/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

>All that is necessary is a strong, authoritative open and shut statement that mutts cannot be asatruars in the sticky.

It already says so in the sticky.

>It was practiced in the lands that are today Scandinavia, England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other countries as well. Asatru is the original, or native, religion for the peoples who lived in these regions.

Asatru is the original, or native, religion for the peoples who lived in these regions

>it may be thought of as one version of a general European religion. Asatru is a natural religion for all people of European origin

>Asatru is a natural religion for all people of European origin

>people of European origin

>but not if their trolling becomes 90% of all board activity and it drives people away.

I understand your concern. There isn't much I can do about it. If I drop the ban hammer everywhere, then the board will become even slower to the point of almost no posts being made per day. It's best to ignore the threads you don't like.

>>9189

I think what the OP is really looking for is a definitive stance on the one drop rule vs minimal mixing ( i.e. whether someone who is 95% genetically European is White enough or not) debate that has been raging.

>>9191

I don't think OP understands the state of the art in genetic analysis or genealogy well enough to articulate a method for verifying what he proposes. The number of posts in which he has described a technique or process for determining whether someone is White is zero. It is all well and good to say that Asatru cannot accept any mixed-race participants, but this must be accompanied by a method for discovering them. He fails to offer even something as simplistic as "all persons who self-profess racial admixture must be excluded." It is as though, in his mind, he has been tasked merely with determining the standard, but with no thought given to its implementation.

Another thing that is somewhat suspicious about his replies is that they are uniformly less detailed than the posts to which he's replying. For example, someone proposes a troublingly permissive 90% cutoff, he shouts "no halfbreeds"… which is objectively a non-responsive reply.

The most suspicious thing is that he persists in using the Judeochristian term "excommunicate" even after he was informed that the Germanic term is "outlawing".

His only real contribution to the discussion was to point out that you cannot realistically expect to start with a heavily mixed population and then breed selectively back toward the White founding stock. Of course, in keeping with the strongest characteristic of his rhetoric, he neglects to offer even a sentence fragment as to why this is unrealistic. (The reason is that for many generations, you create a much larger surplus population of offspring who are not moving appreciably toward the racial standard, and have to get rid of them somehow.)

Well, and he also contributed to flooding the board with one more needless thread on this topic, when we have an ample selection of such threads already.

It is certainly possible that his motivations are in the right place, and that he is simply too stupid to understand that there is no objectively flawless technique for detecting a "one drop". But if that is the case, then it is time for him to be silent, and instead to stand behind someone who is much smarter than he is and who can articulate his interests for him.

>>9202

The dude talking about "Muh purity" is either A) An angsty edgy teen or B.) A divide and conquer jewcuck

Either way it is a nuisance he has flooded threads with his vitriol even if it is unrelated. Could be a thread about music and he would go off on a tangent about his "One drop rule". Now he is spewing "False consensus" because the reasonable people on this board decided to weigh in on their thoughts about partially mixed people (basically saying that they agree to some extent to allow mixed people just so long as they look white).

Essentially he did not get his way now he is whining to the board owner to ban us when ironically it would be easier and far more effective to ban him. Especially since he is the one spamming threads with his idiotic rantings.

No one has problems with minimally mixed people here just this cuck.

>>9203

>No one has a problem with mixed people

>Just this cuck

>Only cucks have a problem with race mixing

I didn't advocate banning anyone, I advocated using moral authority to shut the door on advocacy of race mixing, but you're absolutely right. It is far easier for me to leave than it is to reform a board which is clearly not mere false consensus but legitimately out of its mind cucks.

/pol/ was right again, this board really is beyond salvation. /christian/ wins, I'm done. This board does not represent the views of the majority of pagans.

Enjoy your cucks board owner.

>>9220

How will you detect a "one drop"? What method and/or technology will you use? What is the procedure?

Look OP…

If he/she is white, they're alright.

>>9220

Here's a hypothetical for you dude. Say you marry a white girl (and at the start she claims she is 100% white) with blonde hair you and her after 10 years of happy marriage have like 6 blonde hair kids. Then after all these years she turns to you and admits she is 10% Mexican. Would you be willing to "purge" your wife and kids for your one drop rule? Remember in Asatru betraying an oath and kinslaying is unforgivable.

>>9223

>Quote one fucking person on this board who said "If you're white it is ok to breed with non-whites"

>Being open to partially mixed people is not the same as advocating for further mixing

Not that anon, but this makes zero sense. If you breed with partially mixed people your offspring will also be partially mixed, and this is pretty much what race-mixing is.

>>9226

>A guy who is 99% white and 1% Asian breeds with a girl who is 99% white and 1% Mexican

>You see it as race-mixing

>In reality it is just two white people raising a family

This is how retarded this argument has become that you now categorize people who are minimally mixed with people who are legitimate half-breeds.

>>9230

>If everyone breeds with their own percentile then we can stop race-mixing

That would be way harder to enforce than using good old fashioned eugenics. Somehow I doubt you'd be appalled when the 99%s breed with the 90%s, you're the kind of defeatist who'd go "oh well, can't be helped, a little more dilution ain't gonna kill us"

>>9238

Answer this:

>>9221

>>9221

>>9240

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_genomics

Genetic testing may still be flawed, but it's also a rapidly advancing science. It's not irreasonable to assume that we'll be able to isolate even the most minuscule strains of non-White DNA eventually (who knows, by then it might even be possible to replace undesirable haplotypes from our gene pool entirely), until we reach that point we can still use personal genomics to maintain our unique racial stock to a reasonable degree. Also it's true that some nationalities have more non-white strains due to invasions than others (for instance it was discovered that Basques have the most purest population), so to reduce future confusion we should encourage people to marry fellow Germans/Swedes/Norwegians/etc; and those who have an already too confused set of genetics should move to the Vinland where White inter-tribal mixing has been the norm.

>>9241

I can already hear a frenzied mob of shitflinging mongrels heading your way

>>9241

>>9242

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, until genetic testing comes along further, we're using 23andme, basically (or if you know of a better service or combination of services, feel free to substitute.)

So does a 0.1% non-European result count as a one drop?

Does a 0.1% unassigned result count as a one drop?

Will people be paired up based on 23andme results, and if so, by what cutoff? For example: will we enforce, say, a 5% cutoff? I.e. someone who is 99% European in results cannot breed with anyone who gets below 95% European in their results. Or will we go for exact percentiles? I.e. 99 % with 99% and so on.

>>9250

I hope this is ironic shitposting because 23andme is run by jews. And one-drop rule literally means one drop of blood. Which is funny because if anyone were to take a genetic test know it would say they were mixed. That is how flawed genetic testing is. I have never seen genetic testing results which stated someone was 100% percent something.

>>9251

>>9250

The Germans allowed Jews who only had one Jewish grandparent to stay in, but they were not allowed to marry another 1/4 Jew.

If you made the original cutoff at 3/4 European, the bloodlines could be further purified through eugenic breeding over generations.

Lets say for example there was a perpetual policy actively encouraging many children for the healthiest, fairest, smartest individuals while only granting marriage licenses to the worst few % of the population if they agree to be sterilized.

If you kept that up over a couple hundred years, you'd be in pretty good shape. The genes are not lost, they are still there. They just need to be refined and filtered.

>>9257

eyyy mine is 100% European as well, but it gives me 1.4% Iberian.

No clue what that is supposed to mean, I couldn't find any information on migration patterns for what Iberian was supposed to mean.

As far as I understand, the Iberian peninsula was occupied by the Visigoths for a long time, then the Moors occupied it for ~700 years, then it was freed again. I don't know why Iberian is a type.

>>9255

I think there is a big pink polka dotted elephant in the room that needs to be pointed out.

So far the the essential argument of the one-droppers amounts to this:

1. Allow in minimally mixed people

2. ????

3. HALF BREEDS AND FULL BLOWN RACE MIXING AHOY!!!

They say that allowing in people who are 99% or 95% mixed will eventually lead to us allowing in people who are 50/50 because….. reasons.

Meanwhile, I see the opposite happening. I see the one drop rule as a slippery slope that cuts off a lot of whites out of the movement, and thus thins out and divides us ever further.

If the one droppers are to be taken at their word: one drop means one drop.

1 percent nonwhite? You're out.

0.1 percent nonwhite? You're out.

0.0000000000000000000000000001 percent nonwhite? You're out.

Under the one drop rule, if you get a 0.1 percent nonwhite result on 23andme, in their eyes you are a filthy mongrel who should be castrated/sterilized and go practice Santeria or Christianity. Which brings up another good point:

They characterize the non-one drop argument as lazy defeatism: "Well, we're mixed anyway, so might as well mix some more." Yet, if one thinks about this for more than two seconds, the opposite is true.

Which is lazier and requires less effort?:

1. One drop? You're out!

2. Creating a eugenics program that purifies minimally mixed whites into eventually creating a much larger pure white population like >>9255 .

Which is more defeatist?

1. You're 99.9 percent White? Away with you, you filthy mongrel! There's no hope for you! Castrate yourself and join Santeria! Better yet, kill yourself for the good of the White race!

2. You're 99.9 percent White? Okay, good, we can work with you. But you have to breed with others in such a way as to further filter your future genes to being ever closer to pure White.

So my argument is thus:

Allowing in minimally mixed Whites within the framework of a eugenics program:

1. Requires more effort and vigilance, and requires a positive can-do attitude.

2. Will eventually lead to a much larger White population.

Meanwhile, the one drop rule:

1. Is lazy and defeatist.

2. Will lead to an even more dwindling White population than we already have, and will further divide us against one another as our enemies want.

>>9263

I think you may be answering the wrong question. I think most people in this thread have been answering the wrong question, in fact.

The question isn't "what should Asatru as a global movement use as a racial standard for membership?" .as we have no practical authority to modify the rules of any organization outside this board. Nor is it "what should all race-positive Asatru groups use as a standard for membership?". It is not even "is /asatru/ folkish, universalist, or neutral?", as there is an ovewhelming sense that this board is for the use of folkish adherents only, and that universalist ideas are unwelcome.

I think the questions before us is this: "what range of racial standards qualifies as folkish Asatru for the purpose of participation in this board?"

Individual groups — kindreds, hearths, hofs, whatever you want to call them — must have the authority to set standards of membership that are stricter than those you have proposed. If a group wants to admit only those of demonstrably pure Norwegian ancestry, or Anglo-Saxon ancestry, or continental Germanic ancestry, then I don't think other race-positive Asatru groups should stand in their way. There are distinct threads of tradition that are particular to certain nationalities, and we must not exclude them from this board for requiring a membership with an ancestral connection to those threads. A mere and simplistic antagonism toward the notion of a "one drop rule" cannot work.

But of course there are people whose national ancestry is entirely drawn from a mixture of those groups. While I respect the position that an ethnically pure Norwegian should not mix with an ethnically pure German, the fact is that a child resulting from such a union still has an unfettered ancestral tie to the primordial Germanic spirituality. His ancestors spoke Germanic languages all the way back to Proto-Germanic itself, among the folk of the Germanic Urheimat. He should not expect to be welcome in a group that pursues a specific focus on only one national branch of Germanic faith traditions, but I do not think we can reasonably exclude him from this board.

Having pondered this for a while, I think there are three questions that all must be answered to determine whether someone's ancestral tie to Germanic spirituality is sufficient for participation in the broader world of folkish Germanic faith. I am not married to any of the specific examples I give here, but offer them as a way of clarifying what I ask with these three questions. So, please do test the questions by attacking them with further examples, but do not trouble yourself with the examples if you cannot address the importance of the questions themselves.

>>9267

1. Is his ancestry sufficiently dominated by Germanic stock? That is to say, when he looks at himself in the mirror, does he see Germanic ancestors in the reflection? Or does he see a mixture of groups, unclear in origin, competing for his attention? With the tools of science and history, does he find a strong connection to his Germanic ancestors or is it littered with alien names and foreign genotypes?

I think that seven great-grandparents from Ireland would cast crippling doubt upon a claim to the Germanic tradition, though two great-grandparents could be a different matter. Of course, ancient ties between European ethnic groups are far stronger than the generic human connection between Europeans and other races of man. So while two great-grandparents from Ireland might not be an issue, even two great-great-grandparents from Africa would exert far too alien an influence on his ancestry.

He should want his descendants to enjoy the gifts of the Germanic faith as well, so it goes without question that he should not create children who would have disqualifying admixture. His offspring must be able to attend the dísablót with a clear ethnic connection to the event, their minds unclouded by family connections to alien tribes.

>>9268

2. Is his racial character an example of the Germanic type? In other words, does he "look the part", or will he disrupt others' focus on their ancestors by presenting a foreign visage to his group? Is his instinctive inclination toward the ways of our folk, or does he effervesce with universalist ramblings that threaten the cohesion of his people?

The randomness of genetic transmission means that merely counting up great-great-grandparents and determining haplogroups does not always find individuals whose racial character leads them down the Germanic path. An old foreign influence that fought its way down to the present and expresses itself strongly is a meaningful concern, but in some cases these things actually have been "bred out".

Again, there are groups that will insist upon demonstrably pure ties to a specific national group, and this question does not impose upon them a requirement to take those who do not fit their path. I am proposing that "you must be at least this White to ride", not that everyone who answers affirmatively to this question alone has a free pass.

>>9269

I think there is a tension between questions 1 and 2 that has dominated the discussion so far. There certainly are examples of individuals who have demonstrably pure ancestry by genetic testing, or who can provide exceptionally extensive genealogical records. But they do not form the largest part of the group whose ancestry is strongly dominated by Germanic ties and whose racial character is of the Germanic type. To confuse the second group with obviously and consciously mixed-race people is a mistake.

We cannot rely on question 1 alone because the data set for examining ancestry is and always will be incomplete. Random combinations of genes yield false positive results for foreign ancestral groups. Many of the genes we measure to determine ancestry are non-coding — not recessive, mind you, but non-coding in that they are not expressed as a phenotype at all, even among a theoretically infinite number of offspring. All genealogies reach dead-ends and no amount of archaeology will give us a full census of the Germanic Urheimat. There is a margin of error to the ancestral question that will not be eliminated by any development of technology or discovery in archaeology. We'll refine the details, but there are not enough skeletons preserved in all the graves of the world to nail the complete data set, and there is no secret library of runestones waiting to complete the genealogical record.

But if you ask both questions 1 and 2, then you are not left with a huge population of individuals who are incompatible with the Germanic spirit, or with a group who lack a genuine ancestral tie to the Germanic Urheimat.

I think there is a third question that is critical, however, and the answers it yields will even help to understand how to approach question 1.

>>9270

3. Is he culturally compatible with the Germanic Weltanschauung? Was he raised hearing stories of White forebears told in a European language? Or was he raised hearing stories about Cherokee ancestors in an Iroquoian language? Did he grow up learning the folk songs of our people or of a foreign tribe? Did he meet grandparents and great-grandparents who are the image of our folk, or was he confronted with a mixed ancestry?

In the US, for example, an exceptionally strong case on questions 1 and 2 might fare very badly here. While there is undoubtedly a strong hereditary current that bears the Germanic spirit forward with each generation, no child's mind can withstand a constant assault of alien ideas. Someone raised even falsely to believe that his ancestors were Cherokee warriors may never fully recover to the point that he can raise a horn at symbel and speak in the voice of his ancestors. A man who marries a Negro woman, even without bearing children, will forever be pulled away from the Germanic core of his being. It is crucial that we define a folkish Asatruar as one who can answer yes on this third question as well.

>>9271

We are never going to reach total agreement on all the issues raised in this thread, but I am confident that by asking these three questions, we can find a population who will not bring dishonor to our movement, degenerate our racial stock, or dilute our ways with alien ideas and practices. Just as in the golden age of the Germanic faith, there will be variation from group to group, and from region to region, in the way that we approach the Germanic tradition. There will never be a single uniform law of Asatru that we can simply place in force over all adherents for all time.

I am proposing here three values that I think form the core of the folkish question and will neither unnecessarily exclude nor harmfully include those incompatible with Asatru.

Is his ancestry sufficiently dominated by Germanic stock?

Is his racial character an example of the Germanic type?

Is he culturally compatible with the Germanic Weltanschauung?

>>9268

>>9267

>>9269

>>9270

>>9271

>>9272

I think that you are right, in that focusing on a standard for our board is a more fair and pragmatic option than the universal standard that has been the crux of the debate, which I have found myself caught up in. While I think that one-drop as a universal standard across the movement would be disastrous, I concur that it should be respected on a tribal level.

As for your three questions, I think you have come up with a firm foundation to build on top of. My only concerns so far, are two details that ultimately are about specifics.

Your first question…

>Is his ancestry sufficiently dominated by Germanic stock?

While this is a good starting point, it needs specific boundaries, at least for this board. In other words, exactly how much ancestral stock is sufficient to be dominant? For a more concrete example: what results on a personal genomic type test (23andme, ancestry.com, etc.) would officially be declared "clearly dominant" or "not enough?" One point I am forced to concede to the one-droppers is the fact that any such standard will basically be arbitrary, unless there is some new hard science on the subject that I am unaware of.

Which brings us back to square one with whether only 0.1%, or 90%, or even 3/4s under the Nuremberg laws is allowable. This can be a point of debate that can be decided by individual tribes, but what will the consensus be on this board? Perhaps a poll with options to determine this?

>>9274

(cont'd)

As for your third question:

>Is he culturally compatible with the Germanic Weltanschauung?

I would think that a white child outright raised Cherokee would be mixed enough to be an open and shut case. But your question brings up a potentially more subtle and contentious issue.

At very conservative estimates, at least a sizable chunk, if not the vast majority of modern Heathens were not raised Heathen. A few may have been, at best, raised in a kind of pseudo Heathenry (i.e. out in areas of the country in Europe and America, where many aspects of the Germanic Heathen worldview survive in fragments via folk customs that never died out.) Nevertheless, exceptions withstanding, the vast majority of us were raised Christian, I'm willing to bet (and no, the fragments of Paganism in Catholicism don't count.)

I imagine most of us spent at least 15 to 18 years of our lives (or even longer) being Christian. Yet, here we are. Our practice of Heathenry ultimately being the product of becoming aware of, studying, and struggling to "install" the Heathen worldview OS, and trying to "uninstall" the Semitic world rejecting revealed OS from our brains.

Yet worldviews in one's brain are often like software on a computer: a messy removal that always leaves at least a few traces behind. How many people on this board still view Valhalla as the Norse Heaven, and Hel as…well…. Norse Hell? How many still view Odin as their personal best friend, and barely communicate with the local deities?

The point that I am ultimately driving towards is the fact that, though being phrased in terms of upbringing will become more valid as our culture and future bloodlines become more established; right now, for the vast majority of modern adherents, this question should be more for sussing out who is making an effort and succeeding at installing Heathen OS, so to speak.

On a side note, the aforementioned should not be taken as a gateway for non-Whites to think "Oh, it's just an OS, I can install it on my brain as well!" European Heathenry is for the White soul, period. If Heathen OS is analogous to Windows, then the White brain is IBM compatible (i.e. where the first two questions come into play), while Asian, Black, Latino, Arab brains are Mac hardware, so to speak.

So the question becomes:

Is he culturally compatible with, or does he adhere to the Germanic Weltanschauung?

I just find it amusing that we are even trying to determine who can post on this board. I mean should we require every single user to take a genetic test and hand those results into the board owner? That is pretty stupid I am although in favor or leaving it up to the discretion of certain tribes/kindreds on whom they admit in. But requiring this or that or private users on an ANONYMOUS image board is just ridiculous.

I do not give a fuck who posts here. And for all you know half of the members here are probably black, jewish. christian etc shitposting and pretending to be white germanic folkish. You would never know. But yet we attack those who are upfront and honest about being partially mixed. It is absurd. At least those members who admitted had the honor and respect of doing so unlike most of the shitposting niggers on here.

I say let whoever post here if you want to be a butthurt little pussy then leave because this board is not your "Safe space". Me I do give a fuck is not like an SJW or full blown african nigger is going to admit who they are why? When they can just divide us internally and run to the board owner to try to ban everyone much like how this thread got started.

>>9277

No, you can't hard enforce such values on an anonymous image board, but you can create general guidelines that foster a particular culture on one.

/pol/ doesn't require bonafides from anyone, but the guidelines and users creates a general culture that is very far-right friendly. Lefties are free to post there, but they usually prefer /leftypol/.

Universalists can post on this board, but the guidelines and culture here tends to foster a Folkish view that will naturally send Fluffbunnies elsewhere.

This thread started out as a debate about whether one-drop or minimal mixing as a board standard would be promoted in the guidelines. Now it seems to be based on deciding which particular spectrum of Folkish belief the guidelines should be refined towards.

This doesn't have to be a "safe space" but at least some guidelines determining the general direction of the board would be good.

>>9278

The thing is as I said there is no way to enforce this especially when people on this board are this split. If you appease one side of the argument you run the risk of losing a good chunk of posters. The board will just become another echo chamber. Asatru is a religion that needs differing opinions it needs debate because our religion died out a thousand years ago and is now on a revival. We need to talk, debate, etc in order to flesh out the details of our spiritual/cultural identity. By enforcing stupid guidelines this early you will just end up with a circle-jerk that accomplishes nothing. Name one thing /pol/ has done significant? Not a damn thing the same will happen to /asatru/ when you let the edgemasters have run of the board.

>>9280

And as I said before, I know they can't be enforced. That doesn't matter and that's not the point.

To a certain extent, guidelines and echo chambers are unavoidable as a movement or segment of a movement becomes more crystallized in what it stands for. You say "guidelines this early"? While the revival is young, it did not spring up overnight.

If you were a Heathen back in the 70s or 80s, or even 90s, you would have more than likely been at worst, a Wiccatruar, or at best, a more traditionalist minded Heathen with a LOT of Christian worldview baggage that you were not even aware of. A lot of this baggage still exists. Hel, as recent as the early 2000s there were books likes this on mainstream shelves:

http://www.amazon.com/Rites-Odin-Llewellyns-Teutonic-Magick/dp/0875422241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452243349&sr=8-1&keywords=the+rites+of+Odin

… and there still are.

Read this earlier post in this thread that has a guideline from the sticky of this very board:

>>9189

Done? That guideline that informs the overall culture of this board was not born in a vacuum yesterday. It was born from several decades of Heathens debating and trying to suss out exactly what Heathenry should be.

Some still think that Heathenry should be syncretic, freely borrow from other traditions, and have no basis on race or culture, but should essentially be Norse flavored Christianity. You'll find those people at places like r/asatru. Go there and mention White Genocide or 14/88, or just that Heathenry should be for Europeans and European descended peoples only and see what happens.

Some think that Heathenry should be heavily anchored by lore, academic research and archaeological evidence, and that UPG (Unverifiable Personal Gnosis) should be met with heavy skepticism, and that heavy syncretism and tradition borrowing should be frowned upon. Go to a place like asatrulore.org, and regale them with tales of having astral plane sex with Loki, and see what happens.

The guideline from the sticky was obviously made by someone who decided that Heathenry should be heavily informed by blood, race and ethnic lines of tradition. You can go ahead and post stuff like all races should be allowed in the Heathen tradition, and that it should be heavily syncretic and freeform all you want; but you're going to get a reaction similar to the other boards previously mentioned when approaching them with an opinion contrary to their guiding principles.

The point is, you want a variety of opinions and free flowing debate and no echo chambers? Then visit a wide variety of boards. You are simply not going to get that from one board alone. It is simply instinct for small groups of people to form a common consensus (or an echo chamber) based on tribal ingroup/outgroup, us vs them instincts. I'm willing to bet money that your own group of personal friends consists of its own echo chamber if you analyse it with unflinching honesty. Hel, Heathenry itself literally REVOLVES around this concept (i.e. every tribe, country, etc. having it's own utgards and innagards to respect.)

That doesn't necessarily curtail a variety of viewpoints. This board can be a waypoint for many tribes. But 9 times out of 10, those tribes are going to have a Folkish bent due simply to the culture of this board.

Also, you want debate and discussion? This thread is it. And I sure as hell ain't the board owner; for all I know this thread may come to the resolution that this board should have an agnostic/neutral stance towards one drop vs minimal mixing, and that this is a hot potato issue that is best resolved by local tribes themselves.

As for /pol/, off the top of my head, I know they were a major force in orchestrating GamerGate, the first major push back against the Cultural Marxist zeitgeist in a long ass time. A push back that is still causing Gawker Media to slow-motion implode:

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/683193101733642240/photo/1

>>9281

(cont'd)

As an addendum, of the three Heathen groups accomplishing anything of note:

The temple currently being built in Iceland is being accomplished by a group that is blatantly Universalist:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31437973

The first proper Heathen Hof in North America is being built by the Asatru Folk Assembly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0d_L2Harbg

…an organization that is blatantly Folkish.

The Wolves of Vinland:

http://www.peterbeste.com/photography/#/wolves-of-vinland/

…one of the fastest growing Heathen organizations in America, is a Folkish self-sustaning organization that has radically seperated from mainstream society.

The point, is that shit gets done by organizations with finely honed singular visions, not by disparate groups with opposing and chaotic viewpoints.

>>9281

Except this board is not yet an echo chamber hence the debate on this thread. The problem is everyone hates reddit and tumblr and all that but they want to be just like them. It is really quite astounding how even though people on here are on the extreme opposite of the political spectrum still employ the same tactics and want the same thing. I mean if only we can downvote unpopular opinions on here amirite?

I also find it amusing that we have thread after thread of how we can appeal to normal white people but we get mad and yell "Reeeee" when someone does not hold /pol/lack opinions nor SJW sentiments. But we call them SJWs anyway and alienate them because of it. You got to concede that some folks are in the middle. If you want a echo chamber of 5 people that's fine then though good luck.

Guidelines are vague as fuck and say European origin Sami peoples are of European origin should they be Asatru? What of the people who are like 10th generation American? They themselves are not of European origin their ancestors were so even if they are 100% they cannot be asatru?

>>9283

>Except this board is not yet an echo chamber hence the debate on this thread.

This debate is not one of Universalist vs Folkish vs Tribalist etc. It's literally a debate on just how Folkish we want to be. It's one shade of Folkish (one drop) vs the other (minimally mixed).

It's like saying an SJW board is not an echo chamber because they are having a debate on whether they want to be considered 2nd wave or 3rd wave Feminists.

As for the rest, the Sami people have their own culture, and even if you're a 10th generation American, sans heavy mixing, you are still ultimately descended from pure or mostly pure European stock,

>>9283

Addendum:

Also, the reason why SJWs/Tumblrites are so viciously mocked, is because they take the echo chamber/tribal consensus concept to ridiculous extremes.

If you post pro-Universalist/anti-Folkish sentiments on this board, in general people will either virulently debate you or mock you.

If you take anti-SJW sentiments to an SJW board, they will typically outright ban you on the spot, and even call for your permanent ostracization from society or even your imprisonment.

>>9286

>>9288

You are right on a lot of things and I concede to most of your points but people like OP irk me who flood threads with their "One-drop" vitriol and demand banning of certain type of posters because it does not fit his view of "Folkish" he can have his one-drop rule opinion thats fine but when he makes threads like these demanding clear cut definitions so certain people can be prohibited from posting it is ridiculous. He is in fact not only avoiding a debate but downright trying to ban any sort of debate.

It is basically how tumblrinas and SJWS say that white CIS males cannot comment on anything because they are not x amount oppressed. Same bullshit tactic.

>>9288

>>9290

To OP's credit, I do not think he called for bans. He only called for a statement. However, I suspect that no statement will satisfy him.

>>9290

Fair enough I see where you're coming from.

Between you and >>9291 's observations, I'm coming to the conclusion that leaving this particular debate as an issue for tribes to settle is for the best.