Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65

Thread: The Germanic Idea in England

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 12:58 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    130
    Thanked in
    108 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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???

  2. #42
    Senior Member Vestmannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 16th, 2011 @ 11:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oklahoma Oklahoma
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Posts
    723
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacobite
    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.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    There is nothing the matter with Americans except their ideals. The real American is all right; it is the ideal American who is all wrong. ~G.K. Chesterton

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 12:58 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    130
    Thanked in
    108 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Vestmannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 16th, 2011 @ 11:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oklahoma Oklahoma
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Posts
    723
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacobite
    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'.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    There is nothing the matter with Americans except their ideals. The real American is all right; it is the ideal American who is all wrong. ~G.K. Chesterton

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 12:58 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    130
    Thanked in
    108 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiersman
    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.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Brandt
    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.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Todesritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, August 3rd, 2012 @ 12:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    celto-germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    803
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    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.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Todesritter
    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.
    Likewise 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.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Todesritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, August 3rd, 2012 @ 12:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    celto-germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    803
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    I guess I must not be English, otherwise perhaps I would get it.

    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.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: The Germanic Idea in England

    Quote Originally Posted by Todesritter
    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.
    Last edited by Rhydderch; Tuesday, June 21st, 2005 at 01:59 AM.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How Germanic is England?
    By karolvs in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 10:30 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Thursday, August 19th, 2010, 03:14 AM
  3. Germanic Tattoo Idea
    By Angus in forum Visual Arts & Aesthetics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 20th, 2010, 05:13 PM

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
  •