PDA

View Full Version : What Kind of Lives Did Actual Barbarians Live? (Article on Women's Status Among Barbarians Vs Civilized People)



North Vinlander
Thursday, June 15th, 2017, 11:48 PM
What kind of lives did actual barbarians live?

After we have answered this question, I believe that many of our readers and perhaps even our critics over at Counter Currents will be wonderfully enlightened.

The tribes the Greeks and Romans referred to as barbarians, Aristotle’s “belligerent nations,” had degrees of political equity for women unparalleled in white European society until the establishment of suffrage in the 20th century. Women used their political equity to garner vast political and economic influence, becoming loci for material wealth and common envoys to foreign civilizations.

Out of frustration with the cost of heterosexual relationships becoming excessively high and women bullying them with weird superstitions about faeries riding their accessory dogs, barbarian men frequently turned to homosexuality. The word barbarian was steeped in moral disgust. Most barbarians were weak faggots who could not control their women, and as a result were subjugated before the superior Roman physique and ingenuity.


The state of barbarians begs another question. How did the greatest and most culturally influential empire in all history manage its women in the same period?

Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband’s authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see.


So now that we know what the lives of most barbarians were like, we have a firm intellectual basis for a dialectic of gender politics based in barbarism against civilization.

https://www.dailystormer.com/what-kind-of-lives-did-actual-barbarians-live/

SpearBrave
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 01:34 AM
Is this article supposed to be satire?

The Greeks who promoted homosexuality in their art, the Romans whom were known to have decedent orgies, and further is was these "Barbarians" that not only stopped the expansion of Rome, but eventually defeated Rome. Could it be that both of the original source articles were propaganda pieces of their times? This is almost ridiculous propaganda at its best.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 02:10 AM
The barbarians it's referring to isn't only Germans. The Romans had an enormous empire at their peak in addition to being more technologically advanced at the time than the North.
http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/4822044/RomanEmpire_117.svg.png

The central theme of the article is whether the subjugation of women is a characteristic of "barbarians." The stuff about homosexuality is beside central the point.

Mööv
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 02:41 AM
The article is stupid. It promotes "Christian western civilisation" as opposed to ancient European paganism, claiming that pagan tribes in the north were made up of faggy and weak men easily conquered by the great christian Roman empire.

Pro-Christian civilisation people have completely lost their minds.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 02:54 AM
The article is stupid. It promotes "Christian western civilisation" as opposed to ancient European paganism, claiming that pagan tribes in the north were made up of faggy and weak men easily conquered by the great christian Roman empire.

Pro-Christian civilisation people have completely lost their minds.

Greeks and Romans had empires, and their wives in veils, as pagans. The article itself was written by a Mjölnir-wearing heathen.

Mööv
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 03:11 AM
I don't know what he is but he is an idiot promoting values that you would expect from people in the middle-east and africa.
Women wearing veils, regular vicious beating of a woman to discipline her, regarding women as mere property to be traded, etc. That sounds more Arabian than European.


Just take a look at this cancer:


Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased.

https://www.dailystormer.com/just-what-are-traditional-gender-roles/

SpearBrave
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 03:21 AM
Greeks and Romans had empires, and their wives in veils, as pagans. The article itself was written by a Mjölnir-wearing heathen.

I have met Mjolnir-wearing so called heathens that are willing to include negroes as part of us. Germanic and Indo-European paganism is basic ancestor worship. There is no way it is for racial others, nor should we emulate ancient Roman and Greek gender/sexual roles they are a foreign people to us.

Sure the Romans were had more technology at the time, but they were beaten by Germanic tribes with clubs and spears. ;)

notheywillnot
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 03:31 AM
The article and some of the other linked ones seem to have been written by wannabe "/pol/ack". He could almost be bordering that of a troll and I wouldn't take anything serious written in those articles.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 04:09 AM
I have met Mjolnir-wearing so called heathens that are willing to include negroes as part of us. Germanic and Indo-European paganism is basic ancestor worship. There is no way it is for racial others, nor should we emulate ancient Roman and Greek gender/sexual roles they are a foreign people to us.

Was the Renaissance era a big mistake for Germany?


The article and some of the other linked ones seem to have been written by wannabe "/pol/ack". He could almost be bordering that of a troll and I wouldn't take anything serious written in those articles.

Of course, he's deliberately over the top. That's central to the Daily Stormer strategy. The opposite of those who try and water down the message, thinking it'll appeal to more people.

SpearBrave
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 04:22 AM
Was the Renaissance era a big mistake for Germany?

You are comparing apples to oranges here, two separate time periods between classical Rome and the Italian Renaissance , and in some ways the "renaissance era" was not a good thing for Germany. You do understand that there is a big difference in "The Renaissance era" from one place to the other and it was not just born in Italy right? The Renaissance era most refer to is dealing with the style of art and cultural shift away from the so called "dark ages" which really were not so dark, much skill and craft was lost due the renaissance era. Germanic culture would have grown on it own without Italian/Roman Catholic influences of the time period.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 04:47 AM
You are comparing apples to oranges here, two separate time periods between classical Rome and the Italian Renaissance , and in some ways the "renaissance era" was not a good thing for Germany. You do understand that there is a big difference in "The Renaissance era" from one place to the other and it was not just born in Italy right? The Renaissance era most refer to is dealing with the style of art and cultural shift away from the so called "dark ages" which really were not so dark, much skill and craft was lost due the renaissance era. Germanic culture would have grown on it own without Italian/Roman Catholic influences of the time period.



The Renaissance was marked by the spread of literacy and rediscovery of Greek and Latin literature. Hence why there are no German philosophers who didn't study Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, etc. It was only after this period that there was a Germanic civilization worthy of emulation.

velvet
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 05:26 AM
One quote refers to Celts, where the "mjölnir-wearing heathen" draws conclusions that the text doesnt really offer, and the other quotes it's not even clear which people it refers to. Could as well be one of the wild tribes of the north African part of the Roman Empire.

Whatever, that article is bad at best, and weird propaganda at worst, trying to honeypot those who're repelled by the christian touch of certain allegedly pro-white movements, but then going straight through the roof with diving head first into Islamisation. "White Sharia"? WTF?

It's a weird trend on DS recently, as well as with Truthout. The last year or so you get to read really freak stuff there, only serving the image of pro-whites being total nutcases. Hijacked? Dont know, dont care, just telling you to stay away from them and not take any of the shit serious.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 06:05 AM
One quote refers to Celts, where the "mjölnir-wearing heathen" draws conclusions that the text doesnt really offer, and the other quotes it's not even clear which people it refers to. Could as well be one of the wild tribes of the north African part of the Roman Empire.

The point is that gender inequality is not a characteristic of barbarians rather than civilized people.


Whatever, that article is bad at best, and weird propaganda at worst, trying to honeypot those who're repelled by the christian touch of certain allegedly pro-white movements, but then going straight through the roof with diving head first into Islamisation. "White Sharia"? WTF?

Islamization? It's not literal. It's tongue in cheek.

velvet
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 07:29 AM
The point is that gender inequality is not a characteristic of barbarians rather than civilized people.

Yes, indeed. But it's not exactly the point of the article. He makes it look as if "barbarian" women turned men into effiminate weak idiots fleeing from their sexual frustration inflicted upon them by women into sodomy and homosexuality.

This "image" is the hate message of self-proclaimed "anti-feminists", that type that orders Thai women from the catalogue for being the better sex-slave, uhm, the "more traditional wives".


Islamization? It's not literal. It's tongue in cheek.

Yes, it is literal. See above what kind of mindset pops out such thoughts, otherwise they'd also not come up with terms like "white sharia". It's retardism gone through the roof, not more, of a nutcase having failed to get a dance at the highschool ball, y'know.

SpearBrave
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 09:29 AM
The Renaissance was marked by the spread of literacy and rediscovery of Greek and Latin literature. Hence why there are no German philosophers who didn't study Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, etc. It was only after this period that there was a Germanic civilization worthy of emulation.

Nice try the "Renaissance" was more than 1,000 years after the quotes made in the article. Further it was an overrated time period. I'm not here to debate the "Renaissance" at least not in this thread, but I will tell you it was not a great enlightenment that we were taught in mainstream education.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 02:33 PM
No one said the Renaissance was related to quotes in the article. I mentioned it to contrast the two time periods. Which one had the greater Germanic civilization? No contest.

Juthunge
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 04:04 PM
So wait, you’re telling me that the barbarians were hugely influenced by women politically? That all their women were living in the lap of luxury via the fruits of their harlotry? That all their men were catamites because their women were so manipulative and rotten, and thus were too weak to keep themselves from being trivially conquered by the Romans?
Fascinating, how someone could infer that from three random anecdotes about the sexual preferences of some Celts.

Nevermind, that Rome was actually plundered by the Celts and that it took them centuries to conquer even those mixed Celtic tribes in northern Italy and even that only with the blood sacrifice of whole generations of warriors.
Diodorus Siculus even, directly preceding the quote, that the Celts have little to do with their women, actually says:


The women of the Gauls are not only like the men in their great stature but they are a match for them in courage as well.
[..]
And since the valour of these peoples and their savage ways have been famed abroad, some men say that it was they who in ancient times overran all Asia and were called Cimmerians, time having slightly corrupted the word into the name of Cimbrians, as they are now called. For it has been their ambition from old to plunder, invading for this purpose the lands of others, and to regard all men with contempt.
For they are the people who captured Rome who plundered the sanctuary at Delphi, who levied tribute upon a large part of Europe and no small part of Asia, and settled themselves upon the lands of the peoples they had subdued in war, being called in time Greco-Gauls, because they became mixed with the Greeks, and who, as their last accomplishment, have destroyed many large Roman armies.

And Aristotle, in the sentence following the one about women living luxuriously actually says:

So that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in honor, especially if it is the case that the people are under the sway of their women, as most of the military and warlike races are, except the Celts and such other races as have openly held in honor passionate friendship between males

I “wonder” why this was left out…


Out of frustration with the cost of heterosexual relationships becoming excessively high and women bullying them with weird superstitions about faeries riding their accessory dogs, barbarian men frequently turned to homosexuality. The word barbarian was steeped in moral disgust. Most barbarians were weak faggots who could not control their women, and as a result were subjugated before the superior Roman physique and ingenuity.

Well, that’s quite frankly nonsense. Nevermind the about thousand references to Roman “homosexuality”(a concept that did not even exist in the effeminate way we understand it today), compared to the three about the Celts and none about Germanics. Northern Barbarians were usually used as examples of morality among the Romans and certainly weren’t condemned for something the Romans themselves did even more.


Greeks and Romans had empires, and their wives in veils, as pagans.
And southern Europeans and northern Europeans of later eras, as well as non-European cultures, had Empires without women in veils, as pagans or Christians. Your point being?

Besides that, the evidence for veils, as chador-, burqa- or niqab-style, among Greeks and Romans seems nonexistent in the first place. I must have seen a million vases and statues of those cultures and never saw anything remotely remniscient of that.
Usually, if they wear anything on their head at all, it’s either a thin headband(especially) or something quite akin to a mantilla(rarely), only covering part of the hair but leaving the face and some of the hair entirely visible. The latter might well be a custom introduced to merely protect from the sun.


The point is that gender inequality is not a characteristic of barbarians rather than civilized people.
Gender “inequality”, in the sense that men and women have capacities for certain different things, is the natural state of functioning societies, whether “barbarian” or civilised. Accepting that, doesn’t mean one has to “go full retard” and treat women like dirt.


Islamization? It's not literal. It's tongue in cheek.

Hopefully all of this article was meant tongue in cheek or flat out satire. Otherwise, whoever wrote this drivel, has the eloquence of a goat and the historical knowledge and intellectual capacity to go with it. In short, he’s exactly what I’d expect from someone who supports “White Sharia”.


It was only after this period that there was a Germanic civilization worthy of emulation.
You obviously buy too much into the “dark” Middle Ages myth.

North Vinlander
Friday, June 16th, 2017, 10:15 PM
And southern Europeans and northern Europeans of later eras, as well as non-European cultures, had Empires without women in veils, as pagans or Christians. Your point being?

I was responding to someone whose mind jumps from patriarchy to Abrahamic religion automatically, and that even some of the things often associated these days with Islam specifically in fact have a history in pagan Europe.



Hopefully all of this article was meant tongue in cheek or flat out satire. Otherwise, whoever wrote this drivel, has the eloquence of a goat and the historical knowledge and intellectual capacity to go with it. In short, he’s exactly what I’d expect from someone who supports “White Sharia”.

I think it's shock value with a bit of truth. It's over the top and silly, but surely you get the point.

Juthunge
Saturday, June 17th, 2017, 01:59 PM
I understand the shock value of it as wider rhetorical device, yes. But what is the point in being so over the top, that no one could possibly identify one's real ideas? Surely, they could get their point across without appearing entirely ridiculous, without watering down their message entirely.
What exactly do you think they want to get across with "White Sharia"?

North Vinlander
Saturday, June 17th, 2017, 05:26 PM
The primary obstacle to waking people up is emotional conditioning, not logic.

Daily Stormer makes everything else look moderate by comparison, destroying the conditioning that says anything remotely pro-White is extreme.

Then there's the fact that DS is entertaining, so it keeps people coming back as it chips away at the conditioning. And objectively (based on web traffic), it destroys a site like Amren in popularity (especially among the young).

Juthunge
Sunday, June 18th, 2017, 05:13 PM
That's all well and good to enlarge the overton window in our favour but not really an answer as to what they actually advocate or what societal/moral policy they'd like to implement then.
Clearly not all of "White Sharia" can be meant as mere satire and a lot of what was stated in that article and beyond is obviously taken at face value by its proponents.

North Vinlander
Sunday, June 18th, 2017, 10:06 PM
They advocate a patriarchal society. Working out the details now would be mental masturbation. Calling it "White Sharia" is purely for irony. It's really about having the society our forefathers did for most of European history (among literate nations, not the barbarians the article talks about ;)).

Juthunge
Sunday, June 18th, 2017, 10:49 PM
The Right of whatever sort has advocated a rather patriarchal system/return to tradition since ever, that’s nothing new. But obviously that can mean vastly different things to different people.
So if they want their White Sharia to have any influence and not merely remain a meme among adolescent internet warriors, they have to at least outline what they mean by it, what its benefits are and how they want to achieve it. I’m not asking for some detailed master plan, merely a very rough outlining.

North Vinlander
Monday, June 19th, 2017, 07:02 AM
I'm not sure if all the pushers of the White Sharia meme have identical ideas about what it would really mean either. But it definitely means women would not have equal political influence, to say the least. Surely the benefits of that don't need much explanation, for non-liberals like us.

Chlodovech
Monday, June 19th, 2017, 10:12 PM
White sharia is a meme and a joke, except to the post-neomasculinility sphere, the circle around the Iranian V. Roosh and his website Return of Kings (its participants were part of #neomasculinity until it split into a traditionalist part and a Men's Rights Activist part) + also the dreaded Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer website. And those who take offense to it. In the case of Anglin (who on the basis of his nutzi larpyness is considered to be a covert Jewish shill by many respectable nationalists) and Roosh V. they're quite right to take offense, though. There have been plenty alt-right articles written on this subject, nearly all rejecting "white sharia" out of hand for a myriad of reasons. This struggle for the direction the alt-right will take was written in the stars: the manosphere wants the alt-right to be primarly about anti-feminism and women and their messed up idea of traditionalism, the edgy "racism" is just a bonus. For the nationalists in the alt-right it's different. And the alt-right was a nationalist "movement" all along.

BjIcCxYzxLk

1:05 marker: furious white talib, yells about throwing fags in the ovens. It sounds quite trollish, but he and his buddies also sort of mean it. Luckily, these guys are pretty irrelevant. They're probably the worst people one can encounter amongst the far right, the Hollywood stereotypes.

04:31 marker: "Oh yeah baby, oh dude, the thots will have their clits removed and they wil be beaten! You think sandnigger sharia is bad? It's gonna be patriarchy 2.0 without chivalry. There will be administrative, maintenance beatings. It's about putting our women in check." They also discuss the possibility of white rape gangs for girls without good fathers.

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 12:27 AM
They advocate a patriarchal society. Working out the details now would be mental masturbation. Calling it "White Sharia" is purely for irony. It's really about having the society our forefathers did for most of European history (among literate nations, not the barbarians the article talks about ;)).

I DESPISE them calling a traditional, patriarchal European society "White Sharia." Anyone who thinks this is funny should have their head examined. First, Sharia does not really have a good image among whites, and second, it sounds like we are adopting this evil culture because we have none of our own.

Mablung
Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 01:03 AM
Roman society is not really european society. Romans are some guys in toga who showed up one day from the east and for them white sharia is kind of applicable. All the covering of faces and crap came from the middle east not from islam or white people.

North Vinlander
Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 01:30 AM
I DESPISE them calling a traditional, patriarchal European society "White Sharia." Anyone who thinks this is funny should have their head examined. First, Sharia does not really have a good image among whites, and second, it sounds like we are adopting this evil culture because we have none of our own.

Don't worry, I did. They said there was nothing in there. :rollsmile

But really, you say it's not funny as if you get that it's a joke, then you argue against it as if it's serious.

https://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/white-sharia-definition.jpg

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 09:24 AM
Don't worry, I did. They said there was nothing in there. :rollsmile

But really, you say it's not funny as if you get that it's a joke, then you argue against it as if it's serious.


Bad jokes can be very serious indeed. For examples, see most Quentin Tarantino films and look at the anti-white hatred and general cultural rot his "dark comedies" have produced.

North Vinlander
Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 05:57 PM
What are you actually afraid White Sharia would result in, except more politically incorrect thoughts on the sexes?

SpearBrave
Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 09:49 PM
What are you actually afraid White Sharia would result in, except more politically incorrect thoughts on the sexes?

This "white sharia" is not Germanic. Germanic peoples always respected their women as a whole. Women should have their rights, but different gender roles. It is a Abrahamic idea that women should be throttled. Really do you want someone you love, your partner, your life companion, the mother of your children, and the continuers of our race and culture to be your slave?

Being in a relationship is a partnership with a member of the opposite sex, that does not mean women should not have their own ideas and thoughts.

I think this "white sharia" bs stems from those MGTOW or whatever it is called, you know those neck beard fucktards that live in mommies basements complaining about women all day while masturbating to nip cartoons.

North Vinlander
Wednesday, June 21st, 2017, 05:02 AM
No one is seriously advocating anything like that. But if you want to break social conditioning, it's best to at least joke about the most extreme views possible.

Also, I originally put this thread in the Lounge because it wasn't supposed to be taken too literally or seriously.