PDA

View Full Version : Morality of the Sagas



Gugnir
Friday, April 27th, 2012, 10:12 PM
The Sagas are amazing stories, but I'm a little confused on their moral quality. We have, for example, Erik Bloodaxe, regarded as a Viking hero - yet he killed his own half-brothers to gain the throne, and was not particularly well-liked as a king of Norway. So was he really such a great guy beyond his military skills? What about Egil Skallagrimsson? He was a great poet and a master Rune-mage, but he was also kind of a psycho - he murdered people, and so did his father - yet he was also capable of noble acts as well.

We just see so much of killing others to gain material power and wealth in the Sagas, yet we like to think of our Heathen ancestors as being committed to community and folk. I'm interested to hear others' opinions on this matter.

-Gugnir

Neophyte
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 12:30 AM
Killing people was not really frowned upon, as long as it was done openly and publicly and, above all, face to face. Challenging people to a fight to the death over their property (just because you wanted it) was accepted. Stabbing people in the back was not accepted and the perpetrator of such a heinous act would be declared an outlaw. Compare to chivalry and later duels.

Aedan
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 12:58 AM
I agree. Murder, the secret killing or to poison a man was what was frowned upon.

Too, there were wergilds, for the redress of grievances.

renownedwolf
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 01:43 AM
We must realise too, how different our modern day moralities can be. Perhaps we would be openly mocked for being so soft on things. Being committed to community and folk does not mean we wouldn't, or indeed, in certain circumstances feel or have the need kill each other.

In fact it may be a necessary part of our continued existence as a race, it is a world of eternal struggle after all and we don't want to breed weak tribes of blood shy choirboys and effeminate traitors. Oh! Wait!.. :-O

Almost all of our greatest heroes have been killers of one sort or another, it's just our way I think. Perhaps in this morally degenerate age, there is a reason we still look back with a rosy tint at those times.

Aedan
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 02:55 AM
@Renownedwolf

all the blacks I have ever known, were just talk. only tough when they had four or five others.

imagine, if the laws permitted like in days of old. a black pops off his mouth to your woman. you simply stand, push his throat to the wall and demand he repeat himself. if he did, make him intimately familiar with your sword.

I would love to see how quick they would be to talk as a community to our folk.

Aedan
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 03:07 AM
I have not seen this posted here, so I will add it in. Wisdom gleaned from the Sagas:

1. A man's own hand is most to be trusted. (VGS, c.4)
2. Let another's wounds be your warning. (Njal's Saga, c.37)
3. Slow and sure. (Njal's Saga, c.44)
4. Ill rede bring ill luck. (Njal's Saga, c.45)
5. His hands are clean who warns another. (Njal's Saga, c.41)
6. It is the turn of mind of all men first to give away what has been stolen, if they have it in their keeping. (Njal's Saga, c.49)
7. Birds of a feather flock most together. (Njal's Saga, c.51)
8. Never break the peace which good and true men make between you and others. (Njal's Saga, c.55)
9. For with law shall our land be built up and settled, and with lawlessness wasted and spoiled. (Njal's Saga, c.69)
10. When ill seed has been sown, so an ill crop will spring from it. (NjalSaga, c.114)
11. But a short while is hand fain of blow. [1] (Njal's Saga, c.133)
12. It may often be that those live long who are slain with words alone. (Njal's Saga, c.
13. Better is one crow in the hand than two in the wood. (Laxdaela Saga, c.24)
14. Never cheat your master. [2] (Njal's Saga, c.86)
15. Be warned by another's woe. (Njal's Saga,c.13)
16. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. (Njal's Saga, c.5) (HR, c.10, BH)
17. Pride and wrong often end badly. (VGS, c.7)
18. The nights of blood are the nights of most impatience. [3] (VGS, c.8) (VA, c.24)
19. The cattle are like their master. (VGS, c.13)
20. Braver are many in word than in deed. (GS, c.4)
21. The friend warns his friend of ill. (GS, c.17)
22. He knows most who most has tried. (GS, c.17)
23. Many seem wise who are lacking in wit. (GS, c.17)
24. The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never. (GS, c.15)
25. Work not done, needs no reward. (GS, c.17)
26. Many a trifle happens at eve. (GS, c.18)
27. Every one is master of his own words. (GS, c.19)
28. Long shall a man be tried. (GS, c.20)
29. The guess of the wise is truth. (GS, c.31)
30. Luck is one thing, brave deeds another. (GS
31. True is the saying that no man shapes his own fortune (Luck). (GS, c.41)
32. Be not a braggart for if any work done be praise-worthy, others will sing your praises for you.
33. Often he who has many words says little of worth.
34. The overpraised are the worst deceivers. (GS, c.45)
35. One man's tale is but half a tale. (GS, c,46)
36. One evil is mended by a worse one. [4] (GS, c.47)
37. There is more in the heart of man than money can buy. (GS, c.47)
38. The mother is best. (GS, c.17)
39. Many have been brought to death by overconfidence. (GS, c.54)
40. Ill is the lot of him who has an ill name. (GS, c.56)
41. Oft in the woods is a listener nigh. (GS, c.59)
42. The unjust man prospers ill. (GS, c.62)
43. Trust no man so well that you trust not yourself better. Many are unfit to be trusted. (GS, c.67)
44. The hand turns to its wonted skill, and that which was learned in youth is always most familiar. (GS, c.78)
45. Many go to the goat-house to get wool. [5] (GS, c.78)
46. There are few more certain tokens of ill than not to know how to accept the good. (GS, c.78)
47. Old friends are the last to break away. (GS, c.82)
48. It is ill to have a thrall for your friend. (GS, c.82)
49. Bare is his back who has no brother. (GS, c.82)
50. A wagging tongue is the beginning of ill works.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 03:50 AM
The Sagas are amazing stories, but I'm a little confused on their moral quality. We have, for example, Erik Bloodaxe, regarded as a Viking hero - yet he killed his own half-brothers to gain the throne, and was not particularly well-liked as a king of Norway. So was he really such a great guy beyond his military skills? What about Egil Skallagrimsson? He was a great poet and a master Rune-mage, but he was also kind of a psycho - he murdered people, and so did his father - yet he was also capable of noble acts as well.

We just see so much of killing others to gain material power and wealth in the Sagas, yet we like to think of our Heathen ancestors as being committed to community and folk. I'm interested to hear others' opinions on this matter.

-Gugnir

They were dark age barbarians, so I donít think "Morality" ever entered their minds.

And in those days Life was pretty short and dirty, so they were not really given much time to think over "Moral Issues".

Gugnir
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 04:11 AM
They were dark age barbarians, so I donít think "Morality" ever entered their minds.

And in those days Life was pretty short and dirty, so they were not really given much time to think over "Moral Issues".

Uh... no?

The dark ages were not in the Viking era...

They were hardly barbarians. Yes, they were tribal, but they built great ships and great kingdoms and on and on.

Life was not "short and dirty," as you say. In fact, Northern Europe was a lot cleaner before Christianity came in with its insanity.

They had moral codes, and strict honor values. In addition, most of them were farmers, not raiders.

This thread is about the morality found in the Sagas, not speculation on how "barbaric" they were.

-Gugnir

Bearkinder
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 07:23 AM
Remember that "saga" means story, tale, or history. It's a telling of how things were, not an instruction manual on living.

Also, as other said, they were not so squeamish back then. It seems nowadays you can't speak of doing anything, even benign things without some weakling screeching "You can't do that!!"

They didn't think like that. They just did it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes they met someone better at it than they, and the paid for it.

The heroes of old are heroes not because they took the easy path, but because they took chances, and did things -- good and bad -- that lesser men did not have the stomach for. Look at how many heroes are written of, and how many people there were. Rest assured, most people just lead "normal" lives.

I think it's also to the writer's story to tell the good and bad about someone. We like to sugar-coat our heroes these days, and make it look like they've done no wrong. But be honest, the kind of guys that take the chances that make them heroes, also take chances doing things not so noble. It is the way of things.

renownedwolf
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Though there are lots of different translations it all says the same, pretty much,

75.
Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
fair fame of one who has earned.

76.
Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
the doom on each one dead.

Vindefense
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 04:19 PM
They were dark age barbarians, so I don’t think "Morality" ever entered their minds.

And in those days Life was pretty short and dirty, so they were not really given much time to think over "Moral Issues".

On the contrary, this fact itself was the very kernel of morality, which in its purity is nothing but common sense applied from the deductive powers.

The morality of the Sagas and the HŠvamŠl reduced:
“To avoid certain harmful effects one must avoid their causes”.

Is the very reasoning of social progress and morality. For life, ‘short and dirty’, could only endure while one remained ignorant to those causes which made it so. Man’s prime enemy then, is that which keeps him in the darkness and hinders his discovery of those causes, whether by way of deceit or force.

We're deceived if we believe that the Norse knew nothing of morality, to the contrary they beheld morality in its purest state. In this, they were as moral a people as circumstances allowed and as those changed, (the language improved and their capacity to reason increased) morality improved with it. Even today morality is evolving and will continue to as far into the future as we can see.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, April 28th, 2012, 05:39 PM
On the contrary, this fact itself was the very kernel of morality, which in its purity is nothing but common sense applied from the deductive powers.

The morality of the Sagas and the HŠvamŠl reduced:
ďTo avoid certain harmful effects one must avoid their causesĒ.

Is the very reasoning of social progress and morality. For life, Ďshort and dirtyí, could only endure while one remained ignorant to those causes which made it so. Manís prime enemy then, is that which keeps him in the darkness and hinders his discovery of those causes, whether by way of deceit or force.

We're deceived if we believe that the Norse knew nothing of morality, to the contrary they beheld morality in its purest state. In this, they were as moral a people as circumstances allowed and as those changed, (the language improved and their capacity to reason increased) morality improved with it. Even today morality is evolving and will continue to as far into the future as we can see.

Short
Iím betting that most pagans did not make it past 40 years of age, and most probably didnít even make it past 30, the ones that made it to 60 or so were probably considered the "Elders".

Dirty
Iím guessing living in a long house with twenty some odd other people could not have been the cleanest environment. and cooking your meals on what was basically a camp fire built in the middle of that long house was also not exactly the most sterile environment.

So you add that up you get the Short and the Dirty.

"The Gods" as best I can see were aspects of Nature, and with other ideas they gleaned from other cultures thrown in to create a "Pantheon of Gods".
Granted I'm guessing that a form of practical "Morality" existed with these people, but it was probably more or less limited.

The problem I see with Modern Neo-Pagans is that they keep harking back to the "Good Old Days" when we lived in nature and we were at harmony with the world. The problem is those "Days" never really existed.

Another aspect is the fact that most of the time it is a thinly veiled attempt to institute various aspects of Cultural Marxism, especially in the area of "Women's Rights" another aspect I donít particularly care for.

Neophyte
Sunday, April 29th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Short
Iím betting that most pagans did not make it past 40 years of age, and most probably didnít even make it past 30, the ones that made it to 60 or so were probably considered the "Elders".

No. Admittedly most did not make it past five, but once you had you could expect to become older than that. Old people were not uncommon.

Bearkinder
Sunday, April 29th, 2012, 03:01 PM
Short
Iím betting that most pagans did not make it past 40 years of age, and most probably didnít even make it past 30, the ones that made it to 60 or so were probably considered the "Elders".
As said above, when you remove the high infant mortality rate (which was present in every culture back then), those averages go way up. Most anthropologists say 60-70 was not uncommon. The physical labor involved in day-to-day lives made for hard folk. They didn't have the population in the various tribes for a king to be able to sit on his fat ass all day, even he had duties of a physical nature, albeit mostly to do with training for, and going to war.


Dirty
Iím guessing living in a long house with twenty some odd other people could not have been the cleanest environment. and cooking your meals on what was basically a camp fire built in the middle of that long house was also not exactly the most sterile environment.
Cooking over a campfire is quite sterile. Meats often were roasted on a spit or on skewers, and much of the rest made into stews. Boiling sterilizes things quite well.

Not to mention, the northmen were surprisingly clean, bathing much more often than their southern counterparts. When they traveled, they even brought a change of clothes -- something noteworthy in those days. When they bathed, they would wash the clothes they were in, and change into the fresh set and keep rotating them out.


The problem I see with Modern Neo-Pagans is that they keep harking back to the "Good Old Days" when we lived in nature and we were at harmony with the world. The problem is those "Days" never really existed.
Everybody looks back on days that never existed. Just go hang out around old people some time.

Culturally , it's the same, from the older generation lamenting about how their children "don't have what it takes" anymore, to notions of the noble savage in reference to aborigines, etc. Religious circles have their unfounded notions of the good ol' days as well.

Heathens dream of glorious battles followed by goring themselves at feast and being serves by lusty wenches all night. Forgetting all the farming and mending and such that had to be done.

Tubby wiccan chicks dream of days when women ruled as goddesses, there were only fluffy bunnies around and all was in harmony.

Christians like to look back an see an age of enlightenment they brought on. But forget that they forbade the masses literacy, held masses in a language the common man could not understand, and contrary to their own holy book, converted by sword and fire.

Of all the people, muslims are probably the most realistic -- they really did go around raping, pillaging, murdering and taking what others worked to build as their own. You know, like they are doing today.


Another aspect is the fact that most of the time it is a thinly veiled attempt to institute various aspects of Cultural Marxism, especially in the area of "Women's Rights" another aspect I donít particularly care for.

Not really. While heathen (stop calling them by the generic 'pagan') women of both Celtic and Germanic peoples had a lot more in the way of rights than any other women, the notion of actual equality is another dream of the tubby wiccan chicks. Men still ruled, and while women had a lot of say in things, they'd still be met with violence for openly challenging a man. They wielded most of their power back then behind the scenes like women always have. So really that idea of perfect equality of women in the old days is yet another pipe dream.

The largest differences between heathen women and those of other cultures is that they could vote, they could own property of their own, and could fight. Attack a group of heathens on the move, and the women would fight as much as the men. You had to have tough women when it came to packing on little ships and settling new lands. Women used to, and suitable only for, slavery simply would not do.

EQ Fighter
Friday, May 4th, 2012, 07:20 AM
As said above, when you remove the high infant mortality rate (which was present in every culture back then), those averages go way up. Most anthropologists say 60-70 was not uncommon. The physical labor involved in day-to-day lives made for hard folk. They didn't have the population in the various tribes for a king to be able to sit on his fat ass all day, even he had duties of a physical nature, albeit mostly to do with training for, and going to war.


Cooking over a campfire is quite sterile. Meats often were roasted on a spit or on skewers, and much of the rest made into stews. Boiling sterilizes things quite well.

Not to mention, the northmen were surprisingly clean, bathing much more often than their southern counterparts. When they traveled, they even brought a change of clothes -- something noteworthy in those days. When they bathed, they would wash the clothes they were in, and change into the fresh set and keep rotating them out.

Ok that would sound reasonable.
Not sure about the age issue, but 60 or 70 might be realistic for those days.




Heathens dream of glorious battles followed by goring themselves at feast and being serves by lusty wenches all night. Forgetting all the farming and mending and such that had to be done.

LOL Lusty Wenches?
Ok well Iím sure we all do that.





Christians like to look back an see an age of enlightenment they brought on. But forget that they forbade the masses literacy, held masses in a language the common man could not understand, and contrary to their own holy book, converted by sword and fire.

I think the first converts might have been because of the acts that you hear about saints (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucy), and by consent, but once the government and influence peddling got involved then the automatic result is blood, fire and the sword.



Of all the people, muslims are probably the most realistic -- they really did go around raping, pillaging, murdering and taking what others worked to build as their own. You know, like they are doing today.

Yeah they really have not changed much, have they. :)




Not really. While heathen (stop calling them by the generic 'pagan') women of both Celtic and Germanic peoples had a lot more in the way of rights than any other women, the notion of actual equality is another dream of the tubby wiccan chicks. Men still ruled, and while women had a lot of say in things, they'd still be met with violence for openly challenging a man. They wielded most of their power back then behind the scenes like women always have. So really that idea of perfect equality of women in the old days is yet another pipe dream.

Well personally I'm not really into Ruling women by violence, baring she is not trying to rule me the same way.



The largest differences between heathen women and those of other cultures is that they could vote, they could own property of their own, and could fight. Attack a group of heathens on the move, and the women would fight as much as the men. You had to have tough women when it came to packing on little ships and settling new lands. Women used to, and suitable only for, slavery simply would not do.

Honestly I donít think women have ever had the same fear of Slavery as men. Primarily because they never made very good slaves when it came to physical lobar. Sex does not count.

But the real question I think would be how to you meld any of this into valuable lessons for the modern world. I can see some correlations in regard with forming independent communities and so forth but the issue is how do you unite people under this banner?

The conditions of Ancient Germanicís do not correlate to modern Germanicís.

Bearkinder
Friday, May 4th, 2012, 07:14 PM
I think the first converts might have been because of the acts that you hear about saints (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucy), and by consent, but once the government and influence peddling got involved then the automatic result is blood, fire and the sword.

But I have to ask: where they really conversions?
Being polytheists, our ancestors may simply have felt they were introduced to a new god, or as Paul did with the Athenians, called one of our ancestral gods that same as his (Baldur being fairly close to the Christ story), and they just saw dunking in water and then eating a bit of bread and drinking a bit of wine, not far off from the regular blots they did anyway. The murdering and torture coming in when the Christians decided to enforce the view that their god is the only one.

Look at the way the early "Christians" acted and you see no similarity between then and the teachings of their scripture, but pretty much acting like they always had, but calling it by a different name.




Well personally I'm not really into Ruling women by violence, baring she is not trying to rule me the same way.
Regardless, my point was that although women had far more rights in heathen (Celtic and Germanic) lands than they had anywhere else, it was not the matriarchal utopia that the wiccan feminists would like to believe. Germanic heathens tend to hold to the more traditional roles (women still having the right to vote, own property, divorce, etc, but upholding the importance of the role of wife and mother, rather than trying to turn themselves into physically weaker versions of men).


Honestly I donít think women have ever had the same fear of Slavery as men. Primarily because they never made very good slaves when it came to physical lobar. Sex does not count.
I can't speak to that as I'm not a woman, but I';d suspect that begin raped by and enemy was feared, laws such as the English "rule of thumb" (you could whip your wife with a cane, so long as it was no larger in circumference than your thumb) as being fearful things, and I'm pretty sure they think sexual slavery counts. ;)


But the real question I think would be how to you meld any of this into valuable lessons for the modern world. I can see some correlations in regard with forming independent communities and so forth but the issue is how do you unite people under this banner?

The conditions of Ancient Germanicís do not correlate to modern Germanicís.
I really don't think it's that hard, but the best way to do it has been so demonized it would have to be completely repackaged.

You treat the entire (white)_ race as a tribe. You treat subdivisions (Germanic, Celtic, Slavic) as independent subcultures that follow the tenets of the tribe, but they retain their cultures and homelands. The overriding concern is that strong individuals make a strong tribe, and a strong tribe breeds strong individuals. So the tribe works to build strong, healthy, well educated members, and those members work to perform their duties as well as they can to benefit the tribe, starting with the nuclear, to extended, to community to city, to provincial/state, to national family.

Undesirables like the "Occupy Wall Street" retards would not be tolerated. Nor would those who's only "job skill" is collecting welfare and food stamps. Such people would be publicly flogged. If they refused to work,they be forced to work or starve. We had something like that in the US at the beginning of the 20th century called workfare. if you couldn't find a job, or were so worthless you couldn't hold one, you could do menial labor like picking up trash, mowing along highways with sling blades, not mowers, for a minimal wage. It reinforced the idea that you have to be productive to eat, and it was shit work that gave you incentive to improve so you could have better.

Now, of course, not everyone would be equal. I'd like to see it as a meritocracy, where you could rise as far as you were competent. This means that some people will never get past a job sweeping sidewalks. Sorry, "them's the facts".

I'd also shorten the time in public school. When I went to school, we learned new things to 4th grade. Then 4th through 8th we did the same thing, every year. We then started learning again in 9th grade. There's no reason taxpayers should have to foot the bill for 4 years that don't need to be there. Kindergarten was pretty much just playtime with minimal learning and unnecessary. I had the advantage of an old-school mother that had me able to do reading, writing and arithmetic before I went to school. If we re-emphasize the role of Mother, and her importance, more children would have that head start, as they are with mother more than anyone during the years when they learn the fastest.

Then when one got to 16, they'd be tested, and be given choices of a list of jobs they test as well-suited for. They select one, and do a 2-year job-intensive apprenticeship (this is for "professional" as well as blue-collar work. Professional apprentices can learn a lot working the mail room and listening to the people at work, prior to entering their higher education).

Which brings me to that higher education. Serving as an apprentice at a company, you would learn mos tof what you need on the job. There are few professions which really need university degrees (such as medicine, engineering, law, etc). There would be no government loans or grants. I know folks will howl, but here's the facts: before the fays of free government money, the cost of tuition was FAR lower. Universities didn't offer a slew of easily-passed, yet worthless degrees (Liberal Arts with a specialization in abstract Chinese lesbian poetry) simply to rake in money. They would have to provide worthwhile education, and provide it at a cost that someone who is paying out of pocket can afford, or they go under.

If you haven't guessed it yet, the name of what I am describing is National Socialism, and much along the lines of herr Hitler's playbook Mein Kampf.

Until the jews got the entire world to go to war against them, the NS Germans were described as "some of the happiest people on earth", NS as a "wonderful, brilliant society". A society which the soulless beast called the jew could not allow to exist, as it refused the jew the very power base and inroads to that power that it lusts after. The jew, and indeed most races, are simply incapable of understanding or implementing such a unifying and upward moving society as NS, so they saw it imperative to destroy it at all costs. We see this even today with Germans falling over themselves to debase themselves before the lesser races, and give away what is theirs by birth right to the undeserving masses.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, May 5th, 2012, 04:57 AM
But I have to ask: where they really conversions?

In a word.
Yes I think they were, and the success of the later Church is more or less a proof of it.

In reality I think real faith is spread face to face, not through the modern mediums we are using today. The same could be said as the Church grew it became like the Jews they were opposing, in the sense they followed Legalistic BS and persecuted those that did not agree with them.

More or less they forgot what the original argument was all about.
We see this today in the US over and over again in left right politics.

Also I think you keep forgetting though that the Germanic tribes of those days as well as most people that were affected by Rome, Hated Rome, and in that since Christians were hero’s when they stood up to Romans.

Also Romans were not "Our Ancestors" even though we as Germanic’s were socialized by them.




Being polytheists, our ancestors may simply have felt they were introduced to a new god, or as Paul did with the Athenians, called one of our ancestral gods that same as his (Baldur being fairly close to the Christ story), and they just saw dunking in water and then eating a bit of bread and drinking a bit of wine, not far off from the regular blots they did anyway. The murdering and torture coming in when the Christians decided to enforce the view that their god is the only one.

I will assume you are talking about baptism here. I’m not sure how non Jews would have perceived this, but the Temple Jews seen it as a direct threat to their authority. Because it was done by Jews at the Temple and as a consecration to the Temple System.

The stuff Jesus was teaching was inflammatory to the corrupt Jewish authority and was more or less invalidating them as a religious organization.

So the "Jesus Movement Jews" of that day would have seen none Jewish pagans as far less of a threat than the other Jews if you can see where I'm going with this.



Regardless, my point was that although women had far more rights in heathen (Celtic and Germanic) lands than they had anywhere else, it was not the matriarchal utopia that the wiccan feminists would like to believe. Germanic heathens tend to hold to the more traditional roles (women still having the right to vote, own property, divorce, etc, but upholding the importance of the role of wife and mother, rather than trying to turn themselves into physically weaker versions of men).

I'm not sure about Germanic Women or the level of their rights, in society.

Rome on the other hand as they aged and developed more artificial connections and organizational structures began to have women that were very similar to what we would call "Feminist" today.

It is highly unlikely that a Germanic Tribe would have any kind of power structure that would allow women the power that could afford them the security to F-over the men around them. Rome had this and higher class women used it to their advantage. This along with other social Diseases killed the Empire just as it is killing the American Empire.




I can't speak to that as I'm not a woman, but I';d suspect that begin raped by and enemy was feared, laws such as the English "rule of thumb" (you could whip your wife with a cane, so long as it was no larger in circumference than your thumb) as being fearful things, and I'm pretty sure they think sexual slavery counts. ;)

Women in the ancient world were less valuable as slaves simply because they are physically weaker than a man, and as such one would have to transport more of them to do the same job as men. This is why far more black men were transported to the Americas than Black women, during slave days.

On the other hand, I would bet that the Romans did in fact capture Germanic women as slaves for house servants and such. There does seem to be a higher number of them than one would expect with some what northern traits IE lighter hair and lighter eyes than you would expect. Although that is not really proof.



I really don't think it's that hard, but the best way to do it has been so demonized it would have to be completely repackaged.

You treat the entire (white)_ race as a tribe. You treat subdivisions (Germanic, Celtic, Slavic) as independent subcultures that follow the tenets of the tribe, but they retain their cultures and homelands. The overriding concern is that strong individuals make a strong tribe, and a strong tribe breeds strong individuals. So the tribe works to build strong, healthy, well educated members, and those members work to perform their duties as well as they can to benefit the tribe, starting with the nuclear, to extended, to community to city, to provincial/state, to national family.

Ok I follow you on this. I think the first step will come when people realize that the current systems do not work. Most likely after we run out of hydrocarbon fuels. I think the future will be a somewhat of a weird mix of the old and the new.

At this point I will recommend a book written by a guy named John Michel Greer. He is a Naturalist and has a site called the The Archdruid Report (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/)

The book is called The Ecotechnic Future (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ecotechnic-Future-Envisioning-Post-Peak/dp/0865716390) which paints a sort of weird slowly de-industrializing world of the future out to about 100 years and more.

The book is more or less based on rationality and form what I see I really can't argue with most of his points. On the other hand I as a guy who am inclined to support technological solutions, really don not like the idea of loosening much of what we have learned.
http://www.post-carbon-living.com/Books/Thumbnails/Greer_Ecotechnic_Future_1_small.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ecotechnic-Future-Envisioning-Post-Peak/dp/0865716390)




I'd also shorten the time in public school. When I went to school, we learned new things to 4th grade. Then 4th through 8th we did the same thing, every year. We then started learning again in 9th grade. There's no reason taxpayers should have to foot the bill for 4 years that don't need to be there. Kindergarten was pretty much just playtime with minimal learning and unnecessary. I had the advantage of an old-school mother that had me able to do reading, writing and arithmetic before I went to school. If we re-emphasize the role of Mother, and her importance, more children would have that head start, as they are with mother more than anyone during the years when they learn the fastest.

If you want to re-emphasize mother you will have to do it without the "Public School" which is really nothing more than indoctrination centres to dumb down the Goyim's Children and make them docile controllable fools in society.






Until the jews got the entire world to go to war against them, the NS Germans were described as "some of the happiest people on earth", NS as a "wonderful, brilliant society". A society which the soulless beast called the jew could not allow to exist, as it refused the jew the very power base and inroads to that power that it lusts after. The jew, and indeed most races, are simply incapable of understanding or implementing such a unifying and upward moving society as NS, so they saw it imperative to destroy it at all costs. We see this even today with Germans falling over themselves to debase themselves before the lesser races, and give away what is theirs by birth right to the undeserving masses.

Ok yes I can agree with most of that. But here is my take on that.

I think the problem stems from the fact that Christianity even though it divided up the Jewish Religion for the most part, that at some level there is a part of them, that still supports the corrupt state establishments. As such they have major issues with Germanic populations that wish to create harmony in their own societies. They DO NOT like any form of real democracy because as a perpetual minority they cannot be the vetoing majority.

In their context if you cant rule the club, then burn the club house to the ground and kill all the members. That has pretty much been the popular front belief of Jewish Marxist, and other various strains of Extreme Judaism in Eastern Europe and America.

We see this in their attacks on Germans as well as their Rabid Attacks on white Americans after WW2 including all the prolongations of Globalism.

I will state though I do not believe that the "New World Order" is entirely Jewish, but is more a conglomeration of BS and bad leftist social dynamics combined with small minorities of power based psychopaths that run the world.

That being said the root to it is Jewish.

Bearkinder
Saturday, May 5th, 2012, 10:29 AM
In a word.
Yes I think they were, and the success of the later Church is more or less a proof of it.
I will contend that:
1.) we'll never really know, because we weren't there.
2.) Later success does not indicate the initial "conversions" were real, it indicates that the ancient heathen values and attitudes were gradually bred out over generations. The early converted exhibited nearly no Christian like behavior, but pure heathen character using different names and terminology to pretend they were something else.


Also I think you keep forgetting though that the Germanic tribes of those days as well as most people that were affected by Rome, Hated Rome, and in that since Christians were heroís when they stood up to Romans.
No, I'm talking of the end of the Roman empire, after it was an officially "Christian" state, and the violent conversions and spread of the shattered remains of the western empire, AKA "Holy Roman Empire".


Also Romans were not "Our Ancestors" even though we as Germanicís were socialized by them.
I'm speaking of Germanic and Celtic heathens as our ancestors, no one else.





I will assume you are talking about baptism here. Iím not sure how non Jews would have perceived this, but the Temple Jews seen it as a direct threat to their authority. Because it was done by Jews at the Temple and as a consecration to the Temple System.

The stuff Jesus was teaching was inflammatory to the corrupt Jewish authority and was more or less invalidating them as a religious organization.

Baptism is only the beginning. I was referring more to the "Lord's Supper" as being very like a blot. I don't think heathens would have had much of a problem being told "Hey this new god wants you to be dunked under water once, and have some crackers and wine once a week." Big deal, just another blot, really.

The best thing about Christianity is how much it pisses the jews off, and I readily admit the first Christians understood the jews were the enemy. Modern Christians are quite stupid in glorying in their slavery and fawning over the jew.




I'm not sure about Germanic Women or the level of their rights, in society.

Rome on the other hand as they aged and developed more artificial connections and organizational structures began to have women that were very similar to what we would call "Feminist" today.

It is highly unlikely that a Germanic Tribe would have any kind of power structure that would allow women the power that could afford them the security to F-over the men around them. Rome had this and higher class women used it to their advantage. This along with other social Diseases killed the Empire just as it is killing the American Empire.
As you say, Rome had a social disease, just as we do.
Heathen women, like I said, could vote, own property and divorce (though divorce was a matter of announcing the separation at the Thing, none of the perpetual indebtedness on the part of the male, nor did she get half or more of what he owned. Women could also rule if there was no suitable male family member (though this was more common in Celtic than Germanic tribes, and not at all common overall,unlike what feminists would like to think).

Though there were definite limits to a heathen woman's rights, she was still a force in the community, especially the household, and far from teh slave that oriental, semitic and negroid women were.





Women in the ancient world were less valuable as slaves simply because they are physically weaker than a man, and as such one would have to transport more of them to do the same job as men. This is why far more black men were transported to the Americas than Black women, during slave days.
For work, but they were the key to something the male slaves couldn't do, which is make more slaves.



Ok I follow you on this. I think the first step will come when people realize that the current systems do not work. Most likely after we run out of hydrocarbon fuels. I think the future will be a somewhat of a weird mix of the old and the new.

At this point I will recommend a book written by a guy named John Michel Greer. He is a Naturalist and has a site called the The Archdruid Report (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/)

The book is called The Ecotechnic Future (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ecotechnic-Future-Envisioning-Post-Peak/dp/0865716390) which paints a sort of weird slowly de-industrializing world of the future out to about 100 years and more.

The book is more or less based on rationality and form what I see I really can't argue with most of his points. On the other hand I as a guy who am inclined to support technological solutions, really don not like the idea of loosening much of what we have learned.
http://www.post-carbon-living.com/Books/Thumbnails/Greer_Ecotechnic_Future_1_small.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ecotechnic-Future-Envisioning-Post-Peak/dp/0865716390)

I'll look into it.
However, I've done much thought on subjects akin to this, and there's no reason, other than greed, expense and idiotic environmentalists (note, I'm just talking about the idiot ones), that most of what we do and built cannot use mostly natural, renewable materials. The VAST majority of fossil fuels are used in generating power and production of plastics. Taking every vehicle off the road in the whole world would reduce the petroleum use by less than 6%.
The stonework in pyramids and the ancient meso-american architecture is beyond what we can duplicate. So obviously, whoever built them was, at least in that way, more advanced than us, and yet, had and eye for, and mastery of, natural materials.

There's huge amounts to talk about on that subject.


If you want to re-emphasize mother you will have to do it without the "Public School" which is really nothing more than indoctrination centres to dumb down the Goyim's Children and make them docile controllable fools in society.
I used the example of my mother for a reason. A lot of the early learning can, and should, be done at home. But women who are consumed by careerism are completely ineffective in that role.

Regarding public school, it really depends on who is running those schools, now doesn't it? Under the current rulership, yes, it's useless. In the changed society we are talking about, it would be an integral part of keeping the tribe strong,and would not occupy 12 years.







Ok yes I can agree with most of that. But here is my take on that.

I think the problem stems from the fact that Christianity even though it divided up the Jewish Religion for the most part, that at some level there is a part of them, that still supports the corrupt state establishments. As such they have major issues with Germanic populations that wish to create harmony in their own societies. They DO NOT like any form of real democracy because as a perpetual minority they cannot be the vetoing majority.

In their context if you cant rule the club, then burn the club house to the ground and kill all the members. That has pretty much been the popular front belief of Jewish Marxist, and other various strains of Extreme Judaism in Eastern Europe and America.

We see this in their attacks on Germans as well as their Rabid Attacks on white Americans after WW2 including all the prolongations of Globalism.

I will state though I do not believe that the "New World Order" is entirely Jewish, but is more a conglomeration of BS and bad leftist social dynamics combined with small minorities of power based psychopaths that run the world.

That being said the root to it is Jewish.

The key is that they are the minority, and at risk of breaking some rules, can be, and probably should be, dealt with in the manner they accused us of in the past, and the manner which they've shown no reluctance to use.

Amerikaner
Sunday, April 28th, 2019, 11:31 AM
I think the Sagas are just history. The phenomena they speak of where they depict family strife, that is good to tell people about so that people know that sometimes family members can do bad things. It's good to know to be cautious.

SaxonPagan
Sunday, April 28th, 2019, 08:32 PM
There is no morality preached in the Sagas and they're all the better for it!

You can of course interpret them as you see fit but their purpose is not to give moral guidance.