"Varg, I would like to hear your theory on why rape is such a broad
stereotype for our ancestors. Is this an attempt by invaders to strip
the natives of their honor by demonizing them with the reputation for
raping?"
"Yes. There was e. g. not one single contemporary source claiming the Vikings raped anybody. This is something Christians made up 100+ years later."
"Ibn Fadlan has several accounts of rape by the Volga vikings in the journal of his travels."
"Ibn Fadlan talks about "Vikings" who are as tall as trees ... it's nonsense from A to Z."
"Several rapes took place in monasteries, including of children. You have
to remember these people were responsible for registering births and
burying the dead. It's a well known fact that monks butt-raped each
other, and did other sorts of abuses and sacrifices... Monasteries had
to be fortified, or else the people there would end like several 6th
century frankish "saints", who were "martyred" by local "bandits"..."
"+ThuleanPerspective ... you mean they didn't spit in cups and communally washed their faces
in bowls of eachothers drool either? Or that they didn't have tattoos
from head to toe, or that they didn't gangbang slave women before
slitting their throats and sacrificing them in honor of their chieftain?
Who would have thought Ibn Fadlan could be so disingenuous, given how
honest and upstanding the muslims usually are, what with Taqiyya and
all..."
"+Danneskjold
Ha ha. And notice how reliable that Muslim Arab suddenly becomes in the
eyes of Christians, because he talks nonsense about Pagans... anything else coming from his mouth though... they will not trust!"
"+ThuleanPerspective
Well, given how much cognitive dissonance they can have in regards to
their 'own' religion, why not extend that to everything else!
I don't even understand why the christians and muslims aren't allies yet
anyway, since they are almost identical in their moral-nihilism, and
their desire to watch the world burn."
Friday 15 December 2017
Barbarism is cleanliness, Civilization is filthy degeneracy (Collection of Comments on YT thread.)
"For all that, the marriage bond is strict, and
no feature in their mode of life is more creditable to them
than this. Unlike the great majority of barbarians, they
are content with one wife : very few of them have more
than one, and these few exceptions are not due to wan-
tonness ; they are cases of men of high rank, to whom
several matrimonial alliances have been offered from
motives of policy. The wife does not bring a dowry to
her husband ; on the contrary, he offers one to her. This
part of the affair is arranged by her parents and kinsmen,
and they pass judgment on the wedding gifts, which are
no toys collected to suit feminine frivolities or adorn a
bride ; instead of that, they consist of oxen, and a
bridled horse, and shield and spear and sword. These
are the presents that await her as a wife, and her own
wedding present to her husband in return is a gift of
arms. This is the strongest bond of union this the
mystery of marriage ; these are their gods of wedded life.
[...]
So they guard the chastity of their lives, with no shows to entice them nor orgies to excite their evil passions. To men and women alike such a thing as secret correspondence is unknown. Amongst all this immense population adultery is extremely rare : its penalty is instant, and is left to the husband ; he cuts off the hair of the unfaithful wife, strips her, turns her out of his house in the presence of the kinsmen, and scourges her through the whole village. For there is no pardon for the fallen woman ; not by her beauty, not by her youth, not by her wealth, will she succeed in finding a husband. For no one there makes a jest of vice, or says that seducing and being seduced is the style of the period.
Better still, to be sure, is the practice of those states in which none but maidens marry, and a woman becomes a wife with a wife's hopes and wishes once and once only. Thus it becomes as much a matter of course for her to have only one husband as to have only one body or one life, to the end that she may not look beyond him nor let her desires stray further, and that she may not so much cherish her husband as her status as a wife. To limit the number of the family or to put to death any of the later-born infants is held to be an abomination, and with the Germans good customs have more authority than good laws elsewhere. "
- Publius Cornelius Tacitus; Germania
Written in the 1st century AND by their official enemy, which makes it all the more credible. But Tacitus' was an honorable man, he sought to rebuke his own people and predicted their inevitable downfall as a consequence of their increasing degeneracy. The early Roman Republic adhered to the same moral virtues as the Germanic tribes of Tacitus time, which was the main reason for their unsurpassed success. (that, and racial homogeneity, but that goes hand in hand with virtue anyway)
And he was right, the Germanics ended up conquering all of Western Europe, after the Romans put the final nail in their own coffin by their de jure adoption of christianity. Then the Germanic kingdoms split and in-fought after they did the same.
The so-called Viking age was nothing but a united Scandinavian effort against this foreign usurpative religion. Lindisfarne happened only a few years after the massacre at Verden (which you recently mentioned in a vid), after the surviving Saxons fled to Denmark and warned them of what was imminently impending. It is hardly a coincidence that that was the time when repeated, organized attacks on centers of christianity began (even if the post-modern "historians" say it was for the usual trivial reasons of 'easy target & profit'")
And why was England the main target of invasion by the 'vikings'? Because they were a brotherfolk, who had fought a similar huge civil war AGAINST christianity barely even a century prior ( check King Penda of Mercia, a true hero from our æt). In other words, it was a liberation-invasion.
'Danedrotten
Dåd vi skylde,
hver, som god
og gjæv vil nævnes.
Ve den fejge
Nidding, som flyr!
når Kongen trænger
til trofast Følge!'
Lindisfarne also happened, because that was the missionary center (HQ) from where they sent missionaries to Norway. So "big surprise", the Vikings who sacked that shit hold came from?..... yeah: Norway.
What is also often forgotten, in relation to your comment about the Massacre at Verden, by the Franks , is that the vast majority of Viking attacks took place against France . If I recall correctly, as much as 90% of the raids!
However, this happened only after the Scandinavians had spent some time cleaning up back home in Scandinavia. Because until then (Verden), they had been tolerant to the Christians, and there were many monasteries and churches in Scandinavia already -- with British (Celtic and Anglo-Saxon) monks and priests. They sakced them and burnt those first and then went to stop more from coming -- from e. g. Lindisfarne.
Indeed, which would make sense, since the Franks were the primary military enemy. Strategically I think they focused their invasion on England for these reasons:
1: The forced conversion of the English was still recent, and had far from settled in the hearts and minds of our brothers, so ousting the authority would have ensured a quick reversion to their authentic loyalties.
2: To use England as a launching pad for war against France. If England had been under our control, the Franks could never have invaded Denmark as they did, since they would have been split on two fronts. The Norsemen could never have stood a chance against the combined armies of the Franks in open-field battle, but we could have stalled them indefinitely or perhaps even drained them and achieved final victory, if we had controlled England.
Also, the beginning of the Viking age is such an arbitrary date anyway. Several of our Kings, most prominently King Hugleik, began raiding France immediately after they'd adopted christianity around 500AD. Clovis converted around 507 I believe, which is also approx the exact time that Dannevirke was first built.
[...]
So they guard the chastity of their lives, with no shows to entice them nor orgies to excite their evil passions. To men and women alike such a thing as secret correspondence is unknown. Amongst all this immense population adultery is extremely rare : its penalty is instant, and is left to the husband ; he cuts off the hair of the unfaithful wife, strips her, turns her out of his house in the presence of the kinsmen, and scourges her through the whole village. For there is no pardon for the fallen woman ; not by her beauty, not by her youth, not by her wealth, will she succeed in finding a husband. For no one there makes a jest of vice, or says that seducing and being seduced is the style of the period.
Better still, to be sure, is the practice of those states in which none but maidens marry, and a woman becomes a wife with a wife's hopes and wishes once and once only. Thus it becomes as much a matter of course for her to have only one husband as to have only one body or one life, to the end that she may not look beyond him nor let her desires stray further, and that she may not so much cherish her husband as her status as a wife. To limit the number of the family or to put to death any of the later-born infants is held to be an abomination, and with the Germans good customs have more authority than good laws elsewhere. "
- Publius Cornelius Tacitus; Germania
Written in the 1st century AND by their official enemy, which makes it all the more credible. But Tacitus' was an honorable man, he sought to rebuke his own people and predicted their inevitable downfall as a consequence of their increasing degeneracy. The early Roman Republic adhered to the same moral virtues as the Germanic tribes of Tacitus time, which was the main reason for their unsurpassed success. (that, and racial homogeneity, but that goes hand in hand with virtue anyway)
And he was right, the Germanics ended up conquering all of Western Europe, after the Romans put the final nail in their own coffin by their de jure adoption of christianity. Then the Germanic kingdoms split and in-fought after they did the same.
The so-called Viking age was nothing but a united Scandinavian effort against this foreign usurpative religion. Lindisfarne happened only a few years after the massacre at Verden (which you recently mentioned in a vid), after the surviving Saxons fled to Denmark and warned them of what was imminently impending. It is hardly a coincidence that that was the time when repeated, organized attacks on centers of christianity began (even if the post-modern "historians" say it was for the usual trivial reasons of 'easy target & profit'")
And why was England the main target of invasion by the 'vikings'? Because they were a brotherfolk, who had fought a similar huge civil war AGAINST christianity barely even a century prior ( check King Penda of Mercia, a true hero from our æt). In other words, it was a liberation-invasion.
'Danedrotten
Dåd vi skylde,
hver, som god
og gjæv vil nævnes.
Ve den fejge
Nidding, som flyr!
når Kongen trænger
til trofast Følge!'
Lindisfarne also happened, because that was the missionary center (HQ) from where they sent missionaries to Norway. So "big surprise", the Vikings who sacked that shit hold came from?..... yeah: Norway.
What is also often forgotten, in relation to your comment about the Massacre at Verden, by the Franks , is that the vast majority of Viking attacks took place against France . If I recall correctly, as much as 90% of the raids!
However, this happened only after the Scandinavians had spent some time cleaning up back home in Scandinavia. Because until then (Verden), they had been tolerant to the Christians, and there were many monasteries and churches in Scandinavia already -- with British (Celtic and Anglo-Saxon) monks and priests. They sakced them and burnt those first and then went to stop more from coming -- from e. g. Lindisfarne.
Indeed, which would make sense, since the Franks were the primary military enemy. Strategically I think they focused their invasion on England for these reasons:
1: The forced conversion of the English was still recent, and had far from settled in the hearts and minds of our brothers, so ousting the authority would have ensured a quick reversion to their authentic loyalties.
2: To use England as a launching pad for war against France. If England had been under our control, the Franks could never have invaded Denmark as they did, since they would have been split on two fronts. The Norsemen could never have stood a chance against the combined armies of the Franks in open-field battle, but we could have stalled them indefinitely or perhaps even drained them and achieved final victory, if we had controlled England.
Also, the beginning of the Viking age is such an arbitrary date anyway. Several of our Kings, most prominently King Hugleik, began raiding France immediately after they'd adopted christianity around 500AD. Clovis converted around 507 I believe, which is also approx the exact time that Dannevirke was first built.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)