Really? I thought the Orthodox and Catholic churches celebrated more saints together than one?

@@kingemperorpenguin1 they celebrate pretty much all the Saints that came before the 1054 split.

@@flaviusbelisarius7517 kinda. Though they don't officially recognize each other's saints after the split, there is still a ton of respect for them. You will be hard pressed to find an Orthodox who doesn't at least privately recognize Joan of Arc for example. It isn't official because she wasn't Orthodox, but everyone agrees that she deserves sainthood.

???

As long as u we don't talk about me divorcing my wife!

I see the dragon as the Emperor's own "pagan" god and the sheep the offerings George refused to give. Him giving his life up to promote Christianity is him getting the girl and saving the kingdom

i prefer shrek?

Saints don't intercede on our behalf, they are all worshiping the one true God same as we all will one day.

@@xcritic9671 I do not see how those two statements are mutually exclusive

@@rtwfreak2012 Not sure why you don't, He doesn't need their help and it isn't their job.

If I were to ask you to pray for my soul, would you, if you did so, help god or me? Would you overstep the role that we as believers have in the world? Of cause god does not need a human souls help, but I sure do! The Saints can Intercede on our behalf, just as the living can, this implies that they worship the god of the trinity. That is why I do not see the point you made in your initial comment.

@@rtwfreak2012 I'm still in this world, my job is not done yet, theirs is.

Couldn't be a Republic?

Reject Modernity (St George) & Embrace Tradition (St Edmund) No offence intended.

God speed and good luck!

France probably had the greatest 19th century artists.

So did the English though, the old english flag (not St George's or the royal standard) was a white dragon on a red banner.

Are you new to history? That's a pretty old idea. Why do you think even in modern times a father walking his daughter down the aisle of her wedding is called "giving away"? I suggest you steer clear of more history if things like that irk you.

Brittania waves the rules....Bojo

There was no such thing as English back in the early 300s, that concept didn't appear until the Saxons arrived.

It is a word but a very archaic one. Most dictionaries do not recommend its use for that reason.

KingEmperorPenguin The SAT has lied to me!

I use irregardless, never knew it was archaic

I don't think so

There are Komodo dragons.

"Irregardless" is an archaic form of "regardless".

In some versions he does, there's no one definitive account of the dragon slaying story.

Cry me a river celtioid

Turkey did not exist in IV century. In that time Capadocia and Britain belonged to the same country: The Roman Empire.

Not sure if sarcastic... ...or hasn't watched the video.

What does it matter? We take the positive lessons from his life.

He was Greek.

@@kingemperorpenguin1 He's a third worlder trying to take credit for the veneration of historic Christian populations. Not only can they not take credit for Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean, they can't even take credit for the non-Arabized Christian populations of native Levantine, Copts, Berbers, etc

"Turkey" in 4th century? He was a greek in the Roman Army.

You might want to check out Survive the Jive's videos on the topic: What does it mean to be English? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lc-Gl9xh2J6lgnk.html The History of Britain and her People kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fZ6UnK-BuZzPhYk.html

@@kingemperorpenguin1 Jive's video (good job using white nationalist apologetics as your sources btw) even says the english [anglo-saxons] originated on the continent. The celts aren't indigenous either (and their genetic distinction also isn't trivial, unless you also consider the genetic difference between Norwegian and most Ethiopian peoples trivial, but i doubt you would). You know what indigenous means?

@@aintnoslice3422 If the Celts aren't indigenous and the Anglo-Saxons cannot be said to be indigenous even after being in the land for centuries, who can be said to be indigenous to the British Isles? Moreover, none of this does much to dismiss a more fundamental point that England is the home of the English and British people today and they don't deserve mistreatment and nor do they deserve individuals or groups telling them that the British Isles don’t really belong to them. If it is permissible to insult Englishmen and say they have no claim to the land which their ancestors have lived in for centuries, then it must also be permissible to do the same to the Maori in New Zealand and to the Native American Indians in America, for they are not “indigenous” either as they came from other lands originally. Yet both groups lived in these lands for centuries before Europeans encountered them and I haven't met someone who has seriously tried to argue that the American Indians and the Maori are not native or indigenous to their countries. Do you actually want to tell the Maori that New Zealand never really belonged to them or the Native American Indians that their lands weren't really stolen because they were never truly indigenous?

@@kingemperorpenguin1 Excellent video Penguin. I think you have expended more energy than it is worth on Ain't No Slice's argument. To such people it is all very simple. To them The English don't belong here but everybody else does.

​@@kingemperorpenguin1 Again, you don't know what indigenous means. Indigenous means the earliest inhabitants of a Land: Not anyone who's been in a place for a long time. That is true for the Aboriginals, Maori and Native Americans, not the English or Celts (or almost all Europeans ethnic groups for that matter). There were multiple now extinct neolithic and prehistoric peoples who inhabited Britain before the Celts (the earliest of which had Dark skin, which is not relevant, but always for some reason infuriates white nationalist). If you want to extend 'indigenous titles' to the oldest 'surviving' people, then sure, the Celts are indigenous. You talk about respecting the land rights of Australian Aboriginals, and Native Americans, and Maori, yet these people don't have their own land (and i bet you'd be one of the last people to admit to the barbaric and cruel actions and legacy of the British Empire or champion the repatriation of the British diaspora from "the colonies" so these indigenous people's can have their own nations. Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong). 'English and British people'? And who gets to be English according to You? Do you get the right to be the judge? That's lucky. The perimeters are always political. Don't use dog whistles with me. People who are born in England, who consider themselves English, who's ancestors have lived in England for generations, who have embraced every faced of English culture and values are dismissed of their identity as English because of the colour of their skin or doctrines of their faith. What is with those people who have an obsession with race/ethnicity as the defining or primary measure of a person? Who'd consider a white person born in England who rejects all manners of 'English culture and values' "English" before an ethnic Indian/African/Muslim who does. Its the great fallacy of racists to see ethnicity as a measure of nationality, or racial/ethnic identity to be an eternal, distinct, universal truth, rather than the fluid and structural entity it is. What "mistreatment" are you talking about? Actually treating minority populations as human beings? Actually admitting to the shames of Britain's past as well as its accomplishments? Stop 'policing' who is English/British as if they have that right in the first place?

I thought your second name was "look". Lol.

@@kingemperorpenguin1 As always, majesty, your humor is marvelous

@@lookatthepicture4107 I try... sometimes.