/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

>>7366

>Would our ancestors really have refused or scorned marriage with pretty women from other races? I know they rarely got exposed to them at all, so that may never have been answered.

Well one of the first converted kings of england (someone from kent i think) was so easily converted because his wife was christian, and as this happened in a time when christianity was only existand in hidden, monkish enclaves, this must have meant that he had been married to a celt or a frank from the mainland, which contradicts the supremacist believe.

>Did the Vikings raid others because they were another race and thus inferior, or because they were another country? I think their behavior would have been no different if their victims had been the same race as them. Thoughts?

Well vikings were really similar to the anglo saxons, geneticly they were the same, and i don't think the language would have divered a lot either, as they all originated around denmark, and in the case of the jutes they were from denmark. Also, the reason harald tanglehair pursued his political enemies to such a length was because they were raiding the norwegian coast AKA their former home. I personally believe that raiding was just done for political reasons and hunger.

Are you fkin avin a giggle m8. You think a Scandinavian having a french wife is race mixing?

Vikings might have raped arabic women/slaves but they wouldn't have children with them or marry them. That's about as degenerate as they get, keeping in mind it was probably only a few bandits from Sweden that did this sort of shit.

I would say the fact that our ancestors and almost every ancient people were homogenous for the vastness of human history, is a great indicator that we should be opposed to race mixing. Race mixing is a modern tool being used to destroy the national identities and ethnicities of europe.

We shouldn't even be having this conversation which makes me think you are some Jew Shill. These were an ancient people do you think they gave a shit about niggers that they never see.

>the only lore I've read is the havamal

it shows

why have we been getting so many wiccatru pseudo atheist idiots around lately?

Period sources here are not as useful for answering your question as you seem to think they would be. We know well enough what our ancestors thought of homosexuality and miscegenation to conclude confidently that the prechristian period of Germanic history was not some sort of thousand-year interracial pedo gay fuck orgy. Maybe they pushed them all into bogs, maybe they didn't.

The period of history in which we find ourselves today makes it clear what our position should be. Yes, even if you dig up some purported third edda full of stories about how Thor was constantly taking it up the ass from Freyfaxi and Loki really was a transracial transsexual quadriplegic midget. Yes, even if you find a sworn, signed, sealed statement from Tacitus that he fabricated the contents of Germania. This is a question we can answer on the recognizance of our folk alone without reaching for support in the lore.

Today we find the cohesiveness of our race constantly under attack from hostile cultural influences. They want to tear apart our families and our communities and replace them with degenerate, debased substitutes that weaken our birthrates, our culture, and even dilute our very ancestry. Given the threats we face, it does not matter what Norse Vikings thought about these issues. If we are to defend the frith of our folk, we must put traditional procreative family at center stage and harshly condemn miscegenation.

So what does it matter what Norse Vikings did? Who cares how the Alemanni handled this hundreds of years ago? Seriously, of what relevance would the prechristian Anglo-Saxon view be, when the answers to these questions for us today are so strongly colored by the circumstances we face here and now? They didn't face the same cultural onslaught we face. We should learn from their values and wield the intelligence and wisdom we inherited from them to answer them.

This is something you should have put into the generic questions thread.

>>7371

No, I'm not fuckin' havin a giggle, and I'm not your mate. You're kind of a retard.

Do you believe if a Norse or Germanic man met a beautiful, intelligent Arabian woman he wouldn't even consider marrying her?

And do you think if their warriors met–even fought against–a skillful and honorable Masai or something that they would have any less respect for him because he was African?

The reason we're having this conversation is because I think those questions are hard to answer. I can tell you for sure our ancestors would have a lot more respect for pic related than they would have for most of your weak, neckbearded asses.

Race mixing is not anyone's "tool", because no one is forcing or orchestrating it. Race mixing is something being done independently by people who simply are willing to fuck and marry people of other races.

>>7373

What do you mean, we know well enough what they thought? We don't. That's my point.

Race does not equal culture. The forces attacking our culture are not racial, but social. I've seen way more white SJWs and weak, dependent people than any other race, in fact. Our cultural problems have nothing to do with what color our children are, they're because of a shitty society that encourages dependence, irresponsibility, and weakness, and discourages loyalty, skill, and self-reliance. Do you honestly think race factors in to that? Please explain. I'm not here to start a flame war, I'm here for honest answers.

>>7375

>racemixing is not anyone's tool because no one is forcing or orchestrating it

thats why its forced into tv and movies and orchestrated into porno right? Christ we sure are getting alot of new faggots around here. You argue like a tumblrina with your head stuck up your ass. "mate" is slang around here, nobody actually considers you their m8 you autistic sperg.

I personally don't believe that Africans are inferior, just different and not compatible to our society. I actually do respect some African cultures but that doesn't change that they invade our lands and abuse our charity.

also it doesn't matter what the ancient tribes believed as far as interracial marriage because it was so long ago that it didn't matter. How many interracial couples do you think there were in fucking 500 BC? "interracial" back then was a German and roman mating. A German mating with an African was so rare that of course there wasn't some written law about it, it didn't even exist, so stop pretending like you know the will of our ancestors any better than the rest of us. We are at risk of being bred out of existence, if laws against interracial marriage didn't exist back then, they should now. You're probably the same kind of faggot who says "we should change with the times! But only when it agrees with MY opinions!"

also "race does not equal culture " top kek. So you're saying that if Germany was completely replaced with black people it wouldn't change the culture at all as long as they spoke German and ate pretzels? What about if Africa was replaced with white people but they still kept African culture? And uet you probably whine about "cultural appropriation" at your community college Wiccan sabbaths. You're a fucking joke walhaz.

also, in the later heroic lays of the poetic edda, there is a certain character named Erp, the bastard son of Attila the Hun and a German woman. His pureblood half brothers often called him a "brownish bastard". But those Vikings sure loved cuckold orgies right? Go choke on a rabbis cock, that is if you aren't already sucking your own.

>>7375

>race does not equal culture

where does culture come from?

Spring out of the fucking ground?

Also

>>7366

>muh bogs

>hurr I'm going to ignore evidence and just make up hypothetical questions of what if our ancestors hadn't killed faggots but actually liked them?

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

OP you're a special kind of retard, you know that?

>>7377

It is not forced into anything. The media knows the sjws love it, so it sells. The media does not try to control the people. It doesn't fucking care, it's not a single force with a purpose to change society. It just seeks to profit from change that's already happening.

And if black people spoke german and ate pretzels? No, they would still be the same. But if they were raised in a traditional German household? They would be much different people then. Parenting and education matter more than race, I think. Our culture is weak because our children are not taught to be strong. Not because they are no longer white. If you or I were raised by Africans, we'd most likely be just like them.

I dislike cultural appropriation. Cultures must be preserved. I just believe that race is mostly independent of culture. Culture is passed on through parenting, nothing more.

And I never suggested vikings had "cuckold orgies". Most probably found gay sex–in men at least–distasteful, just like most men today. I am just saying everyone here says they were all bog'd with very little proof.

>>7378

Culture comes from a group with time spent together, in relative isolation. Do you really think people of each race are preprogrammed to act a certain way regardless of parenting?

And I am not ignoring the evidence. We have evidence about one single Germanic tribe, by one Roman, in one time period. That does not speak for the thousands of Germanic and Norse groups for all the hundreds of years they existed.

>>7383

he's not even correct in saying "one single tribe" tacitus claimed this was the law among all of the tribes. And it correlates with later Nordic customs. Calling a man cowardly with no founding was punishable by death, and being a coward was punishable by death as well. This is exactly what tacitus said right next to the line about drowning fags, so why should we believe he was wrong? Why is it still debated about Tacitus' authenticity? Nearly everything the man said was correct except the Isis ship thing and some confusions over certain tribes being Celtic or Germanic, which is understandable considering the Rhinish tribes were comprised of both

>>7386

>Why is it still debated about Tacitus' authenticity?

I have no fucking idea where this even came from. I read Tacitus years before I was even a pagan and it's only been in the last month on /pol/ that I heard about Tacitus being a liar.

>>7394

>>7387

>>7386

>>7383

I'm not debating Tacitus's authenticity, I'm just pointing out how limited his information was. The knowlege is secondhand, but I'm not even talking about that. He was a good historian.

However, the Germanic tribes Tacitus studied in Roman times are different in a lot of other ways, especially relating to sexual deviancy, to the Norse, Rus', and others as they were studied later on. The saga of Grettir and the works of Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, who studied the Asatru culture 8 or 9 hundred years after Tacitus did, describe more deviant sex than Tacitus said the Germanic tribes of his time would allow. It makes sense that if more deviancy was accepted in other areas–premarital sex, adultery, etc., even bestiality according to the saga of Grettir–then it's likely that their attitudes on homosex were different as well.

Overall, Tacitus's work isn't enough to represent to entire Asatru culture or the opinion of the gods. I don't think we have enough evidence to suggest that all the gays in Asatru societies were bog'd. And I for one don't see reason to have a problem with people for being gay alone–I agree that most gays I've met are effeminate and bitchy, and I don't like them for that, but their sexuality alone isn't a problem.

>>7396

so what about people who identify more with the Germanic tribes than with the Vikings? My proper ancestors were Germans, not Vikings, so you can shave your whole "only the Vikings were Germanic" newfag shit up your ass.

also, tacitus was a roman commenting on the Germans. The two cultures are far more similar to each other than northern germanics and Islamic Arabs, of course he claimed they were more defiant because it helped accentuate the difference between god fearing Muslims and filthy pagans. He said the rus were filthy because they bathed instead of showered, which according to Muslim law is haram. Why do you trust fadlan but not tacitus?

>>7397

I don't care who you "identify" with. I'm not talking about any one group in particular. All I am questioning is whether all of Asatru is inherently against homosexuality on its own.

Personally, I have no problem with gays as a whole, though I don't like most of them in person. I am here because the Havamal and Asatru worldview in general agree exactly with my morality and outlook, but I have so far not been able to find an Asatru community or site that's not full of raging faggots. They're all either tumblr tier accept-everyone-and-make-them-feel-included heathens-against-hate faggots (which I disagree with because I believe each individual is responsible for their own emotions, it's fine to be gay but it's not our responsibility to stop people making fun of you, if you can't handle it you're emotionally weak). Or, they're screaming to ban the non-whites and bog the gays. There seems to be no in between. To me, race and sexuality are non-issues. Personal strength, self-reliance, and loyalty are what matters in a person.

And I'm not saying I don't trust Tacitus. Tacitus was one of the first great historians, and he was most likely correct as far as his evidence went. Yes, Germanic tribes around 100 CE did drown gays in bogs. I am saying that was not true of all of Asatru cultures in all ~1,200 years they were around, and Ibn Fadlan demonstrates how different the more northern tribes were a few hundred years later.

>>7372

Kiketianity isn't putting up much of a fight anymore and they're looking for something else to attack.

>>7366

The issue with homosexuality is that it is not constructive. In that sort of tribal society procreation was important. A men were needed for manual labor and to go to war to protect their kith and kin. Women were needed to teach and nurse their young. Homosexuality begets nothing but lust. Sex for sex instead of sex for offspring.

The only reason why Romans and Greeks were tolerant of gays was because they were not tribal. They have prosperous large societies with higher populations so they could afford to be indulgent. They could afford men being gay and fucking other men because their was an exponential amount of straight people having kids and raising families.

But bear in mind that a lot of Roman politicians and historians also spoke out against homosexuality. Augustus was one of them. He tried to bring Rome out of degeneracy and tried to make Roman citizens more family oriented.

>>7373

>So what does it matter what Norse Vikings did? Who cares how the Alemanni handled this hundreds of years ago? Seriously, of what relevance would the prechristian Anglo-Saxon view be, when the answers to these questions for us today are so strongly colored by the circumstances we face here and now? They didn't face the same cultural onslaught we face. We should learn from their values and wield the intelligence and wisdom we inherited from them to answer them.

Exactly. The demographic circumstances are worlds apart.

>>7487

Exactly. Civilization itself actively deteriorates masculinity. Not to mention the fact that in civilized society the common people are severely under powered compared to the state. The only reason Christianity was as successful in Europe as it was is because of civilization. The state had the full power to change the public faith overnight and execute those who don't agree.

>>7487

I agree with that. Hell, in a tribal society, if we needed the numbers and were having trouble surviving, I'd probably be throwing rocks at gays myself. (though I'd like to point out that there is mention of gay members of norse tribes keeping a wife and family for the future's sake and still having gay lovers just for the hell of it)

However, like it or not, we're not in a tribal society now. I do not believe the cultural problems we face now have anything to do with race. They're from a shitty society which encourages dependence simply because people are fucking lazy. The solution to that is in the education of children, not breeding. A problem we do face is overpopulation. I believe a nation should be able to feed itself without relying on global trade, and most developed ones today can't, not even close.

The two arguments made here against homosexuality are procreation, and tradition and the gods. Both, I think are wrong. Is there any other argument against homosexuality here?

The reason I ask all of this is that personally, I am not against homosexuality, and I want to confirm whether or not that is entirely incompatible with Asatru.

>>7534

>civilization itself deteriorates masculinity

Are you arguing to abolish civilization entirely? Yes, you might be right that the most manly man of all is the one that lives in a cave with no civilization, but I don't think that's necessary. Civilization is the reason you have the computer you're shitposting on, among other things.

The problem, I think, is with human nature, and the solution is education. The trouble is that once most people–yes, even the purest European white people–grow fat and lazy when they don't need to survive in the wild. They don't need to be strong to eat and protect their family anymore, just go to an office for eight hours a day and write on papers, so they don't bother to be, they think it's not worth the discomfort.

The solution is to teach our children to be strong and self-reliant, physically and emotionally. It's become acceptable now to be emotionally weak, that is a problem only education will solve. We need to teach our children to rely on themselves, to not allow the mere words of others to bother them so much they consider fucking suicide, and to be able to raise their own food and handle themselves in the outdoors.

Then, we can enjoy the real benefits of civilization: The advance of technology and the sciences, more free time to spend with friends and enjoy ourselves, and the further exploration of our world and universe.

>>7597

I think if society collapsed tomorrow I would have no problem with that, I might even be better off. That's not to say that civilization can't be "hacked" to work in our favor. It is as you say, we need to make the next generation more equipped for success rather than degeneracy. The problem is that these "benefits" come with drawbacks. Civilization itself is a careful balance, and the more we build it up, the easier it is for the whole thing to crumble. When you speak of benefits, you probably think about modern medicine, the abundance of food, communication technology, all of the modern luxuries that we benefit from. However, civilization itself also bring problems, such as nuclear power plants that could go Chernobyl and ruin or atmosphere and oceans (Fukushima), corrupt governments that operate on a system of protection in exchange for extortion, the power for one person to decide to import thousands of foreigners into other parts of the world, nuclear weapons that could end us all in an hour, universalized religion, cultural degeneration due to overabundance of resources, and super diseases that are resistant to antibiotics, just to name a few. Not to mention that because we have specialized and only a few people produce the food of the many, we have genetically lessened ourselves because the weak and stupid can survive just as easily as anyone else. If somebody has a genetic mutation that would normally prevent them from surviving in the wild, they can just easily get a job, and then pass that trait on to their children who pass it on to theirs. As much as I enjoy the benefits of civilization, I think that it would be very hard to undo the drawbacks. As we are spending more time with friends and enjoying ourselves, we are enslaving ourselves to a system that rewards obedience, and as we explore our world and universe, we are destroying the only planet we have.

>>7597

>Is there any other argument against homosexuality here?

Faggots are a viral disease vector that will disproportionally (by an order of magnitude) burden the community thanks to their degenerate behavior.

>>7601

If society collapsed, I wouldn't be scared or disappointed for myself but I would be sad at what we had lost. Civilization is what allows us to push the boundaries of human knowledge. Problems do come along with it, but they are completely worth it. The risks of nuclear power plants, etc. are worth it, and they are a necessary price to pay for the scientific advances we are making. The biggest problems we face are the cultural ones, the way people are becoming fat and lazy now because society allows them to be. That is where I think Asatru would be good for society. It would encourage the people to be strong for the sake of independence and preparedness, even if we don't need to be for survival anymore. Like I said, all this could be solved with education.

I'd like to see asatru neighborhoods or communities form–not isolationist ones, instead ones that integrate with society and show an example of how people in modern civilization should ideally behave. Not isolated or scornful of everyone else, just strong, independent and capable. Let our communities start producing thinkers, artists and scientists, that help advance society with the best of them, to show everyone else how well our way works.

>>7608

It's not a disease, because it's not contagious. You can't catch gay. And gays aren't necessarily going to be an extra burden on the community, I've met a couple that are self-sufficient, hold jobs and are overall decent people. Yes, I've also met some that are complete degenerate pieces of shit, but if they are burdening society, we should punish the slacking that is causing the trouble, not the homosexuality itself–because it IS possible to be gay and still be a decent citizen, if rare.

>>7611

>It's not a disease, because it's not contagious. You can't catch gay.

I was talking about GRIDS, STDs and other viral diseases that can easily spread through the population thanks to their hedonistic degeneracy. So please keep your prepackaged faggot apologetics for other times.

And although I wasn't trying to argue that point: Yes, you do actually catch the gay. It isn't genetically inherited at all. Either it's a culturally adopted lifestyle or the result of toxoplasmosis ruining your brain chemistry. Most cases of homos are the cultural variant.

>>7597

>abolish civilization entirely

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Firstly, while I would be adrift without computers and by extension modern society, that's my failing rather than a fundamental human one. People are at about the same level of happiness regardless of their environment (not counting extreme environments like a gulag) and as we're on here I think you'll agree that just walking through nature is a wonderful feeling. If all of civilization was abolished, down to and past agriculture, the survivors would be as or more happy as we are now, but they wouldn't have to face all the dangers that have been conjured up, defeated, then replaced by worse ones. Natural dangers like disease would remain of course.

>>7614

I don't believe that. I have known gays and from what I've seen I believe that they are born with a desire for men just the same as ours for women. I'd like to see any kind of science or research saying otherwise. And STDs can spread among straight people just the same as gays, that just depends on use of condoms and sexual behavior.

>>7619

But what about curiosity? Asatru by its nature encourages exploration. We're explorers, we're people who always want to know about the world around us. I do love to walk through nature, but there are still natural places left to hike and camp in–and it's made better I think by gear such as nylon packs, butane backpacking stoves, and firearms that were all a product of modern civilization. Civilization lets us explore our entire world and start understanding all the space beyond. Because of my curiosity I wouldn't give that up for anything.

>>7649

>I don't believe that. I have known gays and from what I've seen I believe that they are born with a desire for men just the same as ours for women. I'd like to see any kind of science or research saying otherwise. And STDs can spread among straight people just the same as gays, that just depends on use of condoms and sexual behavior.

How about you read my statements properly and educate yourself on toxoplasmosis before trying to argue against it. It doesn't matter what you believe, faggot. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence of any genetic link to homophilia while there exists evidence to the contrary. I have an acquaintance who was born as a homophile due to toxoplasmosis ruining brainchemistry in the womb. His little sister developed mental illness due to her also getting unnatural testosterone levels during fetal devlopment thanks to toxoplasmosis.

Faggots are a viral disease vector because they spread disease so much more than healthy people, their behaviour is caused by their mental illness. Viral diseases permanentally altering behaviour for the virus to spread to other organisms is a documented fact. Even if you don't buy the toxoplasmosis theory, rabies is a perfect other example of such a virus.

>>7649

Nylon packs, butane stoves, and firearms just show that you only support civilization because you are dependent on it, like a child that relies on its mother for food every day. Not to mention that all those little camping goodies of yours are only made possible by the destruction of the Earth, each item being a product of industrialization. They ruin the magic of nature itself too. Furthermore it is because we are natural explorers that we must bring about the end of civilized society. With every passing year society only creeps on, encroaches on, and destroys more and more of nature. If we "progress" any further, soon there will be no nature to explore. When civilized society has been destroyed, every day will be an adventure. You will spend every day in a new location, spending every night under the stars. You don't even need those items you mentioned to truly survive in the wild. With only a knife or a similar stone tool you can construct a bow, and with that bow you can hunt wild animals to create hide sacks for carrying your belongings, as well as to attain food for survival. That food can then be cooked over an open fire. There is simply no need for those items you mention, in fact they even ruin the natural survival instinct of men, because they make things easier, thus making us weaker and less intelligent as a whole.

>>7366

>What about the Norse? What about the Viking Age?

Gragas law (from around ~1260 ish in iceland, so not too-too long post-christian) cites that it's illegal to be Argr (unmanly, also, gay), and further, that it's illegal to call someone Argr lest they kill you on the spot (if they don't it proves that indeed THEY are Argr).

I could chalk it up to christianity if they simply had a law against faggotry, but that they have a seperate tradition of allowing people to strike a man down for calling them a faggot tells me that faggotry was fairly well dispised as an engrained part of the culture.

It also follows, given that general indo-european culture almost always has a concept of manly-unmanly, and that having sex with an adult male almost always confers unmanliness. From the greeks to the romans, this is how it was done.

Religiously, faggotry is a dampener on passing luck and wyrd (which is inherited), and serving your ancestors properly…so it's theologically incorrect too beyond what the ancestors practiced as earthly law.

>race

I have no evidence of vikings being racist on principal any more than any other society at the time.

I do know that the only way you're going to see foreigners in an old-time germanic country is via slave raiding though, and the only way to manumit a slave is via a manumission ceremony that symbolically "kills" the slave's old identity and expects him to be fully integrated into the culture properly.