Comments by "" (@noahtylerpritchett2682) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
502
-
432
-
160
-
143
-
124
-
101
-
92
-
67
-
61
-
54
-
52
-
41
-
32
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
19
-
19
-
13
-
That endless wilderness also had more wolves, bears and other animals Scotland lacked. The Scottish were village and town builders. They marched in on shitty land in crappy environment surrounded by hostile climate exposer, wild life and dangerous hill tribes and Mexican soldiers. All types of frontier, hill, rural, farm and settlement and expansion cultures the Scots in America pioneered was a hard-life. Including the the shrubs, forests, hills, Boulder land, bushlands and flat, dry or semi desert areas in America
12
-
Our obsession with the Greeks, Romans and they're hybridized Byzantine offspring has seem odd to me
As we ignore the Ahlamu, Suteans, Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Hebrews, Araru, Chaldeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Arabs, Ammonites, Edomites, Tigrayans, Amaranth, and others should be studied In more detail than the Greeks and Romans.
Semitic civilization is where farming, animal domestication, stone urbanization, wheel usage, metal usage and writing came from.
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Most soldiers, or paramilitary militias who expanded America's borders, or who volunteer in other people's wars, descend from Englishman and Scotsman from warlike borderlands who settled in Dixie south. You see an American militia, foreign volunteer in a foreign army or is a U.S soldier, he's a southerner sometimes. And his ancestors come from England that descends from warlike Mercians and Hwicce who Constantly fault and mingled with Celts on the borderland, or Lowland Scots who brunt highland and English invasions or local Bernicia, and Northumbria kingdoms who were assimilating Hen Ogled Britons they warred with and assimilated. And fault Picts and Gaels to North and Norwegians. And Anglo-Normans to the south.
Today most English soldiers are west Midlands and most Scottish soldiers in the British U.K military are Lowlanders.
The white southerners descend from both. The Mercians who were conquered by Wessex than Normandy, still were colonizing Wales and warring over there as marcher lords, and the Bernicians mingled with Britons than violently colonized Ulster in Northern Ireland fighting the Irish.
These two groups lived together In the American south. And we're surprised most American fighters are southern boys. Who pioneered west and fault Indian tribes.
My ancestors were Mercians (west England Midlands and southern Welsh) and Northumbrians (in Lowland Scotland, northern England)
Always fighting on frontier borderlands expanding it. Up into America. Colonizing westward among manifest destiny. Only my Anglo-Saxon ancestors mixed with Gaelic, Brythonic and Pictish Celts and on the Lowland Scottish and Yorkshire side with Danes and later my Ulster-Scots ancestors mated with Hiberno-Norse. Or the Norse who settled Ireland. And my Midlands ancestors mated with Normans. Incidentally most Norman ancestry after 1066 moved into Midlands and southern Wales.
White southerners generally descend from Anglo-Saxons and their conquered Celtic natives.
These Anglo-Celts on the borderlands moved into the south.
Most American soldiers are these borderlanders. Frontiersmen, and pioneers who conquer.
There's a 3 video YouTube channel called southern ethnicity and he covers this.
England and Scotland's most violent warlike military regions and where white southerners come from. Dixies are a Anglo-Celtic warrior race. Again most U.S soldiers, international mercenaries and volunteers, and militias in America since foundation to today, are southern. Even northern militias In the U.S absorbed warriors from immigrants from the south in the militia movement.
Southern culture is a martial culture. Where you think most cops and marshalls are in America per capita?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
16:28
Natufian ancestry is near universal among people of the Caucasoid skull.
While ancestral frequency is a factor, we weirdly all descend from Natufians.
In Anatolia western hunter gatherers, local Anatolian hunter gatherers which I know next to nothing about, and Natufian farmers, created Anatolian farmers, which we know are universal ancestors of every European and middle-eastern.
Examples of skeletons or living people (if the genes didn't get bred out) you can find Natufian ancestry pretty much everywhere.
Why it's successfully prevelant, genetically high and intact in some places like south Arabia who actually score the highest, or some Berber tribes is pretty interesting.
Natufian ancestry is odd.
Obviously a Moroccan or a Saudi or even a Ethiopian would have more of such ancestry, and dna from them, but you and me also descend from them.
The Natufians also is where Afro-Asiatic came from.
They kept Afro-Asiatic languages and mix with pre Natufian populations.
If Natufians conquered Europe, killed 90% of everyone then we'd speak Afro-Asiatic.
But they're ancestry and contributions in the European genome is minimal. Negligible really. But present if you look hard enough.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm glad you called America a Germanic nation, most white Americans doesn't matter if it's 1% or 99% most Americans have Germanic blood and American culture is Germanic, even black people are tiny small percentages of Germanic through England or small Lowland Scots,
America is a perfect example of the Germanic switch, our nation is generally peaceful, orderly, kind and disciplined but we convert to brutal cruel savagery at the face of disgust or hardship be it the Civil War or civil rights movement were outright crimes and war atrocities were committed by white men with Germanic anger and fury, the modern globalist, atheist, socialist and haters of cultural hegemonic uniformity and assimilation which nations and right wingers love is cultural compliance and conformity as to not contradict morals, comes the dumb left who push insane levels of cultural tolerance which leads to conflicting cultural norms many consider as disgusting, the right wingers of predominantly Protestant and Anglo-Germanic origins will lose patience and order and start acting like a mad monkey drunk on wafin a violent drug and start going berserk and start slaughtering anarchists and feminists on their next large crowds.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
in the future who is white in America won't be literal Pink skincolor from the edges of northern Europe.
But the entire Caucasoid world who share the bonestructure and skullshape and broadly similar genetics. And who descend from Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals.
AKA Middle-Easterners, Europeans of all kinds, and North Africans. Even Pakistans and Northwest Indians and a occasional central Asian.
No hopes ever for anyone else. America always retreats to a white supremacist or pseudo-favoritism society. Rather full on supremacism or just cultural arrogance.
But each time it get's broader in order for less unrest.
The definitions of skintones will change to. How do we transition from white, to whitish-olive, to olive, to whitish-tan, to tan, to tannish-olive, to brownish-olive, to brown, and from brownish-black to black. New shades will be shifted by definition to appear closer to white skintone. As it always did in the U.S
Tan skin Turks and Olive skin levantines will be considered white.
And as genetic and anatomy and phenotype science knowledge get's better and people actually realize "oh shit we are related" the cro-magnon shape skull bone structure common cro-magnon descent people of Midde-East and North Africa will be considered white. However if they convert to Christianity doubly so.
If not less so less status.
I mean there are tribes and clans in North Africa, Central asia and middle-east who are white for various convergent evolution, common ancestor or genetic mutation climatic adaptation reason. As it's more complicated in skintone variety diversity than previously thought of in the west.
As well as it's phenotype affinity and skintone fluctuations which fuse on a basis over there.
I could explain that for hours but certain traits aren't inherent to certain ethnicities. People conclude common ancestry for common traits. But bring it earlier than it actually is. With some traits being older than thought. color eyes and hair exist across the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-Aryan world but without direct links to Europe. Except occasional ancestry chains in India amongst Indo-Aryans. While others were mutations.
I loved your end of video demographic summery which I can happily explain on my channel one day in reaction to that scene.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I hate to say it but if there's one thing i can guarantee from China is mass death than mass repopulation.
China has very odd fertility patterns.
I hate to sound racist but the Chinese have a rabbit like racial imperative to breed exorbitant numbers beyond reason even by human standards (I'm sorry that sounds racist)
For some reason whenever there's a Murderous regime, a genocide, insurrection or a rebellion or civil war, or a natural disaster like tornado, flood, earthquake and the like, a ridiculous exaggerated millions of digits numbers of people die, and almost as if it's a racial imperative nature they biologically triple the population they loss.
You could guarantee a nuclear murder or a random street murder and that guarantees and unconscious racial nature of the collective to have 3 children and replace the dead.
China had generations of one child policy abortions, famines and genocides killing at least 500 million. And now they triple maybe quadruple in population size replacement number of ww2 ans 20th century dead.
Such a recovery is in my opinion impossible for any other race in style.
The Chinese will never go extinct. You could genocide 500 million, and that'll only create 4 billion replacers. Whereas of You left them alone. Population stagnated.
Some of the worst death count in population is when wars, riots, revolutions or natural disasters happen in China. Like a death magnet
But that the Chinese evolved to specialize replace and exceed recovery.
The Chinese will never go extinct. Especially as they currently have mix, assimilation, misegenation and sinicization policies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ukraine and Russia are neither winning or Losing.
It's stalemate.
Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya Hezbollah, Houthis, and other Shia militia backed proxies of the IRGC of Iran, and some Afghans are supplying Russia,
South Korea and Japan, Australia, America, and the European union is supply Ukraine.
I am sorry but this war is gonna last multiple years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
With lack of freedom to be fair, we'd at least if a empire ruled hundreds of planets, conquered earth, a billion people will die but the survivors have a galaxy to explore new medicines, sciences, food, and technology that will save billions of lives, trade improved economy, and without the alien empire by 2050 we'd be 13 billion or something now we're 50 billion and on at least 3 planets. Some of us will be slaves some of us forbidden to access new tech, but once emancipation and the liberalization of their empire happens as with any colonial empire things will improve In times of prosperity as it always happens. Even if we lost a continent say Australia to a new majority extraterrestrial colonial population. Scientists from different races from different worlds and new artists, philosophers and others will beauty earth with a new cosmopolitan empire. And travel finding work will be easier.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677
The word English is a ethnic not civic identity tied only by blood and dna and by blood and dna alone. It's not if your born in England or not. A immigrant from someone with no Anglo-Saxon and Celtic ancestry, that is the hybridized of the English of the day, someone without this ancestry can't be English. But Englishman, 1 million Englishman right now could leave England, move to Siberia, build a city, refuse to marry a Russian or native Siberian, I don't give a fuck what you said that mythical example hypothetical city 200 years later are still English.
British is the civic identity that you lose after multiple generations.
Not English.
The word English comes from Angle, and etymologically comes from Anglecynn. Which literally translates as race of the Angles.
Because English are like Arabs in that you can leave your homeland, build a empire, conquer somewhere else, and the colonists are still English.
for 300 years the English built the British Empire, and this great nation spread it's ethnicities to many lands by exterminating the natives. The culture diverged from England but is still it's offshoot therefore is still Anglic.
Similar to how England is Germanic but not Germany.
Arab tribes 1000 years ago left that peninsula for North Africa. Even after 1000 years they are still Arab.
Englishman left England 200 years.
They are still English.
It's their inherited ancestry and culture.
Yes they have diverged and differed. But they are still English.
Many Englishman do consider their diaspora to be English.
It's only the leftists who deny it.
But those from England who like anthropology,
or those who are into nationalist and imperialist and colonialist politics,
Many I have met, would and will and have considered many Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders to be English transplants.
The Quebecans are for example French.
No one denies that.
Argentinians are Spaniards.
So Englishman outside of England are still English.
As the Arabs who left for Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt consider themselves Arabian.
The colonist doesn't cease to belong to a ethnicity just because his ancestors left the homeland of his kin by moving into another land.
1
-
@Yehnah677 Morocco is a Arab country like Saudi. Excluding the indigenous Berbers the Culture of Morocco is Arabic and the Arab colonists are Arab. But Arab Moroccan Culture is very different and divergent from Arabia but its still Arabic.
America is a Anglo-Saxon country very divergent but still derived from England exactly how the English are derived from Germans.
The Arabs mixed with Berbers but the admixture doesn't mean they're still Arab.
English are German just mix with Celts.
American isn't a ethnic moniker its a civic one so if your American, unless your a redskin native American, you belong to some other ethnicity.
If you told a Arab in England he's not Arab because he wasn't born in the peninsula he'd get mad.
Many Arabs live outside of Arabian peninsula.
They bring their hereditary ethnicity with them.
Englishman left the island of Britain. They and their descendants bring there ethnicity with them.
It's hereditary.
The Angles left Germany for Britain. They're still Angles. A tribe. A ethnicity.
They had diaspora in the middle ages. Many left to Nova Anglia, a English colony in Byzantine Crimea,
They had diaspora in Australia.
In Canada.
They're still English.
If your English by geography only than apply this offensive standard to Arabs outside the geography of Arabia.
Englishness is Anglic.
Anglic refers to English descendant Culture. Divergence yes exists.
In America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Equally. Slavic exists, Turkic exists, Arabic, Indic, civilizations that extend country or geography prior to nationalist nation states.
I will say it.
I'll use English compared to Arabs.
Cultural Divergence and ethnic Divergence exist in a expense of geography, across the former British Empire and Arab caliphate respectively.
Ethnicity isn't bound to a peninsula or Island's geography respectively for comparison.
Ask a English or Arab who studies politics right of center, or studies anthropology and cultural ethnicity history.
Its blood that makes you a member of the Arabs or the English.
Or Turks or other comparisons.
Sure, yes, people mix. So what?
Anglo-Saxons mix with the Celts and Normans. But they were absorbed and assimilated.
The Arabs absorbed and assimilated non Arab Semitic populations in Mesopotamia and Arabia. But ethnicity isn't disqualified by admixture or cultural influence. Merely makes you a new branch of a existing ethnic group.
It's blood.
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677 You said your part Danish.
Danes are Germanic.
How dare you demonstrate ignorance.
Germanic refers to English, Dutch, Liechtenstein, Luxembourgish, Flemish, Swiss, Austrians, Germans, even Lowland Scots descending from Anglic Northumbrians. English proper, Iceland, Faroese, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
All are Germanic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677 It's not want.
You either are or aren't.
It's bound to you.
It's like asking a Moroccan why he wants to be Arab or not. He either is or isn't.
Just because he doesn't live in Arabia doesn't mean he's not Arab,
Just because I don't live in England doesn't mean I am not English.
My ethnicity is hereditary.
My ancestors are scholars, nobles, poets, soldiers, architects, farmers, artists and every other trade that exists on humanity like everyone else.
But they did it as Englishman. They're father was English as his father before him and before him.
Just in a cultural, or divergent offshoot colonial, context that relates to Englishness.
It's my ancestry.
The Native Americans who hate my guts think me a invader on their land from somewhere else.
Guess where they think I am from and belong?
As a Berber where he thinks the Arab in his country belongs.
You are or you aren't.
it's not a identity you pick up.
It's a ethnicity. Or dare I say "race" (in a ancestral not biological context) (Though English isn't a race i'm just making a symbolic point)
My ancestry is owed to me the legacy of the heroes of England, any man of culture, of England, is my association.
As the English identified with Hengist and Horsa.
Do they not. Well where are they from? Not Britain. But Germany.
Englishman are just a tribe. A tribe of Germans.
Englishman are German. Because it's a ethnic heritage.
It's ancestry.
I am as much owed to the accomplishments, both good and bad, as Englishman who stayed behind in Britain.
Take this.
Englishman who live outside of England are more responsible for the heritage of British Imperialism culture than those in England as it was English politicians, colonists, imperialists and soldiers who left England to expand the borders of the British Empire.
Englishman are more 12-1500s England culture whereas Imperial wise the British diaspora, (mostly English diaspora) is owed British Empire culture which developed and diverged into America. American culture is just 1700s Georgian era divergent British culture. Britain left that cultural phase as it developed. America and Canada are conservative enough to be in that timecapsule.
In Australia and New Zealand they have general heritage from Victorian era British imperial culture.
Conserving that version of British culture.
Diverging from heartland Britain.
unless CANZUK helps break down the borders.
England culturally today has changed to more resemble the heritage of the 2nd Elizabethian era culture.
Since the politicians and soldiers who stayed behind in Britain didn't expand the Empire unlike the men who left Britain to expand the borders of the Empire.
America, Australia, New Zealand, And Canada are extensions of Britain as Anglo-Celtic if all encompassing hybrid terms including English and Celts are applied.
Divergent. but still extensions.
5 countries. 1 nation.
Arabs are one nation.
But the Arab colonies of Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, despite Arab colonization are 1 nation but extensions of a mother country in Arabia.
So these standards the Arabs use.
I use as analogy for the English and Britons as a whole.
If you dispute English transcending borders as a ethnic heritage of ancestry who's accomplishments are hereditary and one can't have pride in their ancestry.
Apply this not just to the Englishman who live outside of England.
But the Arabs who live outside of Arabia.
I dare you.
Infact I noticed you not once mentioned my usage or how I reference the Arabs so much for my analogy.
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677 Let me also put it simple. If you did a DNA test and shows you are Arab, than you are Arab.
It's a detectable ethnicity. No matter what country he lives in.
Do you deny this?
He has the ancestry. Therefore the heritage. Therefore the identity.
So if you are English and did a DNA test and comes back as English, it simply confirms your a descendant of a cluster of genes that signature shows the common traits among English descent.
Which on the Germanic half is Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians and on the Celtic half, Brigantes, Iceni, Dobunni, Coritani, and dozens of other tribes.
It's why I scuffed and laugh when you mentioned your Welsh and Danish ancestry when these are recipe components that makes up the English genus to begin with.
Danes are apart of the English ethnogenesis anyway do to the first people to call themselves Anglo-Saxon instead of Angle, Saxon or a kingdom identity is when England united adding Danish and Brythonic admixture.
Not only that the ancient Angles claimed descent from Angul and the Danes claimed descent from Danum. Both of whom are brothers and the progenitor of both tribes.
Sons of Humbli whoever he may of been.
I am English, but I also have more recent Danish and Welsh admixture.
Guess what?
It doesn't disqualify my English components, infact it reinforces and adds and causes me to become more English as these two groups are the recipe of the English.
If a Dane and a Welshman had a child that child would be genetically identical to the first kid that was born to a Anglo mother or father and Briton mother or father.
Who's blood and culture is a fusion of those from Britain, the Welsh as remnant, and those from Denmark, which the English come from through directness and a technicality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677 The Anglo-Saxons moved to England and formed the English ethnicity.
The English moved to America.
They did not form the American ethnicity.
They share more incommon with England than with the native American ethnicities that we exterminated and conquered.
If you asked a Native American if I am American he'd say no I am European.
A African American is still an African.
A European American is still European.
or more specific ethnicities, Nigerian American,
or, German American or some other ethnicity example.
America is to England what England is to Germany.
many Americans are English, the English are German.
Cultural differences exist.
But the culture, customs, traditions, language, laws, art, architecture, attire, politics and style of writing, poetry, philosophy, is inspired, or derived from, the previous culture. Just tweaked and diverged into a localized form. but members of the same ethnicity.
Until around the 1960s when Germany, England, and America received millions of Immigrants from ethnicities around the world enriching our culture with diverse minority flavors.
Which are neither bad or good or good or bad. it just is.
But prior to the 60s there was general homogeneity. Divergent yes.
But the standard ethnicity has similarities with each other.
Derived
divergent
related
connected
offshoots.
With similarities and differences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677 If he doesn't have English blood he's not Anglecynn.
if I moved to China I am NOT not could I ever BECOME Han. Not only is Han a ethnicity, Han is a race.
Englishman are the most global ethnic group on the planet.
There are 50 million Englishman in England.
And over 100 million Englishman worldwide.
YES!
Worldwide.
They brought their traditions, their language, and culture.
Americans have nothing in common with Latin Americans or Native Americans.
Canadians have nothing in common with the Native Americans,
Australians and New Zealanders have nothing in common with Indonesians, native aboriginals Maori or other nearby Pacific Islanders and Asians.
The 4 nations have many things in common with British culture.
What we call Western civilization, originally was British Empire And Anglo-American civilization.
Such as constitutional monarchies and Republics.
Ideas of liberty, is Anglo-Saxon in nature.
American cuisine is more akin to old country cuisine.
Australian architecture is more similar to British architecture
Canadian poetry is more alike to Britain's
New Zealand's military doctrine is similar to Britain
the attire is of a Anglo-Celtic fashion.
It's called the Anglosphere.
Nations bound by similar cultures, language, legal system and general ancestry.
As I said. A bluejay cannot become a Cardinal.
We are colonists.
We are Imperialists.
We derived from conqueror ancestors who came to Britain, and from their spread their culture and ethnicity and transplanted them around the world. These transplants are still ethnically English, Welsh, Scottish etc.
A Cardinal cannot become a bluejay.
I am that plain and simple.
it is called the English diaspora.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_diaspora
apart of the Anglosphere.
(Dark blue Anglo nations light blue just commonwealth influence English speakers)
As I said.
Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are Slavic.
Saudi, Oman, Yemen are Semitic Arabic.
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Turkey are Turkic.
America, Canada and Britain are Anglic. With touches of Celtic.
1
-
@Yehnah677 These cultures in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and America are merely local variants and extensions of British culture.
No different to Protestants in Ulster calling themselves Scottish "Ulster-Scots" instead of Irish.
Each county in England has it's own local culture.
It's umbrella as English.
Germany, Norway and England have local cultures.
Under the umbrella of Germanic.
America, Canada, Britain is under the Umbrella of Anglic.
Russia, Serbia, Czechia is Slavic.
Spain, Portugal and Italy is Latin Roman.
Does any of this make sense?
America is at best Anglic. If not English.
But Anglic.
Like Germanic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Frisian_languages#Anglic_languages
imagine them as both ethnic, cultural and linguistic terms.
America is a extension of being Anglic and America and England are Germanic extensions.
These are similar cultures.
America and Britain, are different, but similar. Especially prior to the 60s.
No one expects to be the same and identical.
But we are related.
You get what I mean?
RELATED!
Similar to Libyans being related to Iraqis.
At least the Arab colonists.
I am a colonist.
My culture is 1700s Georgian era culture.
It's nothing like 2000s Elizabethian era culture.
But it is with 1700s Georgian era British culture.
The height of imperialism.
Like father like son America is a domineering Imperialist regime.
I was born in Arkansas.
Most Arkansans are English, Welsh and Scottish. Our culture is Georgian era culture.
From western England.
Immigrants from western England brought their culture, merged it together,
it's called Georgian Era Anglo-American culture.
Meaning I am literally a continuation of 1700s English colonial culture.
It's divergent. It's different.
But I am proud of the English colonists who moved to Arkansas and America.
I am proud of their spread of their culture and their crushing of the native Americans by switching a stone age culture with a modern one.
I am what you are not.
I am a colonialist.
And colonists are from somewhere else.
I am from England at some point in my genealogy.
Arkansas in customs, traditions, art, poetry, architecture, take inspiration, influence and continuation from English colonial culture that transplanted itself into Arkansas.
I am a descendant of this culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yehnah677 I will make a comment that includes every ethnicity on the planet ever.
If your American your an American but you also belong to another ethnicity.
Being an American doesn't disqualify your ethnic membership.
America is the ethnically most diverse place on the planet.
YOU CANNOT SAY AMERICA IS THE MOST ETHNICALLY DIVERSE PLACE ON THE PLANET
if you undermine this racial diversity by simply saying "your all American" discounting any of us ethnicity.
Unless this double standard only includes the English.
if you met an American who's Arab, Sindh, Indian, Chinese, Russian, Bantu, Korean, Persian or other, and he says he's American but also one of these ethnicities.
You will say nothing. You won't dispute nothing.
But if it's English all hell breaks loose.
If you met an American and he said he was Native American, you won't say no your not your just American.
If he was Greek, Jewish, Kazakh, Uighur, or Georgian, Armenian or Turk, you will not say "no your not your just American"
but if you said English American you get annoyed.
English American isn't confusing.
English is the ethnicity.
American is the nationality.
but subconsciously and I notice this a lot with Brits. Which I don't consider myself British because that's a civic identity not a ethnic one,
if a Brit sees someone from any of the hundreds of ethnicities. Like the Medjaks from Indonesia, if you met a American who considered himself a Medjak, you won't say "no your not your just American"
this double standard seems to only apply to the English ethnic group.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GreatestManfromRokiskis Russians are lazy in how they settle and colonize.
The US and British Empire, gather Anglo-Saxons from Hannover and Westphalia Germany, (do to England's use of its temporary German territory and kinship and Hannover dynasty) England proper and the Lowlands Scotland, we settle and colonize hundreds of new villages, cities and towns in US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain itself settled by Anglo-Saxons and various pacific islands and certain parts of East East South Africa highlands.
Russians are afraid of fighting, dying and settling Land, the proper ethnic Russians, they're cowards, Muscovite northern Russia regions, most of their conquests and settlements use Ukrainians, Belarusians and Cossacks who Russify and these Ruthenians actually settle land in harms way of potential death
Ethnic Russians are cowards who won't settle or put down uprisings. Most Russian soldiers In Ukraine for example are minority ethnics In Russia or ethnic Ukrainians loyal to Russia. Russians put themselves in political charge but never risk their lives, preferring using other Slavs who they russify for their fighting. Weakling people.
Yes I'm exaggerating but that's how I feel. How many ethnic Russians really exist if we exclude russified Ukrainians and Belarusians (Ruthenians) how many great soldiers in Russia exist when excluding Russified Ruthenians?
I bet far less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elvenleaf5589 I've been to Mexico and Oklahoma. I've met many tribes.
Aztecs, Mayans, but also Osaga and Caddo, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, I've seen their customs and traditions, and phenotypes. They look like no Berber I met.
Not even Berbers descendants of Native Americans (context Spanish ships with native slaves that Barbary pirates captured) look like natives, whom have diverse phenotypes. Berbers who too, have diverse phenotypes
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christianity is the religion of God, on the form of man, resurrected by himself to himself.
The door of death never closed on Jesus, necromancy didn't resuscitate him, self divine willpower did, the critics point out the death of his body, but ignore our relationship with the immortal resurrection. That the door of death never closed on Jesus, and that he broke it open.
Mankind are the image of God, humans are lesser, but we are made human because God is human. Not because God took on human form for us, but for us to see the appearance of our creator, for the death of his body was his humble way of us knowing we can relate to our God, immortal in the soul, which is consciousness, what we call the father, who the father is greater than the son as is written in the bible, but the son is equal to in essence, just as humans have a soul, the immortal conscious that can never die, tether by the spirit, just as the triune God has the holy Spirit.
His death as sinless is the Adam of success we find eternal life in.
Whereas our ancestor Adam, died a sinner, our mortality is upon us.
The divine body died, but the divine soul can never be annihilated as the critic of crucifix assumes, for if God is annihilated than existence is as well. But we are not.
We must take into logical conclusion that Jesus's is Lord.
Lazarus was resurrected by God,
But the living God resurrected himself,
For his conscious father, returned the soul to his son, to which he is coextential with.
We as man not divine cannot have powers to resurrect ourselves,
But Jesus who is God, defeated death, to redeem us from sin,
For the wages of sin is death and the ultimate act of life is to sacrifice yourself,
Thus Jesus, human before existence, uncreated in divinity of pre existence and pre creation, fashioned a new vessel also human, in creation, born from the Virgin Mary. Thus we worship Lord Jesus.
Jesus once was called good by a man, in rhetorical question Jesus asked why do you call me good? Only good is good.
But instead of doubling down, later announce he was the Good Shepherd.
Thus, who was he? He was the same divine as God who in Psalms, called himself the good shepherd.
Grace by salvation in Christ is everlasting life, immortal in heaven, faith that our sins were ransom, we hold true to what Jesus said to the Sadducees. "God is not the god of the dead but of the living, when he said to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"
Thus saith the Lord.
In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God, and the word was made flesh in the beginning.
This is the words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
32:55 yes, as a friend and man you know I myself see myself start believing crazy right wing things that take me ashock back, what happens Is people you know apply for jobs won't get hired and then get bullied for being Christian or conservative or male or white, and while I don't go racial extremism I gone economic social authoritarian purely as a reactionary retaliation to something i otherwise don't believe in any rationale since but been adopted as a position I opposition to the left. While in a stable society I'd otherwise know is a abhorrent position. When the morally superior position is the tongue and pen. Not the throat (in reference to sectarian threats and insults) and the fist.
Even I had to take weeks offline or stop applying to jobs to cool off from my right wing insanity when I'm mad at diversity quotas refusing to job hire me based on my origins beliefs content or some left wing cyber attacks that tilt me right.
The boiling radicalization is purely retaliatory, you hear any trans person mass shooting or a communist riot burning a block, or a politically unmotivated crime but who's criminal has a happen stance beliefs or social structure, the right than gets angrier and desires to push for violence. Sometimes understandably but often insanely leading to a potential of tit for tat violence.
I've been playing assassin's creed valhalla and I saw the npcs who are called moderates which are right wing and npcs called radicals who are left wing, fight it out in the streets killing each other, staging riots or protests. And then the revolution happened. With state government splitting which side to support.
The past 4 years I saw tit for tat left and right wing protests, rallies, and riots, the news of a terrorist from either spectrum murdering someone, or angry publications calling for the nonsense of aggression towards someone.
Honestly the French revolution was a leftist slippery slope of pro democracy (non American definition) democrats vying for new ideas that hurt social standing, economics, mental health or morality, like the leftists radicals of the French revolution we have modern leftists like the woke.
They are the modern jacobins. And I'm afraid of who their Maximilian Robspiere will be, since industrial killing today is higher in death count than tech allowed in French revolution.
Or American revolution.
Liberal revolutions are brutal and nonsensical. We're better off under monarchal traditionalists kings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Than you don't want me. Oh sure I'm IQ 100, I'm a Christian and I'm white.
But I'm also a Calvinist.
Means I believe in covenant and kingdom theology. Which means I believe all races are equally shit and equally need Christ and Christ kingdom ON EARTH as it is in heaven meaning I want a one world Christian country.
And to do so morally conservatively and word for word to the bible.
And yes this is a Calvinist worldview.
Covenant theology believes we are all sinners elected by God to be the new Israel irregardless of race and kingdom theology means to unite Christiandom into a global relationship similar to NATO, EU or U.N but global.
You say Christian generically but your likely a Baptist and assume your views are the same as this Calvinist here.
(And since I'm a missionary for the near east) My own girlfriend isn't white but near eastern.
You call yourself Christian but you probably only care about white southerners rather than acknowledge that we are all sinners and that Christ will equally unify our cultures.
That's called the post apocalypse world God will recreate.
You say white and Christian like it's success.
Look to Armenia. They are brown/olive and Christian and live well. The Armenian country would die than it's from neighboring Turks.
But let's go deep into Africa and Asia.
When Ethiopia existed in medieval times. Most prosperous developed country in Africa
Look at the Turks in the 500s. They were building a great Christian empire.
Than sadly they became Muslim.
And look at Europe. It left Christianity. It's poorer
And overtime the economy, industry and Christianity has increased in simultaneous unity do to growth Christianity.
I look into index statistics, industrialization, and economy, is increasing wherever Christianity does. Thus why whiteness?
If the whole world converted to calvinism we'd fulfill the post millennialist prophesy.
There's two prophesies in the bible.
7 year tribulation apocalypse end times if the world fail to Christianity,
And if world becomes Christian, a period of prosperity than a peaceful Christ Ascension. Both are prophesied in the end times despite contradiction and it's both are contingency.
IQ improves with protestantism (Baptists aren't protestant they're radical reformation)
Look at African countries that converted to calvinism, they're reach.
America was rich when it was Calvinist. Now it's Baptist and or irreligious and is thus getting worst.
The Muslim world, Indonesia is doing better than most Muslim countries because despite being Muslim, it has more Calvinists than any other Muslim country, and now they're more developed than either Pakistan who's greatest tech is just nukes or Bengladesh. They're closest to geographically.
Color is irrelevant, Calvinism is true, IQ improves with Calvinist diet and education
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a American I always feared the idea of going to war with a steppe nation because you'll have to kill a lot of them. We lost the war against the Afghans a rural herder steppe nation because they had tribes and guerilla warfare, but also 50-80 million people including ethnic millions of Pashtuns and Turks in nearby diaspora countries.
And I would fear going to war with Ukraine, Russia or Kazakhstan, because waging a war with the steppes in the modern day ever since their population exploded do to modern technology and medicine, you'll have to kill millions to win, including civilians.
If you want to win a war with Russia, or central Asian Turks, they're not gonna surrender just because you killed several million women, which would make any other country vengeful but go at peace, they'll just fight at ad infinitum. I am just describing not condoning reality as I hate and despise warcrime atrocities. But to win a war in the steppes today, your not gonna win just because you killed 20 million Russians or 20 million Turks, or 20 million Pashtuns/Balochs/Tajiks. Central Asian steppe peoples will fight forever and all that attrition means nothing. They'd rather lose mass populations that would cause middle easterners or Europeans to surrender,
Kill counts like that only have one comparable amount of death toll crazy, and that's Chinese civil wars.
1
-
1