PATRILINEALITY (aka patrireality) for dummies... i.e. I am restoring my old thread.

[Rethel]

One was here such thread, and I was ging to restore it. So,
the tme comes, and I am doing it again. Let's start with the
most idiotic modern state which is of course the Kingdom of
Sweden - feminitic paradise who is a cadaver in reality.



I was also searching for this stupidest present country ever
because her citizens were writing here the stupidest things
about identity, state and national issues and finally I find it.
Yea!

Obviously they had the same rule and
principle as every civilized or IE country

1. First act about citizenship was made in 1858. It was very laconic act because mostly
contained the problem of naturalisation. The naturalisation of men - of course - only.

2. The second act from 1894 which textualized the ius sanguinis
principle which was generally known and practice in previous times

3. So according to this act the new born child legally acquired
Swedish citizenship through his father - and only through him.
The swedness of a person came only from the father.

4. Novelty about naturalisation constitutes that if a man
acquired the swedish citizenship, this aquisition includes
automatically also his wife and his children.

5. The citizenship of a marry woman was
dependent on the citizenship of her husband.

6. A woman who did marry a swedish men automatocally
acquiered swedish citizenship. This included also their
children born to both of them before the marriage.

8. A swedish woman who married a foreigner, did lost her
citizenship even if she not aquired her husbands citizenship.
The same rules applied to the unmarried children.

9. If the man did lost swedish citizenship regardless
reasons his wife and children had been losing it too.

The first feministic change was made in 1950 when women
were allowed to kept their citizenship if they were married,
but children did still have their father's citizenship only and
swedish woman could not transmit her swedishness to her
children when she was married to a foreigner. So the principle
essentialy remain the same - wives are not the children.

It was like that until 1979 when other perversions started to be
introduced - for example the moronic royal act. The same was
made with swedishness not only because of the idiotic feminist
policy but also because swedish women were in large number
married to immigrants and their foreign children had no swedish
citizenship at all. But the feminism was of course the main reason.

So until 1979 Sweden was normal patrylinear country which was
recognizing, that nationality - the same as many other things is
transmitted only by the husband and the father. In 1979 Sweden
actually died as a civilize normal country, especially when illegaly
dethroned the crown prince, raping one of the most fundamental
rules: that lex retro non agit. The End. The End of Sweden also.

[Wanderer]

In patrilineal terms, I am Italian. Works for me; I'm happy with that. But I don't really agree with you. I definitely still consider someone like Bruce Springsteen to be Italian. The traditional inheritance of citizenship exclusively via paternal descent is one thing. Ethnic identity, however, is another matter.

[Rethel]

Today I was speaking with my father about our ancestors grave which did breake.
Becasue it is 120 km away, some people gave the message to my aunt (his sister).
She gave it to us and on this her role ended. Now we have to deal with that. And
on the margine was spoken about maybe she will do something; no she will not; she
does not consider them (grands) the family; yea; [she's now in another] I said: actually
she is right; father: yea, woman will be always foreign. End of the talk. And he is not
into genealogy, herealdy, genetcs at all. He simply knows, naturally. As many other people
with whom sometimes coincidently the talk will go into such matters, they just know what
is right and sometimes are expressing this on the margine of the talk about something else.
They ususally know the right view (presented in almost every society) until some perverted
genetist (or mad genealogist) will come and will make difficult things which are straight.

Many normal average people, when you speak with them about Y-dna, they always
assume correctly, that if someone has different results, then are foreigners, usurpers.
It is just the very natural for people who do not lead long disscussions with morons
in Internet, and usually are not into such matters. But the natural order they know.

[Rethel]

In patrilineal terms, I am Italian.

Of course, I am explaining this to you since the beginning as patiently as I can.

Works for me; I'm happy with that.

Wonderfull.

The traditional inheritance of citizenship exclusively via paternal descent is one thing.

Of course that citizenship doesn;t equal this bizzare term as ethnicity.
I am polish German, so I am very good polish citizen sunce hundrets of
years, but I cannot claim, that I am the original Pole who get here with
the legendary forefather Lech - and I will never be able, even after the
thousand of years. It is just a fact.

Ethnic identity, however, is another matter.

But you also are not ethnicly something, becasue granny was.

At the evening I get another examples.
I thought I have these posts preserved,
but unfortunatly I had only the swedish
one. Rest of posts, I must restore on my
own. It needs time.

[Rethel]

Now Poland.

The whole sarmatian identity it taken from the chronicle's accounts
that Poles are descended from Javan, son of Japheth. Szlachtamen
until this day are described as Grand/sons of Japheth in journalistics
or literature slang. One of the first acts about citizenship (almost in
modern meaning, not subjectdom per se) which was equal with being
a nobleman, it is a law in constitution called Nihil Novi (nothing new)
from the year 1505, where it is constituted, that for a nobility these
considered should be who have only a father a szlachtaman, but are
from the mother of the common estate born. This was the rule since
ever, and was the principle until the end of the Kingdom of Poland in
the end of XVIIIth century. What is interesting, the very name of the
estate, szlachta, comes from german word Geschlecht, which means
family-house-kindred (equivalent of slavic word ród) and the structure
of szlachta was exactly like that. Everyone belonged to his own family,
his own house, his own armorial clan - all patrilineal of course, as the
whole noble state, unchanged through hundrets of years, since ever,
since the original slavic family-house commonwealth. Patri also. Never
changed as long, as nobility existed as the law estate (until 1921) and
as the factual estate 1945/until now, becasue exactly the same rules
and principles had countries which partitioned Poland and dependent
polish states from XIXth century... so there is no sense to repeat it.

Let's look at the XXth century. The modern century
as the flatty thinking of some mental TA-castrates.

The first statute in reborn Poland about citizenship
was the act about polish citizenship from the 1920.

The act constitutes:

4. Polish citizenship can be obtain by:
1) birth
3) becoming a wife (NOT a HUSBAND).

5. By birth legal children are obtaining the citizenship of the father.

7. By becoming a wife, obtains the polish citizenship a foreigneress
who is marrying a polish citizen (obviously a man).

Act does also mention the possibility of losing citizenship by a woman who did marry a foreigners.

This act was in force, until 1951, when new stalinistic law was made.
The law, which did break all possible and logical principles.

But even communists did not belive in such things as they promoted,
because they themselves were raised in normal times. So, when they
did make resettlements after the war, the ethnicity of the husband
decided, where the family will live. For example - if the head of the
house was an Ukr, then the family who was resettled was going to
USSR; if was a Pole - the family was going to the Poland. As a rule.

So, Wanderer, if he would live in 1945, would NOT
go to the Ukrainian Socialistic Sovietic Republic...

[Ülev]

yep

[Rethel]

I allready said, that the guy is mostly deluded ugly neopagan,
with some traces of OWD, predicted his I1ness aso, but here
since the linked moment, he speaks reasonably - actualy mostly
the same, the point, what I am talking to TA-morons on and on
about. Obviously I do not support his weird idiotic pagan views,
I advise to not watch that part of his creativity, the same as
beginning of this video, where he is trying to convince that
every hg can be IE... if is white...

I guess, he probably reads our forum and me, becasue sometimes
some sanity is showing in his videos concerning matters which we
talk here about - this is to strong coincidence to be a coincidence

[Dick]

I allready said, that the guy is mostly deluded ugly neopagan,
with some traces of OWD, predicted his I1ness aso, but here
since the linked moment, he speaks reasonably - actualy mostly
the same, the point, what I am talking to TA-morons on and on
about. Obviously I do not support his weird idiotic pagan views,
I advise to not watch that part of his creativity, the same as
beginning of this video, where he is trying to convince that
every hg can be IE... if is white...

I quess, he probably reads our forum and me, becasue sometimes
some sanity is showing in his videos concerning matters which we
talk here about - this is to strong coincidence to be coincidence

I messaged him. He will join the forum and discuss his ugliness and OWD with you due to his "I1ness" according to you.

[Rethel]

"I1ness" according to you.

How he is I1 according to me, if he said it himself?

[Dick]

ugly neopagan,
with some traces of OWD

Ad-hominems against him only because he is I1? Would you say the same if he was R1?