PDA

View Full Version : The Norse Impact On Our Democracy


friedrich braun
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 03:45 AM
This is an excellent review!

Notice the reviewer's antipathy towards Christianity as a fundamentally foreign (Semitic) creed incompatible with the Nordic spirit or genius.

It amazes me how it's impossible to discuss Europeans (especially Northern Europeans) without simultaneously chanting the mantra of "anti-racism". It seems that you cannot publish a book on Nordics nowadays without first establishing your credentials as someone who doesn't view race (i.e., genotype) as a biological factor determinant of culture and civilization -- of course, this flies in the face of reputable, scientific evidence, but that's the "Alice's Adventure in Wonderland" world we live in at this juncture.

The intellectual atmosphere on race issues is beyond Orwellian.

The Norse Impact On Our Democracy
Contrasted With The Christian And Greco-Roman Influence

10/14/2003

Bill White

OVERTHROW.COM --

Commentary -- I have been reading Gwyn Jones' book The Vikings, and while I have some problems with the authors' perspective on things -- he is virulently anti- racist and deliberately oblivious to the racial aspects of Norse religion and culture -- I am developing from reading it a stronger appreciation of the fact that the roots of American and British democracy are more Nordic in origin than they are Christian, Greek or Roman (with the thought that there may have been a Jewish or Israeli origin, as some Jew-conservatives suggest, never being something I've taken seriously.)
I have always doubted the thesis that there is something particularly Christian about democratic or republican institutions. One would be hard pressed to find a nation that adopted such institutions after Christianization without having some cultural root in those institutions before Christianization. Further, I do not see in any major Greek or Roman thinkers writings the roots of the notions of individual liberty that are embodied in the US Constitution -- or the English Magna Carta. The individual Greek or Roman citizen, for the most part (and they suffere dunder many forms of government during the millenia or so of their culture's dominance), never possessed any of the rights that we consider to be of such value today -- there was no right to speak freely, to be secure in property, or to be secure in one's person and one's life. The histories of those nations are rife with the execution of thinkers for their speech, confiscatory actions by the various governments and summary executions; no codification of "rights", except the occassional temporary imposition of religious tolerance as a prelude to persecution in the name of a new faith, can be found.

However, the Norse appear to have been fundamentally democratic or republican in their institutions from the earliest times. The Scandanavian penninsula has been settled since at least 10000 BC; it is known to have been inhabited by the Norse since at least 1500 BC. While Roman writers describing the Cimbri and the Teutones have no knowledge of their domestic affairs, and the invading waves of Goths, Vandals, Lombards and others who struck the Empire from the Scandanavian penninsula were at war, and thus not engaged in typical domestic forms of organization, at the earliest points at which the domestic organization of the Danes, the Norwegians and Swedes (and related peoples -- such as the settlers of Iceland, and, one can presume, the settlers of Vinland and Greenland) can be examined, we see fundamental to their society local governments known as "Things" (literally -- the Scandanavian character for "th" followed by "ing" -- thing -- a phrase which is less surprising given the Greek term for the same political unit -- res publica, or, "the public thing"). The Things were locally based and electoral -- each freeman had one vote when the Thing met to create laws or to elect a new king or jarl. While it is true that, as the larger nation-states of Norway, Sweden and Denmark developed, the title of "king" and "jarl" became a function of military conquest, the election of local leaders for small villages and communities continued, just with titles that were somewhat scaled down. One of the challenges of Nordic trade through cities such as Birka was the question of whose law would the trade be under. The larger system of national legal organization was more similar to our (theoretical) system of federalization than the Roman or Greek model -- the local unit was the most important unit in makign laws, with the laws of the jarl and then the king being secondary and relating only to issues of regional or national importance. Until 900 AD many of the nations of the North were not even nations proper, but collections of small tribal fiefdoms that had never unified under any meaningful political collective; the act of federating them, even when accomplished by conquest, did not generally involve direct Kingly intervention in things such as the regulation of local crimes or commerce.

We also embodied in the Norse culture the ideas of individualism and individual rights that survived into Anglo-American notions of democracy and of government. Norse freemen were considerably better off in rights than the English or Celtic peasant, as reflected in international treaties between the nations of Great Britain and Scandanavia fixing things such as fines for murder -- the Norse farming class, all of whom were owners and not tenants of their properties, were valued significantly above the English farming class. This may have been because of the different natures of the development of feudalism in the two countries: the Anglo-Saxons conquered the Roman and Celtic Britons and imposed a state that exacted taxes from the tenant farmers, who often paid up to 90% of the produce in support of the wars of the local raider/conqueror (though that amount dropped after the Anglo-Saxons began to settle in and create a regular form of administration); the Norsemen formed national government from local governments with the freedoms of local administration often being protected. In the Anglo-Saxon case local leaders were conquerors, while in the Norse local leaders were elected. In electing their leaders, the Norse had retained their rights to defend themselves and to speak freely within their assemblies when voicing opinion on the laws; the English peasant class had acquired their status at the mercy of their conquerors.

The Norse exported the Nordic ideal of freemen to the nations they conquered, which, prior to the dawn of the 11th century, included Ulster in Ireland, Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia in Britain and Normandy in France, as well as their colonies on Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The Normans conquered and united all of Britain, while the Norse in Ireland were mostly absorbed into the local population. Denmark, Sweden and Norway retained the parliamentary institution of the "Thing" throughout this period.

It is no surprise, given the areas that the Norse conquered, that the development of parliamentary institutions on the notion of individual rights -- even the aristocratic individual rights embodied in the Magna Charta -- developed in their conquered nation of England. While Scandanavia, with the decline of trade from the East after the Russian campaign against the Bulgars followed by the Mongol invasion, was not positioned to be a world leader in Empire -- or, because of its climate, in population -- the British Isles proved fertile for the growth of the people, and their institutions, to the level where they could bloom into early American Constitutionalism. While the Roman and Greek legalistic models certainily played a role in the development of these institutions, and the Romanized Christian Church was the vehicle by which Greco-Roman ideas were conveyed to the North, the ideas of individual rights and freedoms appear to be solely Nordic in their origin.

It is aso interesting to note that Nordic society was also fundamentally a caste society in which racial notions played a central role in the determination of one's social role. Jones, in a manner typical of the wishy- washy, spends a paragraph telling us that race has nothing to do with what he is about to relate, and then tells us the Norse story of the origin of the castes:

"Viking society conformed to the Indo-European pattern. It was a class society, carefully organized as such ... A tenth century poem, Rigsthula, the 'Song of Rig', provides us with a stylised and memorable account of the origin of these ... divinely ordained classes. In the poem's prose introduction Rig (Rigr, Irish ri, king, gen. rig) is identified with the God Heimdall, the father of all mankind. One day ... this traveller god came to a poorish habitation where dwelt an ancient couple Ai and Edda, Great- Grandfather and Great-Grandmother. He entered and introduced himself as Rig. They fed him on coarse, husky bread, and for three nights he lay down in bed between them. Then he departed. Nine months later Edda bore a son ...: black-skinned and ugly, with lumpy knuckles and thick fingers, his back gnarled and his heels long. They called him Thrall, and in time he mated with the bandy-legged, sunburnt Slavery (Thir) and begat on her litters of children, among them the boys Noisy, Byreboy, Roughneck, Horsefly and the girls Lazybones, Beanpole, Fatty and their like. Between them Thrall, Slavery and their brood do the dirty work, carry loads, lug firewood, dung fields, feed pigs, cut peat, and from them are descended the race of varieties of thralls."

So it is clear that black skin, in Nordic culture, is identified with both ugliness and Slavery, as it came to be throughout Europe and is in normative white society today (with the Jewish "diverse" society that has been thrust on white being a non-normative anomaly). It is noteworthy that Norse who raided Africa -- and there were several voyages between 400 and 1000 BC -- while killing most of those they found or keeping for ransom, often brought blacks back, particularly to Ireland, to exhibit as curiousities and as the living embodiments of the slave race of myth.

Similarly, Nordic racial characteristics are associated in Nordic myth with both freemen and the aristocracy. As Jones tells us, the God Rig mates with another couple and:

"Nine months later Amma bore a son, ruddy, fresh-faced and with sparkling eyes. They called him Freeman or Peasant (Karl) and in time he married Daughter-in-Law (Snoer) and by her had many children, among them the boys Strongbeard, Husbandman, Holder and Smith, and teh girls Prettyface, Maiden, Capable and their like. Karl's work was to tame oxen, build houses, barns and wagons, make and handle the plough; his wife managed the household, carried keys, and held the purse strings; it was she who provided meals and clothes for her family. From them are descended the race and varieties of free men.

Rig then encounters Father and Mother, and after bedding Mother:

"Nine months later Mother bore a son, fair-haired, bright of cheek, his eye piercing as a snake's. They called him Earl or Warrior (Jarl) and e grew up to use bow and arrow, shield and spear, to hunt with horse and ride with hound, practice swordsmanship and swimming. In course of time Rig returned to greet this special son of his, gav him his own name, taguht him the magic art of runes, urged him to take possession of his hereditary estates/ So Jarl went out into the world and stirred up war: he rode furiously, slew foes, reddened pastures, brought woe to earth. He came to own eighteen dwellings, and in true lord's fashion dealt out treasure to his friends and followers. He married a lady as well-born as himself, Lively (Erna), daughter of Lord (Hersir) fair and wise, slim-fingered, and by her has twelve sons ..."

So we see that fair hair and sparkling eyes were associated by the Norse with being free and with being aristocratic; they were held out as an ideal against the racial traits of thrall -- black skin and ugliness. While this is not a specific evaluation of the Norse -- all Traditional cultures, from the Central American to the Chinese -- have likewise associated white racial traits with the ruling caste and the black racial traits with a demonic or bestial nature -- it is important to note that they shared it with the other peoples of the Traditional world.

As one's understanding of the ethno-cultural roots of American traditions, one starts to see the divergence and constant, underlying conflict in Western society between those things that are Traditional to Nordic people -- and Aryan peoples in general -- and those things that the Christian, and really Jewish-Christian heritage has attempted to take away or impose. Liberty -- real political liberty -- has never sprung from Christianity; the most Christian of the nations of the West have almost always been the most tyrannical, beaten in their ferocity only by those nations of the West that have come under the control of the hatred of the Jews. While Christianity, seconded only by the Judaism from which it derives, in its various organized forms, Protestant, Evangelical and Catholic, has often served to spur political repression and the violation of individual rights in the name of higher purpose, the Norse, and to a lesser degree Greco-Roman, traditions of individual liberty within the context of a racial or ethno-cultural construct has always served the interests of white and Western peoples. While the kind of Christian tyranny that alleges the imperfection of God in his differentiation of the races demands, in the arrogant Jewish style, that the "Chosen People" correct this divine error, the Nordic cultural influence had recognized these divisions and integrated them into a functional caste society that acted as the foundation for modern, pre-1960s-America-Judaized, notions of Democracy and Republicanism.

Norse culture has often been ignored because of the hatred that contemporary Christians bore from the heathens that razed their churches and spared not the pious remonstrances of the bishops and local Christian despots, but an understand of Nordic and North-Western European ethno-cultural history is fundamental to understanding the institutions in which we live. Too much attention has been wrongfully placed on the alleged Christian roots of democratic and Republican society, with the result that the heretical and Judaized Churches of America have become a key source of the ideologies of corruption, decadence and hatred that pollute many American's minds. While Greek and Roman sources have played a fundamental role in the formal aspects of Western society, it is the Nordic, and not the Roman, cultural-soul that has played the decisive role in defining the nature and national characteristics of the American Republic.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 04:30 AM
Christian and Jewish thought and culture have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. The article makes this point correctly. What Christianity and Judaism are to Europe can be likened to a microbe invading a host. It invades, changes the host biochemically to its advantage, and then uses this changed host as an incubator in which to reproduce and spread the infection.

I am sorry to piss off so many of you but you are here to learn the truth and this is the truth.

Examples of the effects of Christianity and Judaism on the thought patterns of Europeans and their overseas descendents are too numerous to mention and go on to this very day. One example we are all familiar with was the way the church, not just the Catholic Church but all Christian churches, suppresssed scientific knowledge since the west was infected in Roman times. The churches maintained it was all there in that book.

What we have today is a built-in conflict of cultures within our basic European one. Again, examples are numerous but let me give you one. Charity. Charity is private and personal in old European thought. It stems from the Rules of Hospitality in which you are obliged to take in a traveler who may have no place to sleep, feed him and give him a warm place by the fire. You don't tell the neighbors about this or make a big deal of it. This is your personal obligation.

Now, let's look at Jewish Charity. It is prescribed in the Bible. You are to be charitable. Jews donate money to charity but, and this is a big but, only when they aquire public acclaim for it. They donate to hospitials if their name goes on a sign memorializing the event. They donate to charity, at work, where all the fellow employees know about it, never in private at home. They donate to fund raising drives on television when their name and donation are read on the air. Now, they are attempting to influence Christians to do the same, and this is where the conflict sets in.

As the article points out, our basic cultural "instincts", for lack of a better word, come from our old European cultural heritage. Public charity can be repugnant to us, yet we are encouraged to donate publically. This creates an internal conflict between the two cultural systems functioning at the same time within our modern culture. Most people don't know why they feel conflicted. Similar cultural conflicts, between the old European way and the new Judaeo-Christian way, come up frequently. Another example is law.

The Ten Commandments frequently conflict with English Common Law or German Grundgesetz. This creates a mish-mash of conflicting rules and laws which need to be sorted out, not at a Thing but by a Solomanitic judge.

Take nothing from your enemy. Especially, don't let him define your culture for you.

Gladstone
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 04:32 AM
At one time here in the states they still remembered that. I posted an article in the colonial section a few weeks back entitled "The Anglo-Saxon Race" from an 1851 American journal. This was excerpted from it

"we find him possessed of a similar love of liberty protected by law, a similar respect for woman, and a similar respect for religion, as when he dwelt a pagan in the forests of Germany, in the days of the Roman Empire"

The article specifically speaks of the at that time (1851) predominance of the Anglo-Saxons in America and that Americans were fully aware of the fact. The link to the entire article is

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fnora%2Fnora0073%2F&tif=00040.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.ed u%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABQ7578-0073-4

An interesting read.

friedrich braun
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 04:35 AM
I agree with you on Judaism and Christianity.

You might be interested in the following discussion:

http://www.amren.com/xtian.htm

See especially Clark's brilliant piece.

Christian and Jewish thought and culture have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. The article makes this point correctly. What Christianity and Judaism are to Europe can be likened to a microbe invading a host. It invades, changes the host biochemically to its advantage, and then uses this changed host as an incubator in which to reproduce and spread the infection.

I am sorry to piss off so many of you but you are here to learn the truth and this is the truth.

Examples of the effects of Christianity and Judaism on the thought patterns of Europeans and their overseas descendents are too numerous to mention and go on to this very day. One example we are all familiar with was the way the church, not just the Catholic Church but all Christian churches, suppresssed scientific knowledge since the west was infected in Roman times. The churches maintained it was all there in that book.

What we have today is a built-in conflict of cultures within our basic European one. Again, examples are numerous but let me give you one. Charity. Charity is private and personal in old European thought. It stems from the Rules of Hospitality in which you are obliged to take in a traveler who may have no place to sleep, feed him and give him a warm place by the fire. You don't tell the neighbors about this or make a big deal of it. This is your personal obligation.

Now, let's look at Jewish Charity. It is prescribed in the Bible. You are to be charitable. Jews donate money to charity but, and this is a big but, only when they aquire public acclaim for it. They donate to hospitials if their name goes on a sign memorializing the event. They donate to charity, at work, where all the fellow employees know about it, never in private at home. They donate to fund raising drives on television when their name and donation are read on the air. Now, they are attempting to influence Christians to do the same, and this is where the conflict sets in.

As the article points out, our basic cultural "instincts", for lack of a better word, come from our old European cultural heritage. Public charity can be repugnant to us, yet we are encouraged to donate publically. This creates an internal conflict between the two cultural systems functioning at the same time within our modern culture. Most people don't know why they feel conflicted. Similar cultural conflicts, between the old European way and the new Judaeo-Christian way, come up frequently. Another example is law.

The Ten Commandments frequently conflict with English Common Law or German Grundgesetz. This creates a mish-mash of conflicting rules and laws which need to be sorted out, not at a Thing but by a Solomanitic judge.

Take nothing from your enemy. Especially, don't let him define your culture for you.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 04:39 AM
I am glad we agree on this Friedrich, but you are going to have to give me my high school picture back.

Herr Heinrich
Thursday, October 16th, 2003, 06:02 AM
Wow high school picture ;)
we must be related!?
i have the big BIG picture of him in my book :) hehe

Heil Hitler \o