[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Meta-ethnicity is one of the levels on which ethnic concerns make sense, and if we discard it, we lose some of our political strength. We would be in danger of falling short of arguments when our political enemies accuse the concept of nation of being a late construction of arbitrary imagery, and a mere myth about community.

I am not discarding the concept of the more ethno-cultural potential in the concept of meta-ethnicity, which should really just be descriptions of reality, but I will discard the significance of the intellectually established meta-ethnicities to individual populations. Usually other factors than predefined meta-ethnicity is dominant in influencing which broader meta-ethnicity populations identify with - and therefore people create meta-ethnicities for themselves. Not to speak of the flaws that exist in some of the intellectually "established" meta-ethnicities.

Originally Posted by Seekers

However, I deliberately approached this topic by referring to the Germanic meta-ethnicity specifically, since I know it better than other meta-ethnicities. They may well vary as to the degree of their importance, for all I know.

Its no different with Germanic. You seem to want to preserve the significance of Germanic, as if there was some special brotherhood between all "Germanic" populations, unique to this group. But in society, its simply not true. All though Scandinavia is mostly "Germanic", most people only identify with other Nordic countries, even Finland, all though they arent as much as IE in origin. And the way I see it, that is an attestation to what I am saying: intellectually established meta-ethnicities (which have their flaws intellectually, even) arent as real in real life and society as they seem on paper, to some. And the only broader meta-ethnicity except for that, is European.

Originally Posted by Seekers

Meta-ethnicity is not meant to denote a homogenous entity without differences altogether. I thought that was pretty obvious. The prefix "meta" implies something other than that.

That was not my point. My point is that A) the differences within the intellectually established meta-ethnicities make them less significant, intellectually speaking, and B) in society, differences between groups, even linguistic and cultural, and the intellectual establishment of them, are not to stop a meta-ethnicity from being formed, such as the "Nordic", and other cross-linguistic, cross-ethnic meta-ethnicities that may exist in Europe.

Originally Posted by Seekers

OK. Give me the proof to substantiate this claim. You are saying 95%, and unless you made it up, you should back it up for both nationalists and and people in general. I'm not really doubting that it may be correct for Denmark. What I don't like is your quasi-scientific style of argumentation.

If you didnt take everything I say literally, perhaps you'd find my style of argumentation less problematic. 95% was obviously not some scientifically backed up figure, it was simply an image I portrayed so to speak, to illustrate my point, which is the general lack and minority of persona going against the notion I described, in society. You rarely ever encounter such a person, even among Danish nationalists. It may be correct for Denmark - yes, and I have said nothing else.

Originally Posted by Seekers

No. I didn't say that. I said that it is much more common among Swedish nationalists, patriots and intellectuals who love their own culture to recognize that they are Germanic, compared to the ignorant masses who never think about ethnic concerns. I did not say that flashing around the label "Germanic" will make you a nationalist or a patriot.

Perhaps you dont know what an ethnicity is? It is not something you can intellectually establish and "recognize" to be true for everyone, it is something the masses establish for themselves through identity. It doesnt need to have a basis in linguistics, culture, genetics, etc, but it may have.
Meta-ethnicities are more easily intellectually established, but even the predominant intellectual establishments have flaws, especially if misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by Seekers

I don't think you can be sure that "no one" does it, but the point is that this is not a good argument, even if it would be true. If we take it seriously, we should also take all arguments based on what most people say "in society" seriously.

Again, not to be taken literally. Of course a few freaks of society do, but not the masses, which is the point.

And yes, I think we should take seriously what people in society think - because that represents the meta-ethnicities that people construct in SOCIETY. That doesnt mean I think we should limit our considerations to that, which is exactly what I'm not - my point with saying that was that we cannot rationalize identity and ethnicity by intellectually establishing and constructing meta-ethnicities, because it doesnt mean the masses will take them seriously, even if they were "ultimate truth", which, however, they are not.

Originally Posted by Seekers

Are you sure that those "surveys" aren't EU propaganda? Sweden had a drive of that several years before the EU entry and onwards, to make us at ease with the idea of giving away our souvereignity to the EU. And we still get it. They never stop. Most of the statistics they use to "prove" something is not even good statistics, and some of it is made up of lies altogether. I can give you an example: Those who wanted Swedes to say yes to the euro currency said that the peoples who already have the euro were happy with it and thought that it was good for them. The "proof" was sprayed all over Sweden with the help of the corrupt mass media, and they fooled Swedish teenagers to walk around in the streets looking fancy, being "nice" and speaking to people about it, giving them flyers with "the evidence", which was given in the form of staples supposedly representing how many percent praised the euro where they have it. I did my research, and when one of them approached me I confidently said straight to his face what a liar he was, so that everyone around would hear me, and his face turned all red as I revealed the fake. You see, the question that they asked people where they already have the euro was not if the euro was good for them - it was: Do you think that we should change back to our previous currency? And no wonder, that was not such a popular idea, because it had become known to them how big business had taken advantage of the change of currency to raise prices unashamedly, so that prices of everything everywhere in their land were raised, making it harder for ordinary people to make ends meet.

Actually, theres going to be elections in Denmark soon - we are already in the EU, because people voted yes, but we have a few limitations that most statistics say people will vote against in the next EU election. No, its not just propaganda, and the vote of the people has already shown that, and it will again.

Originally Posted by Seekers

However, you confirm that you are founding your views on what most people think. It's not a sound argument, even if at all it were true.

I am not. I am simply taking into consideration and our over-all equation in determining the qualities and validity of meta-ethnicities the views predominant in society - the masses.

Originally Posted by Seekers

Now your saying that your skepticism against meta-ethnicity is warranted because it isn't genealogically the same as in the whole meta-ethnicity was inbred!

Again, you take everything literally. It was an example, which you chose to misunderstand and extrapolated to be connected with everything else I said.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

You said it is a linguistic term, and not an ethnical one. So how is a black girl born in Denmark speaking Danish, a Germanic language, a Germanic? Or, is she not of Germanic ancestry and just speaking a Germanic language?

I said the nature of the term depends on its context. A black girl speaking Danish would be Germanic in the context of linguistics; in the context of culture, people have lost the culture of their ancestors anyway, but the culture of her ancestors wouldnt be Germanic - and she wouldnt even partially have the same origins as Indo-Europeans and Germanics.

However, it is important to understand that todays Germanics are a mix - not all are even part of the same folk migration necessarily, but Germanicized non-"Germanics" (that have been Germanic culturally and linguistically for generations).

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

There is only one context.

No, there isnt. There are many contexts, like I just described above.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

So it is a linguistic term? So who is speaking Germanic languages (mother tongue)?

It is a linguistic term, yes, with a number of cultural associations from old times - and an associated folk migration - which though is speculative and doesnt necessarily involve all who are now Germanic.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

No wonder, after decades of brainwashing and lies. Today we even are taught non-European immigrants with FRG or Danish passports were Germans or Danes...

In the case of Denmark, Jutes are actually part Celtic in origin, and thats jsut one attestation to the fact that all Germanics are not inherently the same.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

The fact people do not know the full meaning does not mean there is no meaning at all.

Agreed, and thats not what I said.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

You purposefully misinnterprete what I said. I never claimed Swedes or Danes were the same like Germans, they both are their own ethnicity, neither did I claim they as such geneagologically were the same.
Of course does the intense anti-Germanic propaganda have to do with anti-German resentments. Many English spindoctors were keen to point out Anglo-Saxons were no Germanic people (but a tribe of Israel), in order to make people believe they were not related with Germans, similar things happened in Norway and Denmark right after WW2. BTW you call us "tysk" which means "Deutsche", it was the English starting to call us "Germans" and our land "Germany", instead of Deutschland (tyskland). Germany is Germanien in German language, an inproper description for Deutschland since Deutschland just was a part of Germania.

I wont go into this, because it doesnt have much to do with this. But I basically dont disagree.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Did I say a meta-ethnicity or an ethnicity could not consist of several subraces?
No, I did not, so what is your point?
I once read Churchill said we Germans were an own race. This is crap.

I agree, but another fact is that Germanic is first a linguistic and cultural term - not a genealogical, racial or completely ancestral. Folk migrations and assimilation has widely happened in the history of Europe, and people that have been Germanic linguistically and culturally for generations may not share the same ancestry as all others.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Wait, I was talking about native-speakers and not about anyone having studied a Germanic language.
Of course we have influences of other people, like Slavs, both, genetically and in our language. This does not change the fact the main meta-ethnicity as well as ethnicity describes the majority of a certain folk.

I didnt mean linguistically, I meant that people may have components alien to what is else considered ancestrally Germanic. But like I said; Germanic isnt an ancestral or genealogical term, but a cultural and linguistic. (all though the associated cultures are dead by centuries and only survive through limited traditions)

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Germanic people are a mix of several subraces, predominantly Nordid and Cromagnid (Faelid). This does not mean everyone being genetically of this stock must be Germanic.

Germanic people are people that have, at least for many generations, been culturally and linguistically Germanic. Not a person of a specific sub-race, tribe, area or anything else.