Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: [split] The US in WWII, and other sundry thoughts

  1. #21
    With my bloodbrothers at side, All sons of father with one eye, We were all born in the land of the blood on ice.

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, April 14th, 2008 @ 06:09 PM
    Location
    At the Terminus of early Viking
    Gender
    Posts
    1,124
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post


    aren't you danish?
    Yes indeed, the Danes were the most fierzed warriors in the old days. but with half Norse Blood in me. A good Viking combination

    They have stolen quite a lot of land from us through time...

    Only thing which can calm me is the overflow of teutonic elements which has been represented as well, but soon is outdying.......

  2. #22
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, January 19th, 2009 @ 04:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Gender
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    i disagree on the first point there (with conditions).
    entirely in agreement on the second, of course, as i have absolutely no connection with england....although i fail to see the relevance :
    were you saying something i missed?
    Well, I made it on purpose to quote the etymology of the word. Kinship is exclusively defined by blood bonds. It doesn't matter if some idiot with a PC agenda changed the meaning of the word in a modern dictionary. Or else we might as well call elephants lions. So before going any further, we should agree
    on the meaning of words. I believe Frigg was not using this word in the modern so-called meaning either.
    "The Star of David and the Pentagram go hand in hand like black metal and a camera." - Gelal of Grand Belial's Key

    "Without music, life would be a mistake." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  3. #23
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    121
    Thanked in
    90 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    No Germany did not start the Polish-German war
    It is more a philosophical question who was responsible for the war, however Germany started it, this does by no means mean that it wasn't justified or that it wasn't a provoked reaction, depending on the point of view, every war, no matter who "started" it, was somehow "provoked" to do so.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. #24
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    Well, I made it on purpose to quote the etymology of the word.
    how is stating that i have nothing to do with england helpful in demonstrating the etymology of the word "kindship"? :
    that particular point was what my question was in reference to. i guess communication problems extend beyond simple disagreement on definitions.

    Kinship is exclusively defined by blood bonds. It doesn't matter if some idiot with a PC agenda changed the meaning of the word in a modern dictionary.
    you mean *you* disagree with the "idiot with a PC agenda" and define kinship as exclusively determined by blood bonds. from the etymological definition you quoted (especially with that "kinship is a modern word" line) i can very well see it evolving to mean any relationship where two things are similar in some respect (even without a PC agenda). particularily when culture is concerned.

    regardless of what we call it, there is necessarily some "cultural similarity and feeling of closeness" between populations speaking the same language simply because of the enormous role played by language in cultural development. even if americans as a group have a higher percentage of german than english blood, being an anglophone country, culturally and psychologically they are likely closer to the english and their loyalties are therefore more likely to lie there.

  5. #25
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, January 19th, 2009 @ 04:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Gender
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    how is stating that i have nothing to do with england helpful in demonstrating the etymology of the word "kindship"? :
    that particular point was what my question was in reference to. i guess communication problems extend beyond simple disagreement on definitions.
    I didn't intend to demonstrate the etymology of the word "kinship". There's no need for that since it is established. What I was trying to do was explaining the meaning of this word through examples. But I failed to explain what I meant clearly enough. Communication problems are always a big problem That's what I'm trying to clear up now.

    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    you mean *you* disagree with the "idiot with a PC agenda" and define kinship as exclusively determined by blood bonds. from the etymological definition you quoted (especially with that "kinship is a modern word" line) i can very well see it evolving to mean any relationship where two things are similar in some respect (even without a PC agenda). particularily when culture is concerned.
    The big problem here, is not that the word is evolving. It's that the notion of race in words is being deliberately phased out. So it gets increasingly difficult to discuss such matters. Do we agree that races exist or do we have to go through this debate? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that you, Frigg and I agree that races are a reality. If this is settled, then all we need to do is rephrase our assertions. So I will rephrase mine: Most Americans do not share a blood bond with the English (or even the British, British defined as all the ethnic groups that have traditionally been living in Great Britain, an island off the coast of Europe). Now, I've *always* understood the word "kinship" in the sense of sharing blood bonds, that's why I said that "kinship" (in the meaning I lend to this word) cannot be claimed as a valid motive to go to war.


    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    regardless of what we call it, there is necessarily some "cultural similarity and feeling of closeness" between populations speaking the same language simply because of the enormous role played by language in cultural development.
    I don't agree, the Irish speak English too, and they certainly do not have a feeling of cultural similarity and closeness to the English people.

    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    even if americans as a group have a higher percentage of german than english blood, being an anglophone country, culturally and psychologically they are likely closer to the english and their loyalties are therefore more likely to lie there.
    Sure, but is that a good enough reason to go to war? "Kinship" (as I define it) would be a better reason.
    "The Star of David and the Pentagram go hand in hand like black metal and a camera." - Gelal of Grand Belial's Key

    "Without music, life would be a mistake." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  6. #26
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    [...] all we need to do is rephrase our assertions. So I will rephrase mine: Most Americans do not share a blood bond with the English (or even the British, British defined as all the ethnic groups that have traditionally been living in Great Britain, an island off the coast of Europe). Now, I've *always* understood the word "kinship" in the sense of sharing blood bonds, that's why I said that "kinship" (in the meaning I lend to this word) cannot be claimed as a valid motive to go to war.
    and here's mine: shared language at present time is in all likelyhood more important when it comes to decision making than blood ties over 100 years ago. whether that makes for a good reason to go to war i don't care to speculate. depends on how one feels about war and how strong the bond is.

    I don't agree, the Irish speak English too, and they certainly do not have a feeling of cultural similarity and closeness to the English people.
    i'm pretty sure they feel closer to the english then they do to germans though.

    Sure, but is that a good enough reason to go to war? "Kinship" (as I define it) would be a better reason.
    i disagree. if you are an ethnic whatever but you were born, educated, and nurtured by a culture different than "your own" (really, you can only lay claim to the culture in which you were brought up as your own), it would appear natural to me if your allegiance lies first and foremost with the culture that brought you up vs. the one that has done nothing for you but with which you just happen to be associated by "blood".

    "nature vs. nurturer", in a way. in a perfect world (and this is what i believe to be right and advocate), of course, the two would coincide removing the distinction.

  7. #27
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, January 19th, 2009 @ 04:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Gender
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    and here's mine: shared language at present time is in all likelyhood more important when it comes to decision making than blood ties over 100 years ago. whether that makes for a good reason to go to war i don't care to speculate. depends on how one feels about war and how strong the bond is.
    Wouldn't you have a better reason to defend someone of your own family even though they are wrong, then someone else?

    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    i'm pretty sure they feel closer to the english then they do to germans though.
    And I'm pretty sure they feel closer to the Bretons who speak French then to the English.

    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    i disagree. if you are an ethnic whatever but you were born, educated, and nurtured by a culture different than "your own" (really, you can only lay claim to the culture in which you were brought up as your own), it would appear natural to me if your allegiance lies first and foremost with the culture that brought you up vs. the one that has done nothing for you but with which you just happen to be associated by "blood".
    I don't agree it is natural, in fact I think it's quite unnatural. Why do orphans place so much importance in their biological parents then? If not for a blood bond? Why do people research their ancestry? Also all the third world immigrants are a testimony to the contrary.


    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    "nature vs. nurturer", in a way. in a perfect world (and this is what i believe to be right and advocate), of course, the two would coincide removing the distinction.
    So we do agree in fact. Since this isn't a perfect world, it leads to the wrong decisions.

    Frigg said:

    I think it was a right decision to support the British because they are our kin! I wouldn't censor those who disagree tho.
    "The Star of David and the Pentagram go hand in hand like black metal and a camera." - Gelal of Grand Belial's Key

    "Without music, life would be a mistake." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  8. #28
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, March 13th, 2020 @ 02:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,193
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    11
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    26
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    Did you know that there's actually more americans from German decent than from "British" decent? So how does that make "americans" kin with the british? The U.S. being a composite nation made out many ethnicities, I don't see how kinship might be claimed with anyone.
    The US are certainly home to many nations, but it's the Anglo-Saxons who have historically run the show here. Nothing in America happens without the force of the WASP elite behind it, either through direct involvement or tacit consent.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie View Post
    If the British were such close, loved and supported kin of the US-Americans, then why did the US fight so fervently for independence in the 18th century?
    Well that's kind of silly. Did the Civil War of the 17th Century mean that some English Brits were no longer kin with others? Of course not.

    A nation bound together by common blood can disagree among itself, and even quite stridently and violently times, without their sense of kinship being destroyed to such an extent that would be unwilling to unite in war against a foreign nation.

    Since independence, there has been so much emigration to the US from countries other than Great Britain, that I can't see how their loyalties and cultural bonds could do anything other than recede accordingly.
    Not just since independence, but even before.

    However, until only very recently, the birthrates of the earliest colonial stock and their descendants has far outstripped immigration from other sources. The incredible population growth of the United States (already noteworthy in 1776, as discussed in the Wealth of Nations) has been due primarily to the natural increase of the Anglo-Saxon colonists.

    Only in the past few decades, when immigration has skyrocketed and natural increase has declined, has immigration done much to affect the Englishness of the United States. Yet still, as I said before, it's the English who run the show here.

    The US didn't support the Brits in WW 2 out of loyalty and feelings of kinship, I would say this much is obvious...
    I don't know why the folks at the top went to war. I think we should have remained a neutral power — at least in the European war. We should have done the same in WWI. We have no business violating the Monroe Doctrine, and our decision to do so means that we should not interfere in European efforts to control or influence New World countries (so there should have been no Cuban Missile Crisis).

    But the US didn't go to war without the people who actually enlisted (in hordes) and who actually went and did the fighting. And very many of those men went precisely because of a sense of kinship shared with the English.

    So though the folks at the top might not have cared about such spiritual matters as kinship, it would be kind of simplistic to assert based on that evidence that the US didn't go to war in WWII out of feelings of kinship.

  9. #29
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, January 19th, 2009 @ 04:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Gender
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    The US are certainly home to many nations, but it's the Anglo-Saxons who have historically run the show here. Nothing in America happens without the force of the WASP elite behind it, either through direct involvement or tacit consent.
    They run the show so much that English was chosen as the official language only by one vote. The only ones who run the show in the US are the jews, not that this is different from anywhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    I don't know why the folks at the top went to war. I think we should have remained a neutral power — at least in the European war. We should have done the same in WWI. We have no business violating the Monroe Doctrine, and our decision to do so means that we should not interfere in European efforts to control or influence New World countries (so there should have been no Cuban Missile Crisis).

    But the US didn't go to war without the people who actually enlisted (in hordes) and who actually went and did the fighting. And very many of those men went precisely because of a sense of kinship shared with the English.

    So though the folks at the top might not have cared about such spiritual matters as kinship, it would be kind of simplistic to assert based on that evidence that the US didn't go to war in WWII out of feelings of kinship.
    The US went to war because the jews told to do so.
    "The Star of David and the Pentagram go hand in hand like black metal and a camera." - Gelal of Grand Belial's Key

    "Without music, life would be a mistake." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  10. #30
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, April 20th, 2012 @ 09:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish/English
    Ancestry
    Scotland and England
    Subrace
    Nordid/Bruenn
    Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Location
    Wellington
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    DeFacto Relationship
    Occupation
    IT Analyst
    Politics
    Ride the Tiger
    Posts
    727
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Frigg View Post
    This isn't true, the majority of Americans are English!


    It was people like your fuhrer who ruined any chance for racialism! He dragged his country into a long and bloody war and because of him, now every nationalist is called a nazi!

    What's wrong with arguing with people of other ideologies? Are you afraid of anything?
    I always find this statement to be funny.

    Had the US and Britain not joined the war, which they needn't join in the first place then racialism would have survived. I think the fact that in such recent times we could have such a resurgence of European identity, destiny and order is quite honestly, amazing.

    Remember who crushed this, it wasn't Hitler or the Reich, it was the Churchills, Roosevelts and Stalins ensuring that the Western World would remain dominated by non-European forces and pushed further in the direction of liberal degeneration. Cowards serving an agenda alien to that of their folk and country.

    The Allies ruined Europe, when Europe had the greatest chance to save itself.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Are Your Thoughts Your Own?
    By Nachtengel in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, December 19th, 2009, 10:45 PM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: Sunday, May 14th, 2006, 10:05 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
  •