and Finland as casualties of war, when they are POWs of enemy combatants not unlike Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Canada.

    No, I don't think there are the same levels of perverse anti-Germanic preservation policies in all partly non-Germanic lands, nor do I care about respecting foreign agendas in times of war or peace, but whether or not each Germanic folk prefers independent statehood or absorption in the lands of their more powerful Germanic brethren living right beside them, is their prerogative. Swiss are under siege by the Italian, French and Romansh; Luxemburgers, Belgians and Canadians are all thwarted by the French; Irish are plagued by the Gael...New Zealanders face the Austronesian; Österlanders and Norwegians face the Uralic.

    Catholicism I identify with Italo-Celtic agendas and the same for Orthodoxy with Uralics, simply because Protestantism is uniquely Germanic, for the purposes of Christendom (I agree with velvet about Heathenry and would prefer a non-LARPing Heathendom, but we're forced to be pragmatic). Individual spirituality is quite another thing than a confessional marriage of church and state, so I don't judge anybody's conscience in that way and am rather uninterested in Inquisitions of any groups other than the Jew and Mohammedan.

    Please don't mistake my interest in Frisian survival and reunited autonomy with anti-Hochdeutsch sentiment, for I have only believed that Bavaria and Swabia should be enlarged and that their artificial offshoots in Austria and Liechtenstein belong to them who deserve the freedom of sovereignty rather than Plattdeutsch Saxons or anyone else ("Prussians", etc) over them. My only other wishes about Germany were that Ernest Augustus was King of both Great Britain and Ireland as well as Hannover for a continuous Germanic community into the present and not the Victorian succession with her made Empress of India instead as a poor substitution, although a reunited East, West and North Friesland would be a better, more organic land than Hannover or Westphalia in the long run and if English could proactively help Frisians, rather than interventionism in the Third World, it would be a great feeling of redemption from the intermittent Anglo-Frisian-Saxon dynastic reunifications that were finally quit by King George V.

    As for my Anglo-Saxonism in America, I have already postulated limited bilingualism on account of New Netherland, New Sweden and New Brunswick, but not for any Italo-Celtic establishment--people of French, Irish and Scottish descent can speak our tongues (as the Italian and Romansh should do in Switzerland) and be assimilated by osmosis, the same as expected of those with Finnish ancestry. I'm not for the preservation of any other metaethnicities than our Germanic one and don't believe in "Coexistence" except between Germanics.

    Don't mistake or misconstrue my intentions; if you are confused about my statements, I don't mind clarifying them. Obviously, miscommunication is exacerbated by the narratives of ridiculous politics that I don't believe happens to be more important than English nationalism with Germanic interests at heart; forgive me if I don't have a strictly West Germanic agenda in particular even if my autosomal DNA swings my PCA chart mostly to the West and otherwise to the North, in the names of my mother and father whom I will never deny.

  11. #78
    The lion's gate
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    6 Hours Ago @ 05:43 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,486
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,757
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,968
    Thanked in
    1,340 Posts
    Why all the confusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    Were the Vikings a nation?
    No, it's just a name for Scandinavian warriors.

    For example, the Low Germans and Dutch have more in common and are more similar culturally and genetically to each other than they are to the Bavarians or Austrians.
    No, not culturally at any rate - and I'm not even sure about the genetics. Low Germans in Germany haven't spoken genuine Dietsch in ages as well. I don't even consider the Low Germans in Germany properly Low German anymore, unlike my own folk and the Dutch.

    Are the Austrians or Flemish nations of their own, or are they German, respectively Dutch?
    They're German and Dutch subnations, respectively.

    Some people consider the Dutch people to be Germans in denial rather than an ethnicity of their own. But are they really German, or have they been separate for long enough to form a nation of their own?
    Yes, the Dutch split off from the Germans in the 9th century. They're a nation of their own. "Some people" are typically ignorant of continental Germanic history.

    Are the Luxembourgers more German or are they Netherlanders?
    Letzebuergisch and German, at least the Germanic component of Luxembourg. There's nothing Netherlandic (Dutch) about the Luxembourgers and all of the Germanics there are related more to Germans than to the Flemings and the Dutch.

    And what about the Afrikaners? German, Dutch, or a nation of their own?
    A nation of their own, in the same way Anglo-Americans are a nation of their own.

    Are the Alsatians German or French? Again, it depends whom you ask.
    Not really, they're ethnically German - what remains of the Germanic population, that is.

    Baorn's idea to unite Saxons from different countries is not that far-fetched when you think about the Bajuvarians, Alemannics or Frisians.
    It's the most far-fetched madness imaginable, New World fantasies which can only blossom through ignorance about anything European and a desperate desire to connect to something European to fill a hole in the soul. The "Saxons" aren't English, uniting them with the Anglosphere is absolutely absurd. They're just as much German as the Bavarians and Swabians and they're all alien to the Anglosphere. These are not the Saxons of Charlemagne's era anymore. They're Germans now. Anglo-Saxons are not quite the same thing as modern day German Saxons. That's why the English and their off shoots are "Anglo-Saxons".

    Which begs the question, are the Frisians a nation? They have a sub-forum here on Skadi, indicating that their tribal identity would somehow supersede their national identity.
    That could be argued, but as far as I understand the Frisians in Germany have been pretty much assimilated by the Germans. The remaining Frisians, 50.000 of them in the Netherlands, are probably a Dutch subnation rather than a nation of their own.

    Some will agree because like the Saxons, they're a tribe that extends beyond a single country
    Again, there are no more "Saxons" in the same way there are no more Franks. The "Saxons" are Dutch and German. No-one in the Netherlands goes around calling themselves "Saxon", BTW.

    Anyway, in my opinion there are multiple forms of Germanic preservation, whether it's national, tribal, regionalist of pan-Germanic.
    Not all of these forms are equal. Who can say with a straight face that Anglos in California should belong in the same political unit as the "Saxons" in Germany, never mind that they belong to the same nation. And Tribes don't exist anymore, hence tribal preservation doesn't exist. Regional preservation cuts off Germanic people from their nation, see the Alsatians. Pan-Germanicism probably sounds nice to some colonials, but not to us in Europe. Very few of us will sacrifice our nations and their histories for something new and borderline W.N.

    Just because someone is not NS does not make them an enemy of Germanic preservation
    ...but calling most continental Germanics Uralic and Italoceltic does, amongst other things.

    Actually, there are many aspects of NS that aren't exactly the most Germanic and which some members like Dagna pointed out quite well in another thread. History is not black and white and blindly supporting NS and worshipping Hitler like a Messiah is not the most objective view either.
    Libertarians, usually Heathen libertarians on Skadi, but not always, sometimes they're atheist or Christian, may claim that libertarianism is the true Germanic ideology - and then Heathen libertarians point to the Germanic tribes as if these were libertarian too (a Christian libertarian, especially a Catholic libertarian, could point to the Middle Ages as a source of inspiration). As if Germanics should be libertarian - that too is somewhat of an authoritarian attitude. And to continental Germanics American style libertarianism is a rather alien ideology which many of us will associate with bitter poverty and a lack of proper healthcare. What's up with NS aspects not being Germanic anyway? Is it set in stone somewhere that libertarianism is the ideology of Germanics? Was Hermann the German a libertarian? It's kind of assumed by some libertarians on Skadi. And even if NS or any other ideology a person of Germanic descent clings to has some Latin influences, so what? Germanics can be authoritarian and even totalitarian too, why not.

    Instead of burning bridges with fellow Germanic preservationists, those bridges should be built. Intolerance and close mindedness leave us stuck in the past instead of progressing forward.
    Yes, not trying to turn back the clock 1000-1500 years to serve the RPG-fantasies of Anglos who overidentify with Europe or a Europe that has not been for at least the last 1000 years for instance, as is the case in this thread, would be nice. It's just make believe. And it's disrespectful towards other Germanic nations. It's even worse when it comes with land grabbing fantasies. Not denouncing entire Germanic populations as Italoceltics and Uralics would also be great. No religious bigotry and denouncing the lionshare of the history of Germanic nations is recommended as well. As is not forcing libertarianism upon us continentals, as Baorn would in Hannover.
    "Beauty is a form of genius, higher, indeed, than genius, as it needs no explanation." - Oscar Wilde

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  13. #79
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Angelfolc
    Ancestry
    Angles, Frisians, Saxons
    Subrace
    Anglo-Saxon
    Y-DNA
    Y
    mtDNA
    X
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Hannover Hannover
    Location
    Between your ears
    Gender
    Family
    Yorkist
    Occupation
    Once More Unto the Breach
    Politics
    Welf
    Religion
    ex-U.C. of England & Ireland
    Posts
    2,764
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    218
    Thanked in
    188 Posts
    Let me begin by thanking the powers that be for retitling this thread split to a proper name. To get my points clear, I will say that I don't believe in the organised governments of the UK, US and Hannover, but I do believe in England having a border with the Scots at the Antonine Wall, Dominions of Wales, Newfoundland, Virginia and New England, with priority to restoring bigoted preferences of all kinds with and for the benefit of Friesland.

    You'd find Wulfhere steered me in this direction by the many good words I witnessed him put in for Mercia and Friesland on Wikipedia and our "Circle of Crust" (props to maineiac for reviving that phrase). I'm sure the reason why Eadric Streona of Mercia defied Wessex and made separate terms with the Danelaw, had everything to do with Winchester's defection to Normandy, so who's the traitor then, especially when the Danelaw just replaced Kent and Wight that the Saxons annexed and basically got us into that mess--in addition to annexing Mercia and overlording Northumbria?! It's a shame that the Jutish kingdom founded by Hengest and Horsa had become lost to us, so the Danes were justified taking East Anglia. Unfortunately, the identity of Angeln likewise fell through the cracks of history because of the warfare by Franks and Saxons necessitating the building of the Danevirke, the Mark of the Danes.

    Only the English and Frisians still remain to be known by our tongues and North Sea Germanic bias of all Ingaevones and it stands to reason that we should shut out all other influences upon us. This means that we Anglos aren't British nationalists, but Ingvaeonicists, to encompass a chiefly Anglo-Frisian diarchy without Scots and Irish; whether Saxons and Jutes could find it within themselves to forsake languages and states foisted upon them is another story and who knows if possible, but we wouldn't put it past them to muster up some form of interest, at least.

    This isn't to deprive an Istvaeonic Netherlands, Irminonic Germany or Scandinavian Denmark (aye, Skadi-Noatun proper is the Danish urheimat) out of lands properly belonging to them, because Anglos should support them getting Flanders (care to also have Jersey and Guernsey?), Elsaß, Skåne and every other rightful "gau" and so, the purpose would be a bit like the Sudetenland request by Hitler, not only regarding metaethnic foreigners, but also reestablished intra-Germanic marches, as they say fences make good neighbours.

    Vikings were originally natives of Viken, owned by Denmark before Hairfair of the Westfold made one Norway--or tried to, because Trønders wouldn't have it. It's kinda funny how Holland was a republic and Germany was a monarchy, but have since exchanged governments--is either present status quo organic or optimal? I support the reunion of the two Luxemburgs under Frankish rule. My Canadian family only knew the Red Ensign other than the King's Colours, just as my Irish family had the latter with the Green Ensign; no separatist symbolism is helpful and I would even rather just hoist English banners everywhere than insist on any other "metaethnic" representation in government contrary to Anglocentrism.

    Of course, the self-rule by Heptarchy and 13 States is no threat or counterintuitive measure, but a preventative one meant to stave off civil warfare, which afflicted both groups of Angelfolc. I'm a little hazy about Frisian and Jute civil wars, but know that Saxony was severely dismembered by fighting between the Welfs and Wettins, so it's funny that one followed the other on the English throne in the Victorian era between the death of King William IV and accession of King Edward VII. Due to the conflicting metaethnic objectives, it's just more sensible for England to be with Friesland than Scotland and Saxony instead of Ireland and with Jutland instead of Mann, etc. As for WWI & WWII, it's not out of hate for Austria and Germany that I don't support the Central Axis, only that I am actually something of a pacifist and a nationalist, so am supportive of my own kind of Germanic despite preferring no violence whatsoever--"my folk, right or wrong".

  14. #80
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,440
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    I also have to agree with Baorn about the attitude towards those who don't support the Axis during WWII. I have experienced it myself and it is rather unpleasant and close minded. Just because someone is not NS does not make them an enemy of Germanic preservation.
    The point is that you, if you root for the Allies, you root for German destruction. This is not about NS, Hitler or whatever else is usually interferred then, it's completely irrelevant whether you like NS/Hitler or not. But maybe it's not a good idea to root for German destruction, and this is what WWI and WWII was all about after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Churchill
    Germany is becoming too strong, we must crush her. You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or Nationalsocialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Churchill
    Germany's unforgiveable crime before WWII was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by General J.F.C. Fuller
    Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear.
    And a comment by Reverend Ludwig A. Fritsch:
    The bombardement of civil targets was a main focus of Churchill's war policies [Dresden, Rosenheim, Hamburg....watch Hellstorm for reference]. Doesn't one call this targeted genocide?
    The Germans must be angels or saints to forget and forgive, what injustices and cruelties they had to endure twice in one generation, without that they had attacked the allies. If we Americans were treated that way, our acts of revenge for our suffering would know no limits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    Actually, there are many aspects of NS that aren't exactly the most Germanic and which some members like Dagna pointed out quite well in another thread.
    And what aspects of NS are "ungermanic"? That the allies wrongly call it "fascist" when it was not, a term that sticks to this day (and unfortunately, even believers in NS occasionally subscribe to this nonsense)?

    But let's see:

    Nationalsocialism is NOT Fascism
    The main difference between NS and Fascism is the role of the State in each system. Fascism is a form of statism. Fascism teaches that the State is primary, and that the state forms the nation. In contrast, NS teaches that the Race/Volk is primary, and that the purpose of the State is to serve the Race/Volk. NS is not totalitarian.

    "The fascist conception of the state is all-embracing: outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have any real worth. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state - a synthesis and a unit of all values - interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of a people. It is not the nation that generates the state. Rather it is the state which creates the nation, conferring volition and, therefore, real life on a people. In the fascist conception, the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative."
    ~Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

    "The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. States which do not serve this prupose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.
    ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
    The highest purpose of the racial state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher humanity. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a people, which not only assures the preservation of this people, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom. The highest aim of human existence is not preservation of the state, let alone a government, but the preservation of race.
    For in the long run systems of government are not maintained by the pressure of force, but by faith in their soundness and in the truthfulness with which they represent and advance the interests of a people.
    ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
    This, btw, are the Fasces that decorate the US Congress:


    And as Chalmers Johnson has pointed out in his book "The Sorrows of Empire", the USA sees itself as a heir to the fascist Roman Empire. With indeed the same expansionist ambitions to global hegemony. The US occupies about 75% (!!!) or the world. Maybe, just maybe, start to criticise the fascist, ungermanic, aggressive, warmongering USA?

    History is not black and white and blindly supporting NS and worshipping Hitler like a Messiah is not the most objective view either.
    And blindly hating NS and Hitler is neither objective nor bridge-building either.
    Interestingly, for those who've been successfully teached to hate NS/Hitler, it's indeed all black and white, they even have the audacity to tell Germans that they are "anti-German" when they're NS, ignoring that "German Socialism" and Blut&Boden are both ideologies that predate Hitler and NS by a hundred years. But we are expected to throw it all off and subscribe to some lofty libtard fake-ideology of self-hate and voluntary self-destruction instead because the Allies and the (((24/7 propaganda))) say so.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thread split: The U.S.A., American or English?
    By Idis in forum The United States
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 08:45 PM
  2. [SPLIT] FS' Christian Credentials (Schwab vs FS - thread split)
    By schwab in forum Christianity
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 27th, 2019, 05:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •