Asatru: Contaminated by Multiculturalism, Homosexuality?
wotans...@my-deja.com
sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
losing members and relavancy?
Rolf
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
RedWolf
It makes very little difference if the person is homosexual or not of pure
Aryan blood. The bottom line is that the person found their way to this
religion and that should be good enough for anyone.
Mike
<wotans...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fmpd9$scs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion, and, if it strays from
> a sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
> will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
> losing members and relavancy?
Unlike the universalists who practice Asatru as some sort of "creative
anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a heathen!," some
of us will remain true to the vision of our ancestors, and to the
vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the revival of Asatru in Vinland.
Universalist Asatru already is a joke at best, a "religion in a box";
at worst, it will become a totalitarian ideology like Christianity,
finding a satanic "Nazi" under every bed. It already can't tolerate
opinions that don't coincide with its political agenda, and wishes
sinister ill-will upon those who won't comply with its dictates (check
out the Nidhstang webring --
http://www.waywyrd.com/midhnott_sol/nidh.html -- and they say the
Folkish/Traditional Asatruars are "haters"!
Traditional Asatru is in our souls, and that can never be taken away.
Hail the Gods & Goddesses! Hail the Asatru Folk Assembly!
-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
--
http://www.efn.org/~mjk/ /\ \|/
\/ |
/\ |
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> It makes very little difference if the person is homosexual or not
> of pure Aryan blood. The bottom line is that the person found their
> way to this religion and that should be good enough for anyone.
While I'm not an adherent in the mythical "racial purity" striven for
by selected Asatruars, ancestry is a central part in an ethnic
religion, which is what Asatru is. As for homosexuality, this has been
dealt with countless times: it's not compatible with Nature's Laws, or
with the values of the Germanic cultures.
Asatru is not a hobby. It's not a "Lion's Club" for weekend outings.
It is, again, an ethnic religion -- like Native American spirituality,
like Shinto, like Romuva, like countless other ethnic religions unique
to the tribes & Nations which spawned their belief systems. Like these
other ethnic religions, Asatru is not subject to the dictates of the
intolerant bastions of "tolerance" who want to impose their modern,
cosmpolitan values upon it.
RedWolf
<Milton John Kleim>; "Jr." <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:8fnbnk$fao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
>
> While I'm not an adherent in the mythical "racial purity" striven for
> by selected Asatruars, ancestry is a central part in an ethnic
> religion, which is what Asatru is.
Asatru is a religion for the honoring of the Norse gods, The Aesir and The
Vanir. Just being white, does not gain you entrance into the dance.
> As for homosexuality, this has been
> dealt with countless times: it's not compatible with Nature's Laws, or
> with the values of the Germanic cultures.
Usually it begins with Taticus, but anyways, a persons sexuality has nothing
to do with whether they are true or not.
>
> Asatru is not a hobby. It's not a "Lion's Club" for weekend outings.
> It is, again, an ethnic religion -- like Native American spirituality,
> like Shinto, like Romuva, like countless other ethnic religions unique
> to the tribes & Nations which spawned their belief systems. Like these
> other ethnic religions, Asatru is not subject to the dictates of the
> intolerant bastions of "tolerance" who want to impose their modern,
> cosmpolitan values upon it.
Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc. The gods will choose who
they want and if additional people find this religion of value, then good
for us and them.
Mike
RedWolf
<Milton John Kleim>; "Jr." <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:8fnapg$e7e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> wotans...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion, and, if it strays from
> > a sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
> > will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
> > losing members and relavancy?
>
> Unlike the universalists who practice Asatru as some sort of "creative
> anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a heathen!," some
> of us will remain true to the vision of our ancestors, and to the
> vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the revival of Asatru in Vinland.
I just don't feel the love anymore! Actually I am a pagan, damn proud of
it, and never did claim to be a heathen anyways. Please do me one favor,
what ever you do, try not slip and fall, you may impale yourself on that
sword your carrying.
>
> Universalist Asatru already is a joke at best, a "religion in a box";
> at worst, it will become a totalitarian ideology like Christianity,
> finding a satanic "Nazi" under every bed. It already can't tolerate
> opinions that don't coincide with its political agenda, and wishes
> sinister ill-will upon those who won't comply with its dictates (check
> out the Nidhstang webring --
> http://www.waywyrd.com/midhnott_sol/nidh.html -- and they say the
> Folkish/Traditional Asatruars are "haters"!
>
> Traditional Asatru is in our souls, and that can never be taken away.
>
> Hail the Gods & Goddesses! Hail the Asatru Folk Assembly!
>
> -- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
>
Yes, you have raised the might flag as far as it can go, banged on your
chest, issued a few boasts, a few insults, and waved the banner till your
arms have gotten tired. Fantastic job.
The world will now be safe from the dreaded universalists everywhere.
Mike
Wodening
If you are not Heathen... then what business is it of yours who
is or is not Asatru??? Very puzzled why you would care?
Swain
____________________________________
Dosenhof Wodenson MP3s
http://www.mp3.com/Dosenhof
___________________________________
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dirk Bruere
> sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
> will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
> losing members and relavancy?
>
The only true 'rainbow' is going to be the many varieties of Asatru.
Why just one Asatru?
Even the Xians with a Pope can't manage a monotheology.
Dirk
OOKAMEI
>sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
>will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
>losing members and relavancy?
>
<<snicker>>
In Troth,
--Mike
RKN
:RtR:
OOKAMEI
>anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a heathen!," some
>of us will remain true to the vision of our ancestors, and to the
>vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the revival of Asatru in Vinland.
>
>at worst, it will become a totalitarian ideology like Christianity,
>finding a satanic "Nazi" under every bed. It already can't tolerate
>opinions that don't coincide with its political agenda, and wishes
>sinister ill-will upon those who won't comply with its dictates (check
>out the Nidhstang webring --
(outright laugh)
Oh, boy...
If you ask me...both these "precieved" sides are getting more and more
pathetic.
"They just want a mono-culture!" Yells one
"They're just racists!" claims the other.
Silly stuff...well, maybe if i wait another 9 years, more folks'll wake up.
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> >...ancestry is a central part in an ethnic religion, which is what
> >Asatru is.
> Asatru is a religion for the honoring of the Norse gods, The Aesir
> and The Vanir. Just being white, does not gain you entrance into
> the dance.
No one said it did. See my recent post in the "Vinlanders" thread.
Asatru was, is and always will be an ethnic religion. For a non-
European to claim they're Asatru is as absurd as I claiming to be
Shinto.
> > As for homosexuality, this has been
> > dealt with countless times: it's not compatible with Nature's Laws,
> > or with the values of the Germanic cultures.
> ... a persons sexuality has nothing to do with whether they are true
> or not.
Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
Period. End of story.
> Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
> Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Anyone within whom the ethnic folk-soul sparks, regardless of language
or nationality, can be Asatru. All others are pretenders, seeking
alien gods.
Cheetos
>wotans...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion, and, if it strays from
>> a sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
>> will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
>> losing members and relavancy?
>
>anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a heathen!," some
>of us will remain true to the vision of our ancestors, and to the
>vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the revival of Asatru in Vinland.
>
>Universalist Asatru already is a joke at best, a "religion in a box";
>at worst, it will become a totalitarian ideology like Christianity,
>finding a satanic "Nazi" under every bed. It already can't tolerate
>opinions that don't coincide with its political agenda, and wishes
>sinister ill-will upon those who won't comply with its dictates (check
>out the Nidhstang webring --
>Folkish/Traditional Asatruars are "haters"!
>
>Traditional Asatru is in our souls, and that can never be taken away.
>
>Hail the Gods & Goddesses! Hail the Asatru Folk Assembly!
>
>-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
I think a relevant question is:
--Just how far do you wish to go in immitating every aspect of our Heathen
ancestors? Is polygamy and eating horse flesh in your agenda? Do you
believe murder should be compensated by a weregeld instead of prison? Does
it go down to the last detail of dress, language, diet, etc.? If not, then
where do you draw the line? If you draw ANY line, why not draw a line that
allows us to at least be SOMEwhat socially acceptable in modern western
culture today, to include tolerance of homosexuality? (Keep in mind, there
are no valid historical accounts of PRE-Christian Nordic/Germanics either
BEING homosexuals, or having a lot of worrisome laws AGAINST it. It just
wasn't an issue to them, one way or the other, and any modern ideas on how
they would deal with it if they saw it, is pure speculation.)
Many aspects of our ancestral ways had a positive influence on the
development of western society as it is today: Parliamentary Democracy is a
direct descendant of the Thing-law; values such as hard work, courage,
honor, family identity, and even the underpinnings of Chivalry itself (by
way of the Normans) was a strong Nordic influence. These things are far
more valuable, as a legacy, than a homophobic/racist attitude which is
COPIED from the knee-jerk reactions of the Christian supersticions and the
Imperial Romans who let them fester prior to Constantine's hallucinations.
I for one don't claim to be an exact replica of a Northman of the 9th
Century, C.E. I am a modern American, fully integrated into modern American
culture, with a REMEMBERANCE and a REVERENCE of the ways of my ancestors,
just as I would expect anyone of any culture to honor and cherish their
ancestral ways. The spirit of those ways can live on, even while wearing a
suit and attending business meetings--perhaps especially so. The Internet
is today what the open seas were to our forebears--a medium of "travel," and
trade, and yes, CONQUEST (in a virtual sense). I think we are naturally
attracted to it for the same reason our fathers climbed aboard the
Longships. And they didn't do what they did because they were on some
crusade to rid the world of homosexuals or "mud people" or whatever other
modern perversions have come to infest European and American paradigms. It
was to build a reputation for great feats, and to have those feats
remembered by posterity. It's those feats that I, for one, intend to
remember, and surpass if I can, in a modern context. Swallow yourself up in
details if you must, but I intend to be Tru to the spirit of things as they
were. Is that "universalist?" Well, how could you build a trading empire
from Baghdad to Newfoundland any other way? We were *universally*
respected, feared, and admired by the Romanized Europeans and other cultures
we encountered, from the Arabs to the Inuit. And I don't think that's a bad
thing at all.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Cheetos
>Asatru was, is and always will be an ethnic religion. For a non-
>European to claim they're Asatru is as absurd as I claiming to be
>Shinto.
It isn't absurd at all. The Rus (as Swedes from Roskilde were called by the
Finns and Slavs as they navigated the rivers of Russia and gave the land its
name) encountered, captured, and enslaved many people of Eastern and
Middle-Eastern origin, some of whom spent most of their lives within a
subset of Scandinavian culture. There would be nothing absurd at all of man
who was born a Tartar, raised in a Rus camp, calling on Thor if the waters
were troubled. His Rus masters would have thought him strange to do ought
else.
Religion is an extension of culture, and culture is independant of race.
>> ... a persons sexuality has nothing to do with whether they are true
>> or not.
>
>Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
>religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
>Period. End of story.
There is no end to the story of Nature. That is the nature thereof (no pun
intended). Sometimes Nature sees fit to make the land hot, and sometimes
Nature wants the land to be cold. We are very presumptive and arrogant to
think we always know what Nature has in mind. Sexuality is connected to
procreation in a natural setting, but the vehicle of procreation has both a
gas-pedal and a brake. You don't need to "hit the gas" if you're already
going at break-neck speeds. Homosexuality slows the process down, and isn't
any less natural than heterosexuality to the same extent that the deaths of
fall and winter would be less "natural" than the life-springings of spring
and summer. I think if you truly observed and pondered Nature you would
have noticed this.
>> Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
>> Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>
>Anyone within whom the ethnic folk-soul sparks, regardless of language
>or nationality, can be Asatru. All others are pretenders, seeking
>alien gods.
Ethnic folk-soul? See above about the Tartar praying to Thor.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
karlwe...@hotmail.com
writes:
>"RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>> >...ancestry is a central part in an ethnic religion, which is what
>> >Asatru is.
>
>> Asatru is a religion for the honoring of the Norse gods, The Aesir
>> and The Vanir. Just being white, does not gain you entrance into
>> the dance.
>
>No one said it did. See my recent post in the "Vinlanders" thread.
>
>European to claim they're Asatru is as absurd as I claiming to be
>Shinto.
Really. What about the folks picked up during raids, who joined the Norse
who captured them, and yet who did not have Norse blood? Were they denied
participation in Norse ritual and observance? I very much doubt it - the
gods existed, without doubt, and it was only common sense for all who knew of
them to worship them. Otherwise, how could such things as the Danelaw exist?
How could Norse go to France and become Norman? How could Norse head down
the
Danube and become Russians, with Slavic worship practices fused with their
original Norse worship?
This ethnic-centrism is a modern limitation to what was just common sense on
the part of our ancestors - you worship the gods that exist, and ignore those
that don't. And the gods will make themselves known, if they exist.
Just as now it is only common sense to get to know the landsvaettir where you
live, and honor them.
>Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
>religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
>Period. End of story.
Really. And here I thought Asatru was an As-centered religion. Silly me.
>
>> Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
>> Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>
>Anyone within whom the ethnic folk-soul sparks, regardless of language
>or nationality, can be Asatru. All others are pretenders, seeking
>alien gods.
Uh-huh. Glad you're around to tell our gods they're only allowed to exist
for
those in whom your "ethnic folk-soul" sparks - I'd hate to be the one to so
limit them.
Dux
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
ro...@yolo.com
Milton John Kleim, Jr. <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> ...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> Period. End of story.
I suppose it would be in poor taste to point out that the idea of
Asatru as a "NATURE CENTERED" religion is a myth that has been
propagated by the very New Age "Rainbow" types of whom you seem to
disapprove. As an instructive exercise on this point, try taking an
inventory of the number of trees our supposedly "nature centered"
Asatru forebears left standing in Iceland. :^)
People who claim to be both Asatru and environmental extremists have
far more of a consistency problem than Asatruar who happen to be
homosexual or non-Nordic.
regards,
rorik
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> >Asatru was, is and always will be an ethnic religion. For a non-
> >European to claim they're Asatru is as absurd as I claiming to be
> >Shinto.
> It isn't absurd at all. The Rus (as Swedes from Roskilde were called
> by the Finns and Slavs as they navigated the rivers of Russia and
> gave the land its name) encountered, captured, and enslaved many
> people of Eastern and Middle-Eastern origin, some of whom spent most
> of their lives within a subset of Scandinavian culture.
Originally, the peoples of Eastern Europe (from the Baltic to the
Urals) and most of West-Central Asia, were wholly related to the
peoples in Western Europe. It's not a mystery why they'd "fit in" with
the Scandinavians, if only on a marginal basis. The Romuva belief
system of the Balts is beautiful, and resonates in my own soul, because
it shares a common origin with Asatru...it's pretty much a difference
of names. The Finno-Ugric peoples apparently have common outlook with
the Balto-Slavs and the Celto-Germanic peoples, as well...I'm still
studying their cultures to determine this.
However, universalists simply cannot make Africans or Japanese or
native South Americans "fit" into Asatru, despite the fact their
religions are of noble nature in most cases, at least relative to their
ethnic values.
> There would be nothing absurd at all of man who was born a Tartar,
> raised in a Rus camp, calling on Thor if the waters were troubled.
> His Rus masters would have thought him strange to do ought else.
This is an interesting illustration. Let's say Mr. Tartar is actually
part Mongolian...which is what I assume you'll try to pull. Then all
he is doing is mimicking his captors' religious system, much like South
and Central Americans mimick the Spanish-imposed Catholicism. It's not
a folk-soul manifestation at all.
> Religion is an extension of culture, and culture is independant of
> race.
You said "race," not I...
> >Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> >religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> >Period. End of story.
> There is no end to the story of Nature.
Smart ass.
> That is the nature thereof (no pun intended). Sometimes Nature sees
> fit to make the land hot, and sometimes Nature wants the land to be
> cold. We are very presumptive and arrogant to think we always know
> what Nature has in mind. Sexuality is connected to procreation in a
> natural setting, but the vehicle of procreation has both a
> gas-pedal and a brake. You don't need to "hit the gas" if you're
> already going at break-neck speeds. Homosexuality slows the process
> down, and isn't any less natural than heterosexuality to the same
> extent that the deaths of fall and winter would be less "natural"
> than the life-springings of spring and summer. I think if you truly
> observed and pondered Nature you would have noticed this.
OK, smart ass, since you apparently have not seen the two human sexual
organs couple lately, a penis is designed to go into a vagina, not
another man's rectum. Blunt, but factual. Homosexuality may be a
method of reducing overpopulation, but it is NOT, repeat NOT
normal...it's a dysfunctional "lifestyle" caused by disharmony in human
affairs. You just can't get around the fact it is NOT normal.
> >> Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
> >> Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
> >Anyone within whom the ethnic folk-soul sparks, regardless of
> >language or nationality, can be Asatru. All others are pretenders,
> >seeking alien gods.
> Ethnic folk-soul? See above about the Tartar praying to Thor.
See above, as well. Again, mimicking cultural overlords or practicing
syncretic religion is not embracing one's natural religion.
-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
--
http://www.efn.org/~mjk/ /\ \|/
\/ |
/\ |
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> > ...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> > religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> > Period. End of story.
> I suppose it would be in poor taste to point out that the idea of
> Asatru as a "NATURE CENTERED" religion is a myth that has been
> propagated by the very New Age "Rainbow" types of whom you seem to
> disapprove. As an instructive exercise on this point, try taking an
> inventory of the number of trees our supposedly "nature centered"
> Asatru forebears left standing in Iceland. :^)
No one said the Icelanders were any more faithful to the full, true
essence of Asatru than the Catholic Church was faithful to the
doctrines of Jesus about love and forgiveness during the Inquisition.
And besides, we also need to take into account whether the Icelanders
used those trees legitimately, as opposed to modern clear-cutting for
profit.
This also brings us to another point. Asatru is not a replication of
Icelandic culture. It just happens that noble Icelanders saved the
most tangible literary aspects of the belief system. Asatru is just as
Saxon as it is Scandinavian. It's just an unfortunate fact that my
ancestors in what is now Germany were subjected to more brutal methods
of cultural genocide than the Scandinavians and especially the
Icelanders...and didn't have many overt written records or cultural
artifacts.
> People who claim to be both Asatru and environmental extremists have
> far more of a consistency problem than Asatruar who happen to be
> homosexual or non-Nordic.
So you say. All of the belief system points to reverence for Nature
and its beauty, and respect for its entirety. This doesn't mean we
can't cut down a tree or eat meat and so on...it merely requires
responsible use of Nature's resources.
I, for one, would like to see, to paraphrase Charles Lindbergh, more
birds and less aircraft...and more trees and open spaces and fewer
luxury homes and shopping malls.
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> >Unlike the universalists who practice Asatru as some sort
> >of "creative anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a
> >heathen!," some of us will remain true to the vision of our
> >ancestors, and to the vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the
> >revival of Asatru in Vinland.
> >Universalist Asatru already is a joke at best, a "religion in a box";
> >at worst, it will become a totalitarian ideology like Christianity,
> >finding a satanic "Nazi" under every bed. It already can't tolerate
> >opinions that don't coincide with its political agenda, and wishes
> >sinister ill-will upon those who won't comply with its dictates
> >(check out the Nidhstang webring --
> >http://www.waywyrd.com/midhnott_sol/nidh.html -- and they say the
> >Folkish/Traditional Asatruars are "haters"!
> >Traditional Asatru is in our souls, and that can never be taken away.
> I think a relevant question is:
> --Just how far do you wish to go in immitating every aspect of our
> Heathen ancestors?
As far as one wishes to go without harming others.
> Is polygamy and eating horse flesh in your agenda?
It may not be for me, but if someone believes this is their right, so
be it. Provided the women (or the men) consent, there's nothing
inherently wrong with it.
> Do you believe murder should be compensated by a weregeld instead of
> prison?
As someone who believes prisons should be abolished, I definitely think
there needs to be alternatives to punishment. A blood-curse upon a
killer by the victim's family is certainly not an unreasonable option.
Even the right to be the executioner by a member of the victim's family
would be a start.
> Does it go down to the last detail of dress, language, diet, etc.?
Not necessarily, but there's no reason not to emulate as many aspects
as possible if one chooses to do so.
> If not, then where do you draw the line?
Where my instincts lead me to.
Let me ask you, where do YOU draw the line. Seriously, if we allow
homosexuality, then why not "man-boy love"? Why not have Asatru hofs
for heroin users?
> If you draw ANY line, why not draw a line that allows us to at least
> be SOMEwhat socially acceptable in modern western culture today, to
> include tolerance of homosexuality?
Why?
Homosexuality, specifically the perverse acts of homosexuals, like anal
sex and fisting, are abhorred by the vast majority of humanity. Only a
select portion of the populations of Western and westernized lands
tolerate it or embrace it.
> (Keep in mind, there are no valid historical accounts of PRE-
> Christian Nordic/Germanics either BEING homosexuals, or having a lot
> of worrisome laws AGAINST it.
No one is suggesting a "Homosexual Prohibition Act of 2000." But I
will not sit quietly while homosexuals and their apologists claim that
Asatru is either neutral or positive towards their "lifestyle," when my
whole being, my personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of,
indicates otherwise. Homosexuals can make this matter a non-issue by
keeping their activities in the closet, or the bedroom...just away from
public view and discussion. Homosexuality cannot be made on par with
heterosexual coupling and lifestyle.
> It just wasn't an issue to them, one way or the other, and any modern
> ideas on how they would deal with it if they saw it, is pure
> speculation.)
It wasn't as big an issue for them, since it was rare. Homosexuality
exists in frequency in correlation with the degree of "civilization"
and the populace's distance from the natural world. But to say there
is no evidence that the ancient Germans had no stance on homosexuality
is a distortion of reality. They most certainly did, and it was likely
that a homosexual would be killed. I am in no way suggesting that
should be the case today, though.
> Many aspects of our ancestral ways had a positive influence on the
> development of western society as it is today: Parliamentary
> Democracy is a direct descendant of the Thing-law; values such as
> hard work, courage, honor, family identity, and even the
> underpinnings of Chivalry itself (by way of the Normans) was a strong
> Nordic influence. These things are far more valuable, as a legacy,
> than a homophobic/racist attitude which is COPIED from the knee-jerk
> reactions of the Christian supersticions and the Imperial Romans who
> let them fester prior to Constantine's hallucinations.
Like the concepts of democracy and representative government, which has
been perverted by the cosmopolitans, ethnic ties of blood and likeness
have been perverted by ideologues into the racial supremacy of today
(the interracists share equally with the white supremacists in
developing these perversions). But, it is ridiculous to claim that
embrace of similarity in heritage, in appearance, in blood, is
somehow "wrong." No other people besides European-originated peoples
worry about this...no other people has to feel "guilty" about this
feeling. I say bullshit to the whining of the cosmopolitans, and
embrace proudly my "tribal ties" to the other "tribes" of people of
Northern European heritage.
As for the ancient Germans not having a focus on what we now
call "race," that's not surprising, since the idea that people of such
dissimilar nature would be integrated into the Germanic tribes was
literally unthinkable. Most (all?) ancient peoples thought of
themselves as "THE humans" or a similar concept. German integration
with Celts or Slavs was not odd since it was like joining up with long-
lost relatives (who could tell the difference excepting clothing,
etc?). Certainly the ancient Germans didn't have a Nazish version of
an Aryan superrace, mainly because the social dynamics which led to the
creation of such a myth didn't exist then.
> I for one don't claim to be an exact replica of a Northman of the 9th
> Century, C.E.
As beautiful as the people of Scandinavia are (my partner is Swedish
:-), I'd never claim to be a "Norseman." I am a Teuton, a continental
German. This seems to be something most are forgetting; that Asatru
represents the continental Germans just as much as it does the
Scandinavians. Wotan and Donnar are merely different names for two of
the same Gods.
> I am a modern American, fully integrated into modern American
> culture...
I am sorry for you. I readily adapt to American society, but I will
never be "fully integrated" into "THIS." I am an Asatruar -- I know
now this was always so -- of Germanic (primarily), Slavic, and Celtic
heritage.
> with a REMEMBERANCE and a REVERENCE of the ways of my ancestors,
> just as I would expect anyone of any culture to honor and cherish
> their ancestral ways. The spirit of those ways can live on, even
> while wearing a suit and attending business meetings--perhaps
> especially so.
Most certainly. Here I sit on my laptop, in jeans and a denim shirt,
at a desk of mostly artificial materials under fluorescent lamps. But
despite the change in technology, in cultural artifacts, I am the same
as my ancestors.
> The Internet is today what the open seas were to our forebears--a
> medium of "travel," and trade, and yes, CONQUEST (in a virtual
> sense). I think we are naturally attracted to it for the same reason
> our fathers climbed aboard the Longships.
You're right. Wandering adventure is in our soul.
> And they didn't do what they did because they were on some crusade to
> rid the world of homosexuals or "mud people" or whatever other
> modern perversions have come to infest European and American
> paradigms.
This is such a typical strawman argument. I have NEVER said I am on
some crusade to "rid the world" of anyone. I have made a stand
indicating that I will not allow my heritage to be COOPTED by others
who wish to adopt a stance contrary to important fundamentals of that
heritage. I don't hate homosexuals or fear them (the term "homophobia"
is so imbecilic), and I don't hate people of other ethnic groups
because of their racial characteristics. They have the right to
practice their beliefs, as do I. Good people who are homosexual or non-
European won't pretend that they have a right to my beliefs and they
expect that I accord them the same right and respect. I do. I'm not
claiming my "grandmother was a Cherokee" and go to PowWows and smoke
peace pipes in mockery of the sacred traditions of the pre-Ericsson
North Americans. I don't claim I'm Japanese and demand that the Shinto
priests accept me.
> It was to build a reputation for great feats, and to have those feats
> remembered by posterity. It's those feats that I, for one, intend to
> remember, and surpass if I can, in a modern context. Swallow
> yourself up in details if you must, but I intend to be Tru to the
> spirit of things as they were.
Then I welcome you into Folkish Asatru.
> Is that "universalist?" Well, how could you build a trading empire
> from Baghdad to Newfoundland any other way? We were *universally*
> respected, feared, and admired by the Romanized Europeans and other
> cultures we encountered, from the Arabs to the Inuit. And I don't
> think that's a bad thing at all.
No one said it was. We need to be, as a Nation, the Asa-Nation, a
friend to all and enemy only to those who wish to harm us. Even the
Third Reich traded with nations who were clearly not Aryan, and
welcomed their visitors. The cosmopolitan myths, nay, lies, that
loyalty to ethnic heritage and ties equals "hate" and "bigotry" is
something we need to flush down the shitter where they belong. To all
others, besides the Europeans, ethnic ties are natural, normal, and
expected.
-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
--
karlwe...@hotmail.com
writes:
>However, universalists simply cannot make Africans or Japanese or
>native South Americans "fit" into Asatru, despite the fact their
>religions are of noble nature in most cases, at least relative to their
>ethnic values.
This bears very strong resemblence to the old argument that blacks simply
wouldn't know what to do if they were freed, because they just couldn't fit
into the society of free white men then extant in North America. It was
white society, so the blacks were utterly unable to function in that society
-
it wasn't natural for them.
Pure hogwash.
Cheetos
>> It isn't absurd at all. The Rus (as Swedes from Roskilde were called
>> by the Finns and Slavs as they navigated the rivers of Russia and
>> gave the land its name) encountered, captured, and enslaved many
>> people of Eastern and Middle-Eastern origin, some of whom spent most
>> of their lives within a subset of Scandinavian culture.
>
>Originally, the peoples of Eastern Europe (from the Baltic to the
>Urals) and most of West-Central Asia, were wholly related to the
>peoples in Western Europe. It's not a mystery why they'd "fit in" with
>the Scandinavians, if only on a marginal basis. The Romuva belief
>system of the Balts is beautiful, and resonates in my own soul, because
>it shares a common origin with Asatru...it's pretty much a difference
>of names. The Finno-Ugric peoples apparently have common outlook with
>the Balto-Slavs and the Celto-Germanic peoples, as well...I'm still
>studying their cultures to determine this.
Finns and Slavs of the Baltic, perhaps by some stretch of the imagination,
but the Tartars? The Bulgars? The Turks and other Mongoloid nomad-tribes
they encountered and defeated? That's stretching the definition of
"European" a bit too far.
>However, universalists simply cannot make Africans or Japanese or
>native South Americans "fit" into Asatru, despite the fact their
>religions are of noble nature in most cases, at least relative to their
>ethnic values.
The mistake is in trying to "correspond" everything in one religion with
everything else, and to that extent I agree with you. You can't just line
things up and say Thor is analogous with the Polynesian Maui, for example.
Too many things don't fit, and for the Wiccans who take syncretism to a
ludicrous extreme, it leads to a lot of trouble in the pseudo-authenticity
of their Fakelore.
What is NOT a mistake is to say that regardless of a person's previous
background, they can indeed enter the world of the Aesir and Vanir and walk
with them, in Troth. So long as the proper values are adopted, and nothing
is corrupted or perverted, I don't think genetics is really a factor. It
never was in the historical reality of our ancestors (outside of the
determination of oğal land-inheritances!)
>> There would be nothing absurd at all of man who was born a Tartar,
>> raised in a Rus camp, calling on Thor if the waters were troubled.
>> His Rus masters would have thought him strange to do ought else.
>
>This is an interesting illustration. Let's say Mr. Tartar is actually
>part Mongolian...which is what I assume you'll try to pull. Then all
>he is doing is mimicking his captors' religious system, much like South
>and Central Americans mimick the Spanish-imposed Catholicism. It's not
>a folk-soul manifestation at all.
Folk-soul schmolk-soul. A warrior from the hird of a chieftain could do
well in battle and gain much notoriety, and be highly-accepted by the group,
even if he were born of a far-away race. It was DEEDS that determined
status, first and foremost. Social mobility, both upwards and downwards,
was centered on that concept. You could be born a jarl, then lose a battle
and become a thrall, and appealing to the purest of Nordic genetics wouldn't
get you a farthing. Likewise, with enough courage and strength and cunning,
a low-born man could win first his freedom, and then a followership, and
possibly his own special saga, most prized possession of all.
Having some looks that would differ from the Scandinavian norm would most
likely make a person a magnet for insults and challenges, and such was to be
expected. It was the way of warriors to challenge one-another by whatever
opportunity they saw at hand, be it a funny walk, or an unusual speech
pattern, or whatever might provoke such a challenge. But if those were met
and dealt with in a manly way, after a while such differing traits would
only be a reminder of the special courage that gave the newcomer credit. Of
course, anyone of any race could turn niğing, with its own consequences
there.
>> Religion is an extension of culture, and culture is independant of
>> race.
>
>You said "race," not I...
You said "ethnicity." I took that to mean "race," because in modern
sociological terms that's taken as a sub-set of race, just as the Nordic
ethnicity is a sub-set of the white race. Did you mean it otherwise?
>> >Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
>> >religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
>> >Period. End of story.
>
>> There is no end to the story of Nature.
>
>Smart ass.
It's so smart it even speaks, especially after a hearty meal of Mexican
food. :-P
>> That is the nature thereof (no pun intended). Sometimes Nature sees
>> fit to make the land hot, and sometimes Nature wants the land to be
>> cold. We are very presumptive and arrogant to think we always know
>> what Nature has in mind. Sexuality is connected to procreation in a
>> natural setting, but the vehicle of procreation has both a
>> gas-pedal and a brake. You don't need to "hit the gas" if you're
>> already going at break-neck speeds. Homosexuality slows the process
>> down, and isn't any less natural than heterosexuality to the same
>> extent that the deaths of fall and winter would be less "natural"
>> than the life-springings of spring and summer. I think if you truly
>> observed and pondered Nature you would have noticed this.
>
>OK, smart ass, since you apparently have not seen the two human sexual
>organs couple lately, a penis is designed to go into a vagina, not
>another man's rectum. Blunt, but factual. Homosexuality may be a
>method of reducing overpopulation, but it is NOT, repeat NOT
>normal...it's a dysfunctional "lifestyle" caused by disharmony in human
>affairs. You just can't get around the fact it is NOT normal.
Oftentimes the male penis goes into the female's rectum, or the female's
mouth. Blunt but factual, of course.
The abnormality of homosexuality stems from the pre-Christian European sense
(not entirely without merit, mind you) that for a man to be strong and
courageous and dominant, full of valor and worthy of a saga, those qualities
are incompatible with taking it up the keister in the manner of a woman, or
to play the role of a woman in love-making. The psychological phenomenon
can be seen in prisons today: those who WIN the fights retain the male
role, and it's those who LOSE The fights that have to be the "bitch." The
first and foremost values of Nordic and Germanic societies were incompatible
with the modern ideal of a homosexual love act as a matter of consent--A
true man didn't give up the ass, and he'd be better off killed in combat
than submit to it that he may live. The laws didn't deal with this
though--rather, the laws were mostly concerned with how to deal with the
public accusation of being a submissive homosexual, one of the most
injurious insults imaginable in the Old Ways.
In the STREET version of modern western culture, things haven't changed a
whole hell of a lot. The dominant prison rapist is thought of as someone
who just did what he had to do, while the "punk bitch" who got corn-holed is
laughed at, and ashamed. A "fag" is someone to laugh at, now as then.
Funny how those concepts survived over the centuries.
But some things have changed in the "non-street" versions of today's
culture, in the avenues of educated people with whom most of us usually
interact. To them, it IS a matter of choice and consent, and we do
ourselves dishonor as niğ-scalds if we treat them injuriously. We certainly
don't like what they do; we don't think it manly; but it's not any sort of a
dishonor to us if we simply refrain from demonizing them. If they are ergi,
or seiğr, let them show it in other ways. ;-)
>> Ethnic folk-soul? See above about the Tartar praying to Thor.
>
>See above, as well. Again, mimicking cultural overlords or practicing
>syncretic religion is not embracing one's natural religion.
One can have much more influence on a culture if one doesn't appear to be on
a mission to destroy it. And one need not sacrifice one's own reverence for
the Aesir and the Vanir by doing so.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
karlwe...@hotmail.com
writes:
>> I suppose it would be in poor taste to point out that the idea of
>> Asatru as a "NATURE CENTERED" religion is a myth that has been
>> propagated by the very New Age "Rainbow" types of whom you seem to
>> disapprove. As an instructive exercise on this point, try taking an
>> inventory of the number of trees our supposedly "nature centered"
>> Asatru forebears left standing in Iceland. :^)
>
>No one said the Icelanders were any more faithful to the full, true
>essence of Asatru than the Catholic Church was faithful to the
>doctrines of Jesus about love and forgiveness during the Inquisition.
>And besides, we also need to take into account whether the Icelanders
>used those trees legitimately, as opposed to modern clear-cutting for
>profit.
What's the difference? Profit today means survival. Making ships for trade
"back then" meant profit, which meant survival.
Since you're so good at judging, why not give us the criteria by which you
propose the "legitimacy" of tree-cutting on the part of the Icelanders?
>So you say. All of the belief system points to reverence for Nature
>and its beauty, and respect for its entirety. This doesn't mean we
>can't cut down a tree or eat meat and so on...it merely requires
>responsible use of Nature's resources.
It's a shame that much of this is circular reasoning. Asatru as it exists
today is a synthetic religion, combining numerous sources and fusing
information that was originally only marginally related (like folk tales in
modern Germany fusing with Beowulf, for example). It should come as no
surprise that modern revivalists should place a larger value on those things
that were more readily available to their ancestors than to themselves (e.g.
untouched forests), despite the clear evidence that those ancestors did not
share the modern perspective that those things were so precious.
Forests were there for the raping, so our ancestors raped them. They were no
more precious to those ancestors than was the air they breathed. That air
is now precious to us, now that we've found ways to make it too foul to
breathe.
You never really value something until you begin to miss it.
And while our revitalized religion makes a point of wisdom, and wisdom leads
us to respecting our natural resources and trying to husband them wisely,
this
does not equate to a focus on the part of that religion on nature.
>
>I, for one, would like to see, to paraphrase Charles Lindbergh, more
>birds and less aircraft...and more trees and open spaces and fewer
>luxury homes and shopping malls.
Fine and well. Me too. But I recognize that this is just intelligent
recognition of the dead-end that continued rape of the earth will lead us to,
rather than something demanded by my religion.
Thor rides a Harley, after all. And Odin sure isn't cyber-illiterate!
Cheetos
>No one said the Icelanders were any more faithful to the full, true
>essence of Asatru than the Catholic Church was faithful to the
>doctrines of Jesus about love and forgiveness during the Inquisition.
>And besides, we also need to take into account whether the Icelanders
>used those trees legitimately, as opposed to modern clear-cutting for
>profit.
To be a successful Norseman, you've got to build a boat; and to build a
boat, you've got to cut a lot of trees (preferably oaks, much to the
consternation of the Celts.) There's no way around that. There may have
been some prayers and offerings to the tree-spirits, similar to what the
Skraelings did in their time, but all the natural reverence in the world
won't save a forest from depletion if you just keep on cutting. Luckily for
Icelanders and Greenlanders, Vinland had trees a-plenty, and one could head
out early in the season, cut a load of timber, and be back before the fall
of the next winter. That is, as long as one didn't encounter too many
Skraelings and have to fight one's way back to the open water in order to
make it home alive. ;-)
>This also brings us to another point. Asatru is not a replication of
>Icelandic culture. It just happens that noble Icelanders saved the
>most tangible literary aspects of the belief system. Asatru is just as
>Saxon as it is Scandinavian. It's just an unfortunate fact that my
>ancestors in what is now Germany were subjected to more brutal methods
>of cultural genocide than the Scandinavians and especially the
>Icelanders...and didn't have many overt written records or cultural
>artifacts.
Where there are written accounts, we have to keep in mind that almost always
the people doing the writing were filtering ideas through a thick Christian
filter. As such, we have to be especially careful when quoting, for
example, Skeggi. Archaeology and other tid-bits of physical evidence are
far less likely to lie to us. ;-)
>> People who claim to be both Asatru and environmental extremists have
>> far more of a consistency problem than Asatruar who happen to be
>> homosexual or non-Nordic.
>
>So you say. All of the belief system points to reverence for Nature
>and its beauty, and respect for its entirety. This doesn't mean we
>can't cut down a tree or eat meat and so on...it merely requires
>responsible use of Nature's resources.
Very true. The medieval concept for this was "good husbandry" of the land.
William the Conqueror was jeered at by Saxons for his reforestation of large
tracts of England, but in later times people saw the benefit. (And not ALL
of it was just to provide him good grounds for hunting stag!)
>I, for one, would like to see, to paraphrase Charles Lindbergh, more
>birds and less aircraft...and more trees and open spaces and fewer
>luxury homes and shopping malls.
Well, the environmental-extremists are so far out there, fighting so fast
and furious to deplete industrial capacity and the rural life of humans,
that there's more than enough energy devoted in that direction. Congress
just passed a bill authorizing the feds to buy up $45 Billion in rural lands
for reclamation to its pre-Columbian state. I'm potentially affected by
this here in Colorado, and am simply hoping that they kept some sort of
reason with them while passing this. I don't want my land taken away at
pennies on the dollar, that's for sure. But we humans do have to come to
grips with our place in Nature--not necessarily ceding everything we own to
some *holds nose* "Earth Mother" concept, but simply doing all things with
wisdom and temperance and a thought to how we will affect our own selves in
the future by living the way we do today.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
karlwe...@hotmail.com
writes:
>Unlike the universalists who practice Asatru as some sort of "creative
>anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a heathen!," some
>of us will remain true to the vision of our ancestors, and to the
>vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the revival of Asatru in Vinland.
And then there are folks like yourself, who will keep drawing lines in the
sand, trumpeting loudly that only those on your side of the line are Tru,
and all others are fakes, phonies, play-actors, and opportunists. At least
you make it obvious which type you are....
>
>Universalist Asatru already is a joke at best, a "religion in a box";
>at worst, it will become a totalitarian ideology like Christianity,
>finding a satanic "Nazi" under every bed. It already can't tolerate
>opinions that don't coincide with its political agenda, and wishes
>sinister ill-will upon those who won't comply with its dictates (check
>out the Nidhstang webring --
>http://www.waywyrd.com/midhnott_sol/nidh.html -- and they say the
>Folkish/Traditional Asatruars are "haters"!
Gotta love this "logic" - "they" don't like me, so I feel free to hate
everyone who sounds like "them" or who disagrees with me about how hateful
"they" are. And woe unto the fool who points out the hypocrisy in this!
How about we discuss our relative viewpoints of what Asatru is, in a manner
that respects differences of opinion, rather than just continuing to scream
out our own messages and occasionally declaring all differences of opinion to
be clear indications of degeneracy, moral inadequacy, or outright deception?
Are you man enough to handle that kind of discussion?
OOKAMEI
>religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
>Period. End of story.
Okay here's a curious question for you... do you realize that homosexuality
DOES occur in nature? There have been numberous studies, etc. upon the
subject. There have been many studies involving homosexual chimps, girraffs,
and other creatures.
So, where does that put your thought? If homosexuality occurs in "nature"
or animals who have no "human influences" etc. (although as in mankind, it is
rare in nature also)..then would that merely support the idea that the
homosexual AsatruaR is also merely following his nature religion.
Something to think about.
Tyrsson
> > >religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> > >Period. End of story.
>
>
> Smart ass.
But true.
>
> > That is the nature thereof (no pun intended). Sometimes Nature sees
> > fit to make the land hot, and sometimes Nature wants the land to be
> > cold. We are very presumptive and arrogant to think we always know
> > what Nature has in mind. Sexuality is connected to procreation in a
> > natural setting, but the vehicle of procreation has both a
> > gas-pedal and a brake. You don't need to "hit the gas" if you're
> > already going at break-neck speeds. Homosexuality slows the process
> > down, and isn't any less natural than heterosexuality to the same
> > extent that the deaths of fall and winter would be less "natural"
> > than the life-springings of spring and summer. I think if you truly
> > observed and pondered Nature you would have noticed this.
>
> OK, smart ass, since you apparently have not seen the two human sexual
> organs couple lately, a penis is designed to go into a vagina, not
> another man's rectum. Blunt, but factual. Homosexuality may be a
> method of reducing overpopulation, but it is NOT, repeat NOT
> normal...it's a dysfunctional "lifestyle" caused by disharmony in human
> affairs. You just can't get around the fact it is NOT normal.
Why was it necessary to insult Cheetos here? Implying he is sexless or
stupid accomplishes nothing to prove your point.
What, therefore, of heterosexual oral sex? A penis is not 'designed' to go
into a mouth...at least, that's not its reproductive function. Is it too,
therefore, 'dysfunctional?'
Human sex is as much about pleasure as about reproduction. If it weren't,
then why would be bother having sex at all unless we wanted children? Birth
control is a fashion of facilitating sexual encounters with less risk of
pregnancy or STDs...but if sex is a purely reproductive function, again, why
bother? I submit the theory that human sexual organs are 'designed' just as
much for pleasure as for reproduction. After all, there exist innumerable
erogenous zones on the human body, such as the nipples, the side of the
neck, the buttocks, and in men, the perineum. A biological reason for such
otherwise 'useless' pleasure zones might be to enhance the sociability of
humans...and I do not think you can deny that men may be social with each
other, even if you believe that such 'social' nature absolutely MUST be
non-sexual.
Is 'love' a function of nature? If so, I would expect that since it is
perfectly possible to love a member of the same sex (fathers, brothers, best
friends, etc) that homosexual love is just as natural as these. If not,
then I would expect you to start shouting from the treetops that emotional
love between man and wife is also 'unnatural.'
I'll grant you that homosexuality is not USUAL. But I would disagree about
it being unnatural. There are billions of organisms that that have sexual
intercourse with the same sex. Virtually all single-celled animals that
reproduce sexually do so...since there are no sexes among these creatures.
But let's not stop there...many species of primate engage in homosexual
behaviour. Whether this is a sign of submission to the dominant male of the
family group or an indication of true interest in such behaviour is subject
to a debate that really can't be solved until we can learn to read a
monkey's thoughts.
I notice also your extreme focus on male homosexual behaviour, and I wonder
why you don't mention lesbians anywhere in your diatribes. Surely, if male
homosexual behaviour is wrong, lesbian behaviour is just as wrong...or is
the penis somehow more 'holy' than the vagina? Perhaps I'm just too
'liberal' in that I believe that women are the equal of men. I'm detecting
a double standard in your writing. If I am in error, accept my apologies
and explain to me the difference, because from what I see, there is none.
My wife and I have had encounters with members of the same sex. Neither she
nor I believe that any of what we did was wrong or unnatural, much as we
believe that none of what we do together in the privacy of our own bedroom
is unnatural. And really, how is homosexuality hurting you anyways? It's a
way of life that is generally consensual in nature. If a person chooses to
take offense to that, that is a choice they make, not a fact imposed on them
by homosexuals. I don't like bible-thumpers; that doesn't mean I think they
should be exterminated from the face of the earth.
Yours,
B.
The sun rises,
Shadows flee;
Behold is the Truth revealed.
Seek ye the Light of the Aesir;
Behold the Glow of the Vanir.
Tyrsson
> homosexuality, then why not "man-boy love"? Why not have Asatru hofs
> for heroin users?
Since when did homosexuality equal pedophelia? Or drug addictions?
"Man-boy love" is wrong because it is non-consensual...it's taking advantage
of a child in the worst way. Of whom does homosexuality take advantage?
Certainly not me...and certainly not you.
> Homosexuality, specifically the perverse acts of homosexuals, like anal
> sex and fisting, are abhorred by the vast majority of humanity. Only a
> select portion of the populations of Western and westernized lands
> tolerate it or embrace it.
You are lumping the acts of a few people into a massive overgeneralization.
It would be like saying all heterosexuals practise watersports or S&M simply
because a select few do. I have never met a homosexual who has done
fisting, or considered it, or thought it would be anything other than
painful. And I HAVE met several homosexual couples who do not engage in
anal sex at all...their relationship is oral only or platonic.
Incidentally, if a homosexual couple wants to practise fisting or anal sex,
what business is it of yours what they do in the privacy of their own home?
And again...many *heterosexual* couples practise both fisting and anal sex.
Neither are exclusively homosexual activities. The only things homosexuals
do that is exclusively homosexual is have relations with a member of the
same sex.
> No one is suggesting a "Homosexual Prohibition Act of 2000." But I
> will not sit quietly while homosexuals and their apologists claim that
> Asatru is either neutral or positive towards their "lifestyle," when my
> whole being, my personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of,
> indicates otherwise.
MY personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of indicates that you
are intolerant and loudmouthed. MY personal soul indicates that many
Asatruar ARE neutral or positive to their 'lifestyle,' since it harms no
one and especially since there is no written Nordic law prohibiting
homosexual activity. Loki may have made fun of Odhinn for cross-dressing
(which, I must say, is a rather hypocritical thing to do) but that is an
OPINION, not a law. There IS a difference. Why are YOU right and am I
wrong?
> Homosexuals can make this matter a non-issue by
> keeping their activities in the closet, or the bedroom...just away from
> public view and discussion. Homosexuality cannot be made on par with
> heterosexual coupling and lifestyle.
And how many open public acts of homosexual sex have you come across? I'll
wager not NEARLY as many as acts of heterosexual sex, and that's barring
such media as movies, ads, and television. Why should homosexuals be
subject to such rude displays as heterosexual sex? Surely it's just as rude
to them as it is to us. Or are we looking at a double-standard again?
And why can't homosexuality be made on a par with heteros? Because
intolerant persons such as yourself say so?
>
> > It just wasn't an issue to them, one way or the other, and any modern
> > ideas on how they would deal with it if they saw it, is pure
> > speculation.)
>
> It wasn't as big an issue for them, since it was rare. Homosexuality
> exists in frequency in correlation with the degree of "civilization"
> and the populace's distance from the natural world. But to say there
> is no evidence that the ancient Germans had no stance on homosexuality
> is a distortion of reality. They most certainly did, and it was likely
> that a homosexual would be killed. I am in no way suggesting that
> should be the case today, though.
Really? And what authentic writing did you come across that said
homosexuals were killed as a matter of course? It seems to me that such
'certainty' is no such thing, or there wouldn't be such an endless debate
about it.
>
> > Many aspects of our ancestral ways had a positive influence on the
> > development of western society as it is today: Parliamentary
> > Democracy is a direct descendant of the Thing-law; values such as
> > hard work, courage, honor, family identity, and even the
> > underpinnings of Chivalry itself (by way of the Normans) was a strong
> > Nordic influence. These things are far more valuable, as a legacy,
> > than a homophobic/racist attitude which is COPIED from the knee-jerk
> > reactions of the Christian supersticions and the Imperial Romans who
> > let them fester prior to Constantine's hallucinations.
>
> Like the concepts of democracy and representative government, which has
> been perverted by the cosmopolitans, ethnic ties of blood and likeness
> have been perverted by ideologues into the racial supremacy of today
> (the interracists share equally with the white supremacists in
> developing these perversions). But, it is ridiculous to claim that
> embrace of similarity in heritage, in appearance, in blood, is
> somehow "wrong." No other people besides European-originated peoples
> worry about this...no other people has to feel "guilty" about this
> feeling. I say bullshit to the whining of the cosmopolitans, and
> embrace proudly my "tribal ties" to the other "tribes" of people of
> Northern European heritage.
Who said I felt guilty or wrong for being white? I don't recall anyone
saying that.
<snip>
> This is such a typical strawman argument. I have NEVER said I am on
> some crusade to "rid the world" of anyone. I have made a stand
> indicating that I will not allow my heritage to be COOPTED by others
> who wish to adopt a stance contrary to important fundamentals of that
> heritage.
Show me the homosexual who is coopting your heritage. Show me HOW someone
can take something like that away from you. What fundamentals is
homosexuality coopting? I don't believe there is a homosexual 'creed'
ANYWHERE that says "thou shalt not believe in the Aesir" or "Thou shalt not
permit any to practise the Nine Virtues." THAT is what is important about
Asatru.
>I don't hate homosexuals or fear them (the term "homophobia"
> is so imbecilic), and I don't hate people of other ethnic groups
> because of their racial characteristics. They have the right to
> practice their beliefs, as do I.
And if they believe they can be gay and Asatru as well? *I* believe they
can. Why should your belief be any more 'valid' than mine? Or theirs?
>Good people who are homosexual or non-
> European won't pretend that they have a right to my beliefs and they
> expect that I accord them the same right and respect. I do. I'm not
> claiming my "grandmother was a Cherokee" and go to PowWows and smoke
> peace pipes in mockery of the sacred traditions of the pre-Ericsson
> North Americans. I don't claim I'm Japanese and demand that the Shinto
> priests accept me.
No, but you do demand that homosexuals not practise 'your' religion for fear
of coopting 'your' values and corrupting 'your' heritage. You seem to
forget that other people practise this religion too, people whose minds are
just as sharp as yours and whose beliefs about the Aesir are just as valid.
Until Tyr himself appears to me to announce that YOU are the utmost
authority on Asatru, I'll continue with my own beliefs, which just happen to
include allowing homosexuals and non-germanic people to worship the Aesir.
What right do *I* have to deny them??? That's up to the gods to decide, and
I don't presume to speak for them.
Cheetos
>> Is polygamy and eating horse flesh in your agenda?
>
>It may not be for me, but if someone believes this is their right, so
>be it. Provided the women (or the men) consent, there's nothing
>inherently wrong with it.
If consent is such an important thing, how is it consenting homosexuals rub
us so much the wrong way? Did a thrall actually LIKE being a thrall, or
would a concubine not have been a Queen if she could? The social structure
as it was in those times could only be accurately reproduced if consent were
less of an issue and a social mobility based on DEEDS came more to the
forefront. One of my pet peeves of the modern era is that deeds play far
too minor a role in current social mobility. A lucky roll of the dice on
Wall Street and suddenly a nišing thinks he's a big-shot. Some minority
ethnicity had a way-ancient ancestor who was bruised by a white man's
way-ancient ancestor and suddenly he gets free money every month from the
government. Anyone of any stripe decides to sit back on the couch, and
voila, a welfare check. Fortunately, Capitalism keeps most of the lazy scum
at bay, by sheer economic forces. Hooray for Adam Smith and Ayn Rand. ;-)
>> Do you believe murder should be compensated by a weregeld instead of
>> prison?
>
>As someone who believes prisons should be abolished, I definitely think
>there needs to be alternatives to punishment. A blood-curse upon a
>killer by the victim's family is certainly not an unreasonable option.
>Even the right to be the executioner by a member of the victim's family
>would be a start.
Weregelds came about as a means to reduce the frequency of blood-curses and
blood-feuds, which were the way before. But at least the weregelds in those
days went to the victim's family as a part of the inheritance, while today
the bits and pieces of restitution here and there mostly go to the
government.
>> Does it go down to the last detail of dress, language, diet, etc.?
>
>Not necessarily, but there's no reason not to emulate as many aspects
>as possible if one chooses to do so.
This leaves it open to wide interperetation then. If I went to bathing once
a week, out of a common bowl used by my entire family for bathing, and
showed up to work in the garb and grooming of a Northman, I think the first
people I would meet in this building would be "Security." Then again, if I
were a rock musician, the style might actually be fitting (and possibly an
improvement over, say, Rob Zombie or Marilyn Manson, in hygiene.)
>> If not, then where do you draw the line?
>
>Where my instincts lead me to.
>
>Let me ask you, where do YOU draw the line. Seriously, if we allow
>homosexuality, then why not "man-boy love"? Why not have Asatru hofs
>for heroin users?
The first and foremost line I draw is between the idea of ESTEEM and the
idea of ACCEPTANCE. True to the form of my ancestors, I don't hold
homosexuals to high esteem. I think it unmanly to get a big flesh enema
every night--just my aesthetic taste, I guess. But by the same token I'm
not about to jeer and cajole and insult every homosexual I see, in the same
way some of my ancestors may have done. Esteem may be reserved for whatever
lofty ideals an individual might have, and indeed that's the way it ought to
be. But acceptance in the modern sense means a willingness to live in a
state of relative harmony, an ability to refrain from provoking or
initiating violence, a recognition that in spite of whatever failings a
person may have that disqualifies them from esteem, a harmonious life in the
modern world demands a certain degree of acceptance.
In fact, because there is no evidence that there were legal punishments
reserved for homosexuals in pre-Christian times, this shows that there was
also a form of "acceptance" among them, albeit more rough-handed on a social
level. It was a great insult to be called a homosexual, but not punishable
for the insult to be true, per se, so if one didn't care about one's
reputation (about as un-Nordic a concept as can be imagined, but still
humanly possible) one could conceivably have rump-ranged all the live-long
day, and survived, after a fashion.
>> (Keep in mind, there are no valid historical accounts of PRE-
>> Christian Nordic/Germanics either BEING homosexuals, or having a lot
>> of worrisome laws AGAINST it.
>
>No one is suggesting a "Homosexual Prohibition Act of 2000." But I
>will not sit quietly while homosexuals and their apologists claim that
>Asatru is either neutral or positive towards their "lifestyle," when my
>whole being, my personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of,
>indicates otherwise. Homosexuals can make this matter a non-issue by
>keeping their activities in the closet, or the bedroom...just away from
>public view and discussion. Homosexuality cannot be made on par with
>heterosexual coupling and lifestyle.
My folk-soul tells me that one of the main reasons homosexuality was
frowned-upon in ancient times was the need to raise large populations to
operate farms and fill up armies. This need is met today, and THEN some.
The underpinning rationale for not accepting non-procreative lifestyles is
gone. One can still withold esteem as much as one wishes, for "unmanly"
behavior, (and in street culture it definitely is,) but I think it's time a
person be considered a human being with certain basic rights, regardless of
what they do with other consenting adults in a sexual context.
>> It just wasn't an issue to them, one way or the other, and any modern
>> ideas on how they would deal with it if they saw it, is pure
>> speculation.)
>
>It wasn't as big an issue for them, since it was rare. Homosexuality
>exists in frequency in correlation with the degree of "civilization"
>and the populace's distance from the natural world.
I think it would be more accurate to say that it climbs with population
density--and my own theory is that there is a psychological trigger
resulting from such a density of population to unleash non-procreative urges
in the sexuality of increasingly-large segments of the population, as a sort
of collective response to a natural regulation of population-density.
Violent crimes also increase, probably also for the same reason; and so on.
In some way, the Norns are telling us that there is such a thing as
too-dense a population. These things are omens.
>But to say there
>is no evidence that the ancient Germans had no stance on homosexuality
>is a distortion of reality. They most certainly did, and it was likely
>that a homosexual would be killed. I am in no way suggesting that
>should be the case today, though.
Rather than killed, it's most likely an out-of-the-closet passive homosexual
would be ridiculed and deprived of a glorious reputation and mention in an
heroic epic. He would lose social status and probably have to beg for
scraps at a table, and live by the tolerance of his more manly masters. In
most cases it was "fighting words" to be called one, along with comparisons
to animals, etc.
That was then. This is now. Today it's probably more appropriate, and more
honorable, to concentrate more on a man's non-sexual deeds for social
acceptance. There is no longer any overwheening economic or military
imperative to fulfill in generating large families. There are people enough
today. The reason behind the ridicule and stigma of the past is gone.
>> Many aspects of our ancestral ways had a positive influence on the
>> development of western society as it is today: Parliamentary
>> Democracy is a direct descendant of the Thing-law; values such as
>> hard work, courage, honor, family identity, and even the
>> underpinnings of Chivalry itself (by way of the Normans) was a strong
>> Nordic influence. These things are far more valuable, as a legacy,
>> than a homophobic/racist attitude which is COPIED from the knee-jerk
>> reactions of the Christian supersticions and the Imperial Romans who
>> let them fester prior to Constantine's hallucinations.
>
>Like the concepts of democracy and representative government, which has
>been perverted by the cosmopolitans, ethnic ties of blood and likeness
>have been perverted by ideologues into the racial supremacy of today
>(the interracists share equally with the white supremacists in
>developing these perversions). But, it is ridiculous to claim that
>embrace of similarity in heritage, in appearance, in blood, is
>somehow "wrong." No other people besides European-originated peoples
>worry about this...no other people has to feel "guilty" about this
>feeling. I say bullshit to the whining of the cosmopolitans, and
>embrace proudly my "tribal ties" to the other "tribes" of people of
>Northern European heritage.
Embracing is to be lauded. I certainly do it, and am proud. Where it gets
perverted, and overly-Christianized, is the concept that anything other than
a man's DEEDS can color the value of that man. The Christ-worshippers
introduced the abominable concept of "original sin," which also allowed
racists to believe a certain skin color added additional in-born "sins."
This, in spite of Yeshuah's own admission that "by their fruits ye shall
know them." That particular statement must have been taught to him by a
Northman. ;-)
>As for the ancient Germans not having a focus on what we now
>call "race," that's not surprising, since the idea that people of such
>dissimilar nature would be integrated into the Germanic tribes was
>literally unthinkable. Most (all?) ancient peoples thought of
>themselves as "THE humans" or a similar concept. German integration
>with Celts or Slavs was not odd since it was like joining up with long-
>lost relatives (who could tell the difference excepting clothing,
>etc?). Certainly the ancient Germans didn't have a Nazish version of
>an Aryan superrace, mainly because the social dynamics which led to the
>creation of such a myth didn't exist then.
Then why introduce the concepts now? Just because not all people look
alike, doesn't mean people of other cultures can't integrate. Not with the
goal of a "uniculture" or a "unirace," but in the spirit of adoption, and in
good faith. There indeed WERE physical differences that could be noticed
between Germanic and non-Germanic tribes even back then. Romans described
the Germans as HUGE, so a Roman visiting a German village would hardly go
without notice. "Hey, look at that tiny little guy over there.... must be a
Roman!" But from that point on, it would be how the Roman acquits
himself--in terms of behavior, that would determine how the Germans would
treat him. Does this not follow reason? Why not preserve that spirit
today, and similarly focus on deeds?
>> I for one don't claim to be an exact replica of a Northman of the 9th
>> Century, C.E.
>
>As beautiful as the people of Scandinavia are (my partner is Swedish
>:-), I'd never claim to be a "Norseman." I am a Teuton, a continental
>German. This seems to be something most are forgetting; that Asatru
>represents the continental Germans just as much as it does the
>Scandinavians. Wotan and Donnar are merely different names for two of
>the same Gods.
Indeed, I didn't intend to leave our Teutonic cousins out of all this. ;-)
>> I am a modern American, fully integrated into modern American
>> culture...
>
>I am sorry for you. I readily adapt to American society, but I will
>never be "fully integrated" into "THIS." I am an Asatruar -- I know
>now this was always so -- of Germanic (primarily), Slavic, and Celtic
>heritage.
By integrated, I mean that I don't practice polygamy, eat horse-flesh, etc.
Aspects of my ancestral culture that are inimical to modern life are
consciously left out of my habits. I remember what they were, and what they
signified, and I keep the spirit of those things alive in my own way.
>> with a REMEMBERANCE and a REVERENCE of the ways of my ancestors,
>> just as I would expect anyone of any culture to honor and cherish
>> their ancestral ways. The spirit of those ways can live on, even
>> while wearing a suit and attending business meetings--perhaps
>> especially so.
>
>Most certainly. Here I sit on my laptop, in jeans and a denim shirt,
>at a desk of mostly artificial materials under fluorescent lamps. But
>despite the change in technology, in cultural artifacts, I am the same
>as my ancestors.
To a point.
>> And they didn't do what they did because they were on some crusade to
>> rid the world of homosexuals or "mud people" or whatever other
>> modern perversions have come to infest European and American
>> paradigms.
>
>This is such a typical strawman argument. I have NEVER said I am on
>some crusade to "rid the world" of anyone. I have made a stand
>indicating that I will not allow my heritage to be COOPTED by others
>who wish to adopt a stance contrary to important fundamentals of that
>heritage. I don't hate homosexuals or fear them (the term "homophobia"
>is so imbecilic), and I don't hate people of other ethnic groups
>because of their racial characteristics. They have the right to
>practice their beliefs, as do I. Good people who are homosexual or non-
>European won't pretend that they have a right to my beliefs and they
>expect that I accord them the same right and respect. I do. I'm not
>claiming my "grandmother was a Cherokee" and go to PowWows and smoke
>peace pipes in mockery of the sacred traditions of the pre-Ericsson
>North Americans. I don't claim I'm Japanese and demand that the Shinto
>priests accept me.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be mocked, and I sense that it's
largely this spirit that drives you the way it does. I can only nod and
shrug at the frustration of the Skraelings when some bone-headed NewAge
white people try to co-opt their ways, and regardless of the intention, the
resultant feeling is one of mockery.
And I'm not suggesting that there be some big credo of Asatru officially
stating that homosexuality is "all well and good." What I AM suggesting is
that there are certain false images people out there have, certain false
connections they make, between Asatru and National Socialists in their many
incarnations today. To vigorously go on the defensive against homosexuals,
or say that non-whites "have no right" to practice Asatru, in a simplistic
way, merely buttresses those perceptions.
In modern life today homosexuals are a fact of life. They're here; they're
queer. I'm used to it. I don't like it anymore than our ancestors would
have--my objection being mostly aesthetic while they had a lot at stake in
terms of population growth. But in spite of all that they're still here and
still not going away. I think there are some natural triggers at the root
cause of the modern phenomenon. In a greater understanding of the harmony
of life, surpassing the understanding our forefathers had in this regard, I
choose to accept the phenomenon in spite of the aesthetic aspect which
appals my manly spirit. Whether the Aesir and the Vanir will allow them to
walk with them, that is up to the Aesir and the Vanir. Like Pilate did of a
Jewish politician long ago, I wash my hands of that affair.
>> Is that "universalist?" Well, how could you build a trading empire
>> from Baghdad to Newfoundland any other way? We were *universally*
>> respected, feared, and admired by the Romanized Europeans and other
>> cultures we encountered, from the Arabs to the Inuit. And I don't
>> think that's a bad thing at all.
>
>No one said it was. We need to be, as a Nation, the Asa-Nation, a
>friend to all and enemy only to those who wish to harm us. Even the
>Third Reich traded with nations who were clearly not Aryan, and
>welcomed their visitors. The cosmopolitan myths, nay, lies, that
>loyalty to ethnic heritage and ties equals "hate" and "bigotry" is
>something we need to flush down the shitter where they belong. To all
>others, besides the Europeans, ethnic ties are natural, normal, and
>expected.
>
>-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
The multiculturalists are hypersensitive at this point in history because of
the recent memory of Hitler's efforts, and such American incarnations as the
KKK and Aryan Nation. All semblance any white person might have to those
groups is bound to strike a raw nerve. I think eventually those "watchdogs"
(and the people they revert to once they're done with their watch-dogging)
will come to accept that it's okay to be both white and proud of one's
heritage, and that that doesn't necessarily denote a danger to non-whites of
a community.
Think of it this way: if some black-supremacist dictator had nearly
conquered the world, and succeeded in murdering millions of people who
didn't fit his racial norms, what would we whites think today of some black
man who eagerly and energetically boasted pride about his heritage? In our
more enlightened state we see it for what it is, but if we were a tad more
simplistic, and a scant more paranoid (and sometimes they ARE out to get
you!) we could conceivably get the wrong idea.
Even with affairs the way they are today, most people who aren't black
Muslims bristle at the mention of Louis Farrakhan, for example. But all he
is is proud of who HE is, right? ;-)
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Aesir and the Vanir will
only acknowledge people of a certain sexual preference or ethnic background.
However, I do hear much of what you're saying: there are those who want to
co-opt and mold Asatru to a very PC-liberal type of world-view, in the same
form of mockery that many of the same people do to the ways of the
Skraelingr. I think the key is for anyone who enters the realm of Asatru,
do it with respect to the Ways as they are, and not try to change them, or
syncretically blend them, or cookie-cutter them into Hillary Clinton's
political platform, etc. If they do that, then I think all sides of the
argument would be satisfied.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Les Griswold
> Milton John Kleim ; Jr. wrote in message <8fpjgf$to9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
(snip)
>>> There would be nothing absurd at all of man who was born a Tartar,
>>> raised in a Rus camp, calling on Thor if the waters were troubled.
>>> His Rus masters would have thought him strange to do ought else.
>>
>>This is an interesting illustration. Let's say Mr. Tartar is actually
>>part Mongolian...which is what I assume you'll try to pull. Then all
>>he is doing is mimicking his captors' religious system, much like South
>>and Central Americans mimick the Spanish-imposed Catholicism. It's not
>>a folk-soul manifestation at all.
>
> Folk-soul schmolk-soul. A warrior from the hird of a chieftain could do
> well in battle and gain much notoriety, and be highly-accepted by the group,
> even if he were born of a far-away race.
This is interesting. Do you have any concrete examples of a "warrior. . .
born of a far-away race", or are you just supposing?
Les!
RedWolf
The term "Heathen" in many cases as it is describes Asatru is used to
seperate our people from the rest of the pagan crowd. I do not have this
problem. I am a pagan, and I am Asatru, if people do not like it, that is
just to damn bad.
Mike
"Wodening" <wodening...@geocities.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:005d5b17...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
> In article <2sKT4.30$As3....@news.shore.net>, "RedWolf"
> <md...@shore.net> wrote:
> >Greetings,
> >
> ><Milton John Kleim>; "Jr." <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:8fnapg$e7e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> wotans...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion, and, if it
> strays from
> >> > a sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding
> homosexuality,
> >> > will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are
> quickly
> >> > losing members and relavancy?
> >>
> >> Unlike the universalists who practice Asatru as some sort of
> "creative
> >> anachronism" or a statement of "hey, look at me, I'm a
> heathen!," some
> >> of us will remain true to the vision of our ancestors, and to
> the
> >> vision of Steve McNallen, who founded the revival of Asatru in
> Vinland.
> >
Doug Freyburger
>
> If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion ...
Asatru has been a "Rainbow" religion ever since the Saxons
could no longer understand the Swedes who could no longer
understand the Goths, or even longer.
Multiculturalism is an invention of the Stone Age, and it
has been present in the world since the domestication of
the horse, and in Asatru since the invention of the boat.
RedWolf
----- Original Message -----
From: <Milton John Kleim>; "Jr." <kl...@eudoramail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.asatru
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Asatru: Contaminated by Multiculturalism, Homosexuality?
> "RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
>
> > >...ancestry is a central part in an ethnic religion, which is what
> > >Asatru is.
>
> > Asatru is a religion for the honoring of the Norse gods, The Aesir
> > and The Vanir. Just being white, does not gain you entrance into
> > the dance.
>
> No one said it did. See my recent post in the "Vinlanders" thread.
>
> Asatru was, is and always will be an ethnic religion. For a non-
> European to claim they're Asatru is as absurd as I claiming to be
> Shinto.
This has been and will always be trash. Who is going to make this decision
on how much European blood is satisfactory. If a person makes a decision
and wants to be a part of this religion, whose business is it of anyone to
challenge that this person cannot be Asatru.
>
> > > As for homosexuality, this has been
> > > dealt with countless times: it's not compatible with Nature's Laws,
> > > or with the values of the Germanic cultures.
>
> > ... a persons sexuality has nothing to do with whether they are true
> > or not.
>
> Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> Period. End of story.
The gods will determine who they want, whether it is nature-centered or not.
The key thing to remember is that Nature is not orderly, Nature is not neat,
it is beautifully and startlingly chaotic to its core. Nature has its own
calling, and no person will ever be able to predict everything it can do.
>
> > Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
> > Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Anyone within whom the ethnic folk-soul sparks, regardless of language
> or nationality, can be Asatru. All others are pretenders, seeking
> alien gods.
We are a rich and dynamic people, and even a thousand years of Christianity
could not change that, I doubt that these few people we are talking about
will have any negative effect on our people. If anything they may bring a
breath of fresh air.
Mike
Nehalennia
about the relationships between men and women than I do homosexuals and
multiculturalists in Asatru. I am with you on the issue of "how far is
too far" but take a look at how some individual Asatruars behave and
you'll understand why there are so few Asababies. For example, some
gatherings are used as places where men can get women drunk and screw
them, with no consideration given to the idea of honor or respect.
Others go to meetings and crudely talk about women's sexual parts, as if
the person inside of her doesn't exist. I have experienced this and
have heard it from many, many Asawomen. Pretty soon, no respectable
woman will want to come into our kindreds because they are looked upon
as nothing but whores by so many of the men. If they are not looked
upon as whores, they are subject to male discussions about polygamy. In
other words, if we are not good for a brief fling, maybe the men would
be faithful if they had several wives. Uh-huh. I really buy that one!
The few gatherings I have been to have been more like a place where men
can look for women to use, then throw away. TROTH? KINSHIP? No, some
Asatruars backstab like every other group and it's time to do some
self-examination. Are we a free sex/orgy entity or are we trying to
build family and community? I respect the homo with a stable and loving
relationship more than the little trolls who come to gatherings to prey
on the needs of lonely women. Some of you may think it's cute to do
this, but look around, How many single women do you see? How many of
you have treated a whore better than your own kinswomen?
SM
wotans...@my-deja.com wrote:
> If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion, and, if it strays from
> a
> sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
> will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
> losing members and relavancy?
>
> Rolf
Wodening
ook...@aol.com (OOKAMEI) wrote:
>>. For example, some
>>gatherings are used as places where men can get women drunk and
screw
>>them, with no consideration given to the idea of honor or
respect.
>>Others go to meetings and crudely talk about women's sexual
parts, as if
>>the person inside of her doesn't exist. I have experienced
this and
>>have heard it from many, many Asawomen. Pretty soon, no
respectable
>>woman will want to come into our kindreds because they are
looked upon
>>as nothing but whores by so many of the men.
>
I've never
>experienced anything like that.
>
>In Troth,
>--Mike
>RKN
>:RtR:
>
Wes hal Mike,
Never happens here in the Midwest. In fact, if anything it is
the total opposite with no discussion of sex going on, or any
sexual activity. What talk there is, is a bout runes, seidhr,
the Gods, ethics.... of all the Heathen gatherings I have been to
the last 10 years, not a one had any sort of unsavoury behaviour.
Frith!
Nehalennia
SM
Nehalennia
corresponded with are. Perhaps the bad treatment occurred after the
gathering?
SM
Wodening wrote:
> In article <20000515225700...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
Nehalennia
soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are a
different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any atractive
single young women attend your gatherings. In any event, I know of at
least two young women who chose to date outside of Asatru for that
reason. It's amazing when girls start to gossip! Anyway, one married a
Christian and is about to get a divorce because he wants to convert
her. The other gets the same treatment "on the outside." I guess men
are just men. I for one favor an Amazon kindred comprised of
heterosexual women only. We can eventually have us a village, and when
an Asawoman becomes a single parent, she can depend on us to help her
with the kids. Oh no! Discrimination! Eek. Sexist and homophobic.
Quick, Lavrans and Dirk, hose me down, call out the thought police!
Suzanne Arndt
Lucy
Sanhet
>DOES occur in nature? There have been numberous studies, etc. upon the
>subject. There have been many studies involving homosexual chimps, girraffs,
>and other creatures.
> So, where does that put your thought? If homosexuality occurs in "nature"
>or animals who have no "human influences" etc. (although as in mankind, it is
>rare in nature also)..then would that merely support the idea that the
>homosexual AsatruaR is also merely following his nature religion.
>
>Something to think about.
>
>--Mike
>RKN
>:RtR:
>
>
>
>
>
>
We are not lower animals. Odhinn breathed life and intelligence into us. We
should know better.
OOKAMEI
>should know better.
But what is more naturally...naturish? An animal which only acts upon the
instincts given to it by NATURE or a human being who is consciousness enough to
instead over-ride instincts and create choices, and choose what to do, act, and
react to?
Hmmm...not used to philosophical thought? Or is it just that with one
easy, and factual, truth your declaration has crumbled? If you want to get
intellectual, don't throw a temper tantrum when someone can keep up or overpass
you.
Your "lower animals" defense does not hold. Because if it were a "Natural
Law"...then those who are more "wild" or instinctive would follow the "Natural
Laws". They would be incapable of going "against" the "Natural Laws".
Take a logic and philosophy class at your nearest college.... I learned from
it.
OOKAMEI
>born of a far-away race", or are you just supposing?
>
>Les!
Germanics certainly didn't mind joining up with Attila the Hun's band. Seems
as though many were pround to have Hunnish blood. Our own lore tells of
Attila.
Les Griswold
Can you direct me towards some literature?
Les!
OOKAMEI
>gatherings are used as places where men can get women drunk and screw
>them, with no consideration given to the idea of honor or respect.
>Others go to meetings and crudely talk about women's sexual parts, as if
>the person inside of her doesn't exist. I have experienced this and
>have heard it from many, many Asawomen. Pretty soon, no respectable
>woman will want to come into our kindreds because they are looked upon
>as nothing but whores by so many of the men.
Wow, that's a totally alien situation to us on the East Coast. I've never
experienced anything like that.
In Troth,
--Mike
RKN
:RtR:
OOKAMEI
>
>Les!
Sure..pick up a copy of the Poetic Edda. Or any book on the Huns. Take your
pick.
Lavrans
header. Contaminated by Multiculturalism? Ever since the Aesir and the
Vanir started intermarrying- it's been downhill ever since...
;=)>
Lavrans
Cheetos
>> Folk-soul schmolk-soul. A warrior from the hird of a chieftain could do
>> well in battle and gain much notoriety, and be highly-accepted by the
group,
>> even if he were born of a far-away race.
>
>born of a far-away race", or are you just supposing?
>
>Les!
Ibn Fadlan, the Arab whose story is "augmented" quite a bit by Michael
Crichton's story "The 13th Warrior," was an actual Arab emmissary who really
did live and work with the Rus along the Volga river. There were times when
he assisted them in fights against the Bulgars and Tartars, and he became
well-esteemed, even though when they first met him there were the usual
taunts and challenges based on appearance and different ways. Once he
acquitted himself well in battle, however, he was one of them.
Another example, though less extreme, is Thorfinn MacBeth, Jarl of Orkney,
who was 7/8 Scot and bore no physical resemblance at all to his Norse
subjects. He was described as "ugly and swarthy" by contemporary accounts.
But he "kicked ass" in battle, viking with the best of them, and his
following bordered on the fanatical. His nephew Rognvald was pure and fair
(blond hair, blue eyes, you know the drill), but his deeds never equalled
those of Thorfinn and he resorted to some of the lowest skullduggery
imaginable (attempted rape of Thorfinn's wife Ingibjorg, etc.) to try to
humiliate and challenge him. Ultimately, Thorfinn had no choice but to kill
him, but the people were on his side anyway--he was a greater
warrior/chieftain than the other.
Bottom line is, appearance and race could be a starting point for challenges
and jeers (but those were unavoidable anyway, because failing those they'd
start in on speech patterns, the way you walk, anything they can to single
you out), but it was ultimately DEEDS that determined how a man came to be
ranked in society.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Cheetos
>WotanMan, I myself have taken up this issue. In reality, I worry more
>about the relationships between men and women than I do homosexuals and
>multiculturalists in Asatru. I am with you on the issue of "how far is
>too far" but take a look at how some individual Asatruars behave and
>gatherings are used as places where men can get women drunk and screw
>them, with no consideration given to the idea of honor or respect.
>Others go to meetings and crudely talk about women's sexual parts, as if
>the person inside of her doesn't exist. I have experienced this and
>have heard it from many, many Asawomen. Pretty soon, no respectable
>woman will want to come into our kindreds because they are looked upon
>upon as whores, they are subject to male discussions about polygamy. In
>other words, if we are not good for a brief fling, maybe the men would
>be faithful if they had several wives. Uh-huh. I really buy that one!
>The few gatherings I have been to have been more like a place where men
>can look for women to use, then throw away. TROTH? KINSHIP? No, some
>Asatruars backstab like every other group and it's time to do some
>self-examination. Are we a free sex/orgy entity or are we trying to
>build family and community? I respect the homo with a stable and loving
>relationship more than the little trolls who come to gatherings to prey
>on the needs of lonely women. Some of you may think it's cute to do
>this, but look around, How many single women do you see? How many of
>you have treated a whore better than your own kinswomen?
>
>SM
There were both in pre-Christian Nordic societies: stable, loving,
monogamous relationships, with everything a strong Asafeminist could hope
for in male/female dealings, and ALSO there was the "whoring" you loathe.
It was common for a host to offer, along with food and drink and a warm
place by the fire, use of one of his slave-girls for the night. Modern
society is pretty much unchanged from that state of affairs, though the
titles earned by the players are somewhat different. (Pop culture has
convinced many women that they WANT to be treated this way, so they take
over the role of host, offering themselves in the same spirit.) I'm pretty
convinced that if you really look for an honorable Asatruar who's ready to
settle down and be monogamous with you, Freja will lead you to his path.
I'm monogamous with my girlfriend, and it's not because I have pretensions
that I'm somehow better than the more polyamorous men out there. The
relationship is defined as exclusive by our mutual agreement, and out of
respect for her as a person, I would end that relationship if I ever decided
that I wanted another woman more, and that a relationship with that other
woman would be feasible. It's somewhat of a modern invention (similar to
refraining from homophobia), but it makes for greater harmony at the
apartment "hearth." ;-)
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Cheetos
>Maybe it's just a west coast thing to view women as sex objects. I am
>soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are a
>different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any atractive
>single young women attend your gatherings. In any event, I know of at
>least two young women who chose to date outside of Asatru for that
>reason. It's amazing when girls start to gossip! Anyway, one married a
>Christian and is about to get a divorce because he wants to convert
>her. The other gets the same treatment "on the outside." I guess men
>are just men. I for one favor an Amazon kindred comprised of
>heterosexual women only. We can eventually have us a village, and when
>an Asawoman becomes a single parent, she can depend on us to help her
>with the kids. Oh no! Discrimination! Eek. Sexist and homophobic.
>Quick, Lavrans and Dirk, hose me down, call out the thought police!
>
>SM
It's more than likely not so much a "West Coast Thing," but a series of
coincidences that you see as a trend. Men are men, yes, and many of us will
use women ALMOST as badly as many women use US (hehehe), but in each sex
there is an honorable minority, of varying religious and ethnic persuasions,
who don't use other people as either dehumanized sex toys or a credit card
on two legs. No need for an all-hetero-female "kindred" just yet, I think.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
P.S.: Thought Police and "hosing down." Hmmmm, that just gave me an idea
for some role-playing with the gf tonight, hehehe...
Lucy-ferr
Cheetos wrote:
> Les Griswold wrote in message <8fq15p$t82$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> >> Folk-soul schmolk-soul. A warrior from the hird of a chieftain could do
> >> well in battle and gain much notoriety, and be highly-accepted by the
> group,
> >> even if he were born of a far-away race.
> >
> >This is interesting. Do you have any concrete examples of a "warrior. . .
> >born of a far-away race", or are you just supposing?
> >
> >Les!
>
> Ibn Fadlan, the Arab whose story is "augmented" quite a bit by Michael
> Crichton's story "The 13th Warrior," was an actual Arab emmissary who really
> did live and work with the Rus along the Volga river. There were times when
> he assisted them in fights against the Bulgars and Tartars, and he became
> well-esteemed, even though when they first met him there were the usual
> taunts and challenges based on appearance and different ways. Once he
> acquitted himself well in battle, however, he was one of them.
>
I, too, read "Eaters of the Dead" and only the first three chapters dealt with
actual historical documents, the rest was Crighton fiction. The first three
chapters only dealt with the travel and NO warring so....The documents are very
damaged and there is no mention of warring...not that you are wrong, yes there
are great warriors in many cultures and have helped each other..BUT with out
giving up their identity! Attila the Hun felt his folk soul calling and return
to the mongols after being raised in Germany, I think he is a perfect example
of the folk soul! Every culture has it!
>
> Another example, though less extreme, is Thorfinn MacBeth, Jarl of Orkney,
> who was 7/8 Scot and bore no physical resemblance at all to his Norse
> subjects. He was described as "ugly and swarthy" by contemporary accounts.
> But he "kicked ass" in battle, viking with the best of them, and his
> following bordered on the fanatical. His nephew Rognvald was pure and fair
> (blond hair, blue eyes, you know the drill), but his deeds never equalled
> those of Thorfinn and he resorted to some of the lowest skullduggery
> imaginable (attempted rape of Thorfinn's wife Ingibjorg, etc.) to try to
> humiliate and challenge him. Ultimately, Thorfinn had no choice but to kill
> him, but the people were on his side anyway--he was a greater
> warrior/chieftain than the other.
>
"Swarthy" and "ugly" is a matter of perception...just like it is now. It could
of meant dark hair or simply not blonde and not blue eyed. Who knows? I didn't
live back then so I can't comment on what some people perceived as "swarthy" or
"dark". I do not think vikings had the market cornered on great warriors by any
stretch, but I am honoring their memory by remembering THEIR great deeds. Every
culture should honor their own heroes and heroines. Just because some other
cultures hero helped ours does not mean they are part of the folk soul, they
probably had some "profit" from it and when done went back to their people. If
they stayed, well then fine...it wasn't something forced like it is now!
>
> Bottom line is, appearance and race could be a starting point for challenges
> and jeers (but those were unavoidable anyway, because failing those they'd
> start in on speech patterns, the way you walk, anything they can to single
> you out), but it was ultimately DEEDS that determined how a man came to be
> ranked in society.
>
Action, right or wrong, is good!
Lucy
>
> Rognvald Bjarne
> a.k.a. "Cheetos"
zapzing
"Tyrsson" <sono...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(big snip)
> And how many open public acts of homosexual sex have you come across?
I'll
> wager not NEARLY as many as acts of heterosexual sex, and that's
barring
> such media as movies, ads, and television. Why should homosexuals be
> subject to such rude displays as heterosexual sex? Surely it's just
as rude
> to them as it is to us. Or are we looking at a double-standard again?
>
Incidentally, they do occasionally have a
"kissing crisis" in Japan. When this
happens there are a large number of
reports that someone saw an act of public
heterosexual kissing ! Shocking, to the
Japanese mind. Just goes to show you
there are standards everywhere. And they
are always "double standards" in the sense
that they weigh more heavily on the people
who might want to do the prohibited
activity then on the people who would be
less interested in doing it.
In the words of the Arcturans, "Sorry".
--
Do as thou thinkest best.
zapzing
Nehalennia <Nehal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's just a west coast thing to view women as sex objects. I am
> soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are a
> different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any atractive
> single young women attend your gatherings. In any event, I know of at
> least two young women who chose to date outside of Asatru for that
> reason. It's amazing when girls start to gossip! Anyway, one married
a
> Christian and is about to get a divorce because he wants to convert
> her. The other gets the same treatment "on the outside." I guess men
> are just men. I for one favor an Amazon kindred comprised of
> heterosexual women only. We can eventually have us a village, and
when
> an Asawoman becomes a single parent, she can depend on us to help her
> with the kids. Oh no! Discrimination! Eek. Sexist and homophobic.
> Quick, Lavrans and Dirk, hose me down, call out the thought police!
That's a wonderful idea. And you could
keep a few males in cages,.
And when you wanted to be "fertilized"
you would go and visit one of them in
their cages. The rest of the males that
were not useful for this purpose would
be "recycled".
This is the lesbian feminist agenda
to a tee. I only have one question:
what make syou think that your
feminist "sisters" will be as
good at protecting your children
as a father? ever hear of a "bitch
fight"?
--
Do as thou thinkest best.
But please think about it first.
zapzing
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <wotans...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8fmpd9$scs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > If Asatru developes into a "Rainbow" religion, and, if it strays
from a
> > sensible "don't ask, don't tell", position regarding homosexuality,
> > will it not then be worse then the judeo-christians, who are quickly
> > losing members and relavancy?
> >
> The only true 'rainbow' is going to be the many varieties of Asatru.
> Why just one Asatru?
>
> Even the Xians with a Pope can't manage a monotheology.
They never should have aboandoned
the Latin mass. They should have
made a strategic retreat and
regrouped.
--
Do as thou thinkest best.
Nehalennia
> Nehalennia wrote in message <3920D566...@mindspring.com>...
> >Maybe it's just a west coast thing to view women as sex objects. I
> am
> >soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are a
> >different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any atractive
>
> >single young women attend your gatherings. In any event, I know of at
>
> >least two young women who chose to date outside of Asatru for that
> >reason. It's amazing when girls start to gossip! Anyway, one
> married a
> >Christian and is about to get a divorce because he wants to convert
> >her. The other gets the same treatment "on the outside." I guess
> men
> >are just men. I for one favor an Amazon kindred comprised of
> >heterosexual women only. We can eventually have us a village, and
> when
> >an Asawoman becomes a single parent, she can depend on us to help her
>
> >with the kids. Oh no! Discrimination! Eek. Sexist and homophobic.
> >Quick, Lavrans and Dirk, hose me down, call out the thought police!
> >
> >SM
>
> It's more than likely not so much a "West Coast Thing," but a series
> of
> coincidences that you see as a trend. Men are men, yes, and many of
> us will
> use women ALMOST as badly as many women use US (hehehe), but in each
> sex
> there is an honorable minority, of varying religious and ethnic
> persuasions,
> who don't use other people as either dehumanized sex toys or a credit
> card
> on two legs. No need for an all-hetero-female "kindred" just yet, I
> think.
>
CheetoMan, It's not necessarily a series of events, it's more like the
experience of single young women I have spoke with. Some uni's prefer
to think it's a "folkish" thing, but it is not. By contrast, I find
more family-oriented folks within folkish communities. Then again, men
trolling for sex won't hesitate to treat Asawomen as common whores.
Asatru should be set apart from the "good Christians" in some way. Many
relish the "reputation" of being honorable, but experience lends one to
see it differently.I can't say I understand the "women use men"
assertion. I have witnessed the sluts, but never the money whores. I
hear they exist and I've seen them on Geraldo. More often, I see kind
hearted women give their trust, only to be used and thrown away without
explanation. Maybe the men are getting back at the money hoes by
assuming all women are that way. Burned women also tend to assume the
men are after only sex. In any event, all get burned. This maiden is
not prepared to lower her shield for anyone, regardless of that silver
tongue.
All-female hetero kindred, YES!
The honorable minority are married. We've reached the "chivalry is dead"
stage. I consider 95% of all unmarried males to be dishonorable with
regard to honoring the females. The "outside culture" has much to do
with that. The feminist movement has much to do with it too. Along
with liberation came an end to chivalry and a beginning of the values of
"look at those tits" and "I'd like to spend a month in bed with her!"
It's time the women go back to before the days of liberation and SLAP
these perverts across the face for dishonoring them. With the divorce
and desertion rate so high, why not have an all-female Asatru colony?
It would be a great alternative to putting children in day care centers.
SM
Nehalennia
> In article <3920D566...@mindspring.com>,
> Nehalennia <Nehal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Maybe it's just a west coast thing to view women as sex objects. I
> am
> > soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are a
> > different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any
> atractive
> > single young women attend your gatherings. In any event, I know of
> at
> > least two young women who chose to date outside of Asatru for that
> > reason. It's amazing when girls start to gossip! Anyway, one
> married
> a
> > Christian and is about to get a divorce because he wants to convert
> > her. The other gets the same treatment "on the outside." I guess
> men
> > are just men. I for one favor an Amazon kindred comprised of
> > heterosexual women only. We can eventually have us a village, and
> when
> > an Asawoman becomes a single parent, she can depend on us to help
> her
> > with the kids. Oh no! Discrimination! Eek. Sexist and homophobic.
>
> > Quick, Lavrans and Dirk, hose me down, call out the thought police!
>
> That's a wonderful idea. And you could
> keep a few males in cages,.
> And when you wanted to be "fertilized"
> you would go and visit one of them in
> their cages. The rest of the males that
> were not useful for this purpose would
> be "recycled"
> I would never give a male such gratification.
> This is the lesbian feminist agenda
> to a tee. I only have one question:
> what make syou think that your
> feminist "sisters" will be as
> good at protecting your children
> as a father? ever hear of a "bitch
> fight"?
As I said, no lesbians would be allowed. The purpose would be defeated
if sex entered into the equasion. The idea would not be to purposely be
parents without fathers, it is more like a place for those who have been
deserted/burned to find support. The concept is like that of a
battered women's shelter. Empowerment in an age where chivalry is dead.
SM
>
>
> --
> Do as thou thinkest best.
> But please think about it first.
>
Nehalennia
different cultures co-existing. The indo-Europeans evolved from one
European culture. The religions were pretty compatible and the folk
were similar, so "integrating" into a Roman culture was easier than
integrating with the Mongols. The cases where Europeans were
"asssimilated" by very different folks (i.e. Chinese, Indians), the
European race went extinct in those regions. Some do care abour race,
and it is not dishonorable to worry about extinction. We worry about
animals' extinction, but bat our arrogant little eyelashes at those
human sub-species facing extinction, unless they happen to be brown or
black. Why is that? Isn't biologoical diversity a good thing?
SM
Cheetos wrote:
> Milton John Kleim ; Jr. wrote in message
> <8fov1h$5ga$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Asatru was, is and always will be an ethnic religion. For a non-
> >European to claim they're Asatru is as absurd as I claiming to be
> >Shinto.
>
> It isn't absurd at all. The Rus (as Swedes from Roskilde were called
> by the
> Finns and Slavs as they navigated the rivers of Russia and gave the
> land its
> name) encountered, captured, and enslaved many people of Eastern and
> Middle-Eastern origin, some of whom spent most of their lives within a
>
> subset of Scandinavian culture. There would be nothing absurd at all
> of man
> who was born a Tartar, raised in a Rus camp, calling on Thor if the
> waters
> were troubled. His Rus masters would have thought him strange to do
> ought
> else.
>
> Religion is an extension of culture, and culture is independant of
> race.
>
> >> ... a persons sexuality has nothing to do with whether they are
> true
> >> or not.
> >
> >Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> >religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> >Period. End of story.
>
> There is no end to the story of Nature. That is the nature thereof
> (no pun
> intended). Sometimes Nature sees fit to make the land hot, and
> sometimes
> Nature wants the land to be cold. We are very presumptive and
> arrogant to
> think we always know what Nature has in mind. Sexuality is connected
> to
> procreation in a natural setting, but the vehicle of procreation has
> both a
> gas-pedal and a brake. You don't need to "hit the gas" if you're
> already
> going at break-neck speeds. Homosexuality slows the process down, and
> isn't
> any less natural than heterosexuality to the same extent that the
> deaths of
> fall and winter would be less "natural" than the life-springings of
> spring
> and summer. I think if you truly observed and pondered Nature you
> would
> have noticed this.
>
> >> Asatru is a religion of a vast amount of people. We have Celts,
> >> Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Nordic, etc, etc, etc, etc.
> >
> >Anyone within whom the ethnic folk-soul sparks, regardless of
> language
> >or nationality, can be Asatru. All others are pretenders, seeking
> >alien gods.
>
> Ethnic folk-soul? See above about the Tartar praying to Thor.
>
> Rognvald Bjarne
> a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Nehalennia
> <Milton John Kleim>; "Jr." <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:8fpjgf$to9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Cheetos" <nu...@beeswax.org> replies to me:
> > > >Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED
> ethnic
> > > >religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> > > >Period. End of story.
> >
> > > There is no end to the story of Nature.
> >
> > Smart ass.
>
> But true.
>
> >
> > > That is the nature thereof (no pun intended). Sometimes Nature
> sees
> > > fit to make the land hot, and sometimes Nature wants the land to
> be
> > > cold. We are very presumptive and arrogant to think we always
> know
> > > what Nature has in mind. Sexuality is connected to procreation in
> a
> > > natural setting, but the vehicle of procreation has both a
> > > gas-pedal and a brake. You don't need to "hit the gas" if you're
> > > already going at break-neck speeds. Homosexuality slows the
> process
> > > down, and isn't any less natural than heterosexuality to the same
> > > extent that the deaths of fall and winter would be less "natural"
> > > than the life-springings of spring and summer. I think if you
> truly
> > > observed and pondered Nature you would have noticed this.
> >
> > OK, smart ass, since you apparently have not seen the two human
> sexual
> > organs couple lately, a penis is designed to go into a vagina, not
> > another man's rectum. Blunt, but factual. Homosexuality may be a
> > method of reducing overpopulation, but it is NOT, repeat NOT
> > normal...it's a dysfunctional "lifestyle" caused by disharmony in
> human
> > affairs. You just can't get around the fact it is NOT normal.
>
> Why was it necessary to insult Cheetos here? Implying he is sexless
> or
> stupid accomplishes nothing to prove your point.
>
> What, therefore, of heterosexual oral sex? A penis is not 'designed'
> to go
> into a mouth...at least, that's not its reproductive function. Is it
> too,
> therefore, 'dysfunctional?'
A mouth doesn't have to be lubricated to be entered by a penis. An anus
does. A mouth does not not cause so much friction as to break the skin
and pass on HIV. AIDS is passed on mostly through homosexual acts and
IV drug use.
> Human sex is as much about pleasure as about reproduction. If it
> weren't,
> then why would be bother having sex at all unless we wanted children?
> Birth
> control is a fashion of facilitating sexual encounters with less risk
> of
> pregnancy or STDs...but if sex is a purely reproductive function,
> again, why
> bother? I submit the theory that human sexual organs are 'designed'
> just as
> much for pleasure as for reproduction.
If sex was not for reproduction, no pleasure would accompany it, right?
The Gods had to put some incentive into reproduction, right?
> Is 'love' a function of nature? If so, I would expect that since it
> is
> perfectly possible to love a member of the same sex (fathers,
> brothers, best
> friends, etc) that homosexual love is just as natural as these. If
> not,
> then I would expect you to start shouting from the treetops that
> emotional
> love between man and wife is also 'unnatural.'
"Love" is more about security and companionship. Friendship.
> I'll grant you that homosexuality is not USUAL. But I would disagree
> about
> it being unnatural. There are billions of organisms that that have
> sexual
> intercourse with the same sex.
There's a simple explanation for that. The more fit of their species
are the ones getting laid. The others have to resort to unnatural acts
to satisfy their urges. Think about it....The smarter, stronger, more
dominant males get all the females. Even male black widows, the
intelligent and fit escape after copulation to pass on their genes.
> Virtually all single-celled animals that
> reproduce sexually do so...since there are no sexes among these
> creatures.
Do you think humans should emulate single-celled animals?
> But let's not stop there...many species of primate engage in
> homosexual
> behaviour. Whether this is a sign of submission to the dominant male
> of the
> family group or an indication of true interest in such behaviour is
> subject
> to a debate that really can't be solved until we can learn to read a
> monkey's thoughts.
Again, this is indicative of the smartest and most fit passing on their
genes. Submission is not the issue, it's the REASON for submission that
is the issue. Tell me about the origin of the AIDS virus.
> I notice also your extreme focus on male homosexual behaviour, and I
> wonder
> why you don't mention lesbians anywhere in your diatribes.
It is NATURAL to be more repulsed by the idea of someone of your own sex
hitting on you. I am more repulsed by lesbians than I am gay men. Gay
men, after all, don't care if a woman walks in front of them with
nothing but a T-shirt on. I get along great with gay men, but with
lesbians, I feel like putting a gunny sack on for fear the lesbian is
having fantasies about converting me. YUUK!
> Surely, if male
> homosexual behaviour is wrong, lesbian behaviour is just as wrong...
Lesbians are the lowest HIV risk. Male society accepts lesbianism as
long as the fantasy of allowing men to join in exists.
> or is
> the penis somehow more 'holy' than the vagina? Perhaps I'm just too
> 'liberal' in that I believe that women are the equal of men.
Or maybe you, like so many men have the sick fantasy that lesbians will
allow you to join in?
> I'm detecting
> a double standard in your writing. If I am in error, accept my
> apologies
> and explain to me the difference, because from what I see, there is
> none.
Not a double-standard, just the paranoia that gay men may be thinking
impure thoughts about him. Seriously, any honest person would feel less
comfortable in the company of gays of their own sex. That's just the
truth.
> My wife and I have had encounters with members of the same sex.
> Neither she
> nor I believe that any of what we did was wrong or unnatural, much as
> we
> believe that none of what we do together in the privacy of our own
> bedroom
> is unnatural.
This was my point about perversion within Asatru. Are we family
oriented or are we an orgy entity?Doug had the nerve to suggest improper
behavior occurred only in folkish communities, but here I am reading the
confession of a "progressive" Asatruar. It backs up testimonials of
single women who were treated disrespectfully by perverted Asatru men.
Can you imagine a woman meeting a "nice" guy in Asatru, only to learn he
is bi-sexual and has possibly exposed her to HIV?
> And really, how is homosexuality hurting you anyways?
HIV is now being spread to heterosexuals thanks partly to perverts who
go from anus to vagina without informing their partners they are sex
perverts.
> Pardon me while I puke.
SM
> ours,
>
> B.
>
> The sun rises,
> Shadows flee;
> Behold is the Truth revealed.
> Seek ye the Light of the Aesir;
> Behold the Glow of the Vanir.
Nehalennia
> In article <8fov1h$5ga$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Milton John Kleim, Jr. <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> > religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> > Period. End of story.
>
> I suppose it would be in poor taste to point out that the idea of
> Asatru as a "NATURE CENTERED" religion is a myth that has been
> propagated by the very New Age "Rainbow" types of whom you seem to
> disapprove. As an instructive exercise on this point, try taking an
> inventory of the number of trees our supposedly "nature centered"
> Asatru forebears left standing in Iceland. :^)
Was this before of after Christianity? Are you sure it was the Pagans
who removed the trees?
> SM
>
>
>
> regards,
> rorik
Nehalennia
> >Let me be more specific...since Asatru is a NATURE-CENTERED ethnic
> >religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> >Period. End of story.
>
> Okay here's a curious question for you... do you realize that
> homosexuality
> DOES occur in nature? There have been numberous studies, etc. upon
> the
> subject. There have been many studies involving homosexual chimps,
> girraffs,
> and other creatures.
Those weak and unfit to pass on their genes resort to homosexuality.
Nature does not favor the homosexual. If animal species favored the
homosexual (or bisexual), they would be extinct. Only the human species
is dumb enough to reason their way into extinction. If animals figured
out that bisexuality/homosexuality spreads disease, they would actively
oppose it. I remember watching a pack of dogs once. One of the male
dogs tried to hump the dominant male. The dominant male attacked the
other dog. Would that make homophobia natural?
> SM
Nehalennia
> >We are not lower animals. Odhinn breathed life and intelligence into
> us. We
> >should know better.
>
> But what is more naturally...naturish? An animal which only acts upon
> the
> instincts given to it by NATURE or a human being who is consciousness
> enough to
> instead over-ride instincts and create choices, and choose what to do,
> act, and
> react to?
> Hmmm...not used to philosophical thought? Or is it just that with
> one
> easy, and factual, truth your declaration has crumbled? If you want
> to get
> intellectual, don't throw a temper tantrum when someone can keep up or
> overpass
> you.
> Your "lower animals" defense does not hold.
The homosexual of the "lower animals" is the least fit to survive. Only
humans would rationalize homosexual behavior as a natural "choice."
Animals don't make the choice, they are forced into unnatural behavior.
If you show me homosexual monkeys, I'll show you a dominant male that
guards to females with his life. The nature argument can be turned
around, you know?
>
> Take a logic and philosophy class at your nearest college.... I
> learned from
> it.
No, you take a class in evolution and the iron-clad law of nature.
Philosophy is human rationalization. Only the fittest survive and that
is the way the Gods made it. The further humans get away from nature,
the less fit they become.
SM
Lucy-ferr
Nehalennia wrote:
I just wanted to add...Might is Right!
Lucy
Nehalennia
> I think a relevant question is:
>
> --Just how far do you wish to go in immitating every aspect of our
> Heathen
> ancestors? Is polygamy and eating horse flesh in your agenda?
Polygamy was practiced for only part of our history. What is wrong with
eating horse flesh? Do you eat cows and chickens? What is the
difference?
> Do you
> believe murder should be compensated by a weregeld instead of prison?
Hang them from a tree.
> Does
> it go down to the last detail of dress, language, diet, etc.? If not,
> then
> where do you draw the line? If you draw ANY line, why not draw a line
> that
> allows us to at least be SOMEwhat socially acceptable in modern
> western
> culture today, to include tolerance of homosexuality? (Keep in mind,
> there
> are no valid historical accounts of PRE-Christian Nordic/Germanics
> either
> BEING homosexuals, or having a lot of worrisome laws AGAINST it. It
> just
> wasn't an issue to them, one way or the other, and any modern ideas on
> how
> they would deal with it if they saw it, is pure speculation.)
It was probably an issue that homosexuals stayed in the closet or that
it was an unspoken rule then members of the same sex "don't go there."
One gentleman did give reference to gays being made an example of. It's
like in the Arab world. If you steal, off goes your hand. There is
little theft in the Arab world where these archaic laws are in place.
Not to say I approve of this kind of brutal practice.
> Many aspects of our ancestral ways had a positive influence on the
> development of western society as it is today: Parliamentary
> Democracy is a
> direct descendant of the Thing-law; values such as hard work, courage,
>
> honor, family identity, and even the underpinnings of Chivalry itself
> (by
> way of the Normans) was a strong Nordic influence. These things are
> far
> more valuable, as a legacy, than a homophobic/racist attitude which is
>
> COPIED from the knee-jerk reactions of the Christian supersticions and
> the
> Imperial Romans who let them fester prior to Constantine's
> hallucinations.
Copied? "Racism" is an extension of tribalism (which is an extension of
family) or favoring your own folk over others. Animals practice "racism"
too. It's quite natural. Mountain lions don't look for bobcats to mate
with, they eat them. Surely, we humans can be more tolerant than that,
but shouldn't be forced into seeing all cat sub-species as one and
differences between them as reflective of a bigoted "speciesism." What
do different monkey species do when they come across each other? Some
of the researchers act baffled as to why chimps try to kill those
pink-nosed monkeys when they see them. It's territorial"ism" and in
nature, there are few to no examples of sub-species hanging out and
intermating. Only human beings do that, and call opposition to it an
"ism." I am tolerant of otherfolk, but don't believe in interracial
mixing, it's not for me because I honor my bloodline and the sacrifices
my ancestors made to create me. I am proud that humans are human
enough to not want to eliminate people of other races. I appreciate the
beauty and differences between the three races and consider them to be
part of the colorful tapestry we call diversity. Race haters may not
like what I said, but they don't understand true diversity is not
eliminating difference, it's promoting the survival of each race and
culture.
> And they didn't do what they did because they were on some
> crusade to rid the world of homosexuals or "mud people" or whatever
> other
> modern perversions have come to infest European and American
> paradigms.
Who here wants to "rid" the world of "mud people?" Recognizing racial
differences or having pride in yours is not the equivalent of wanting to
exterminate anyone. Nor is "racism" a European phenomenon. That is an
insult to our folk. The fear of differences permeates the universalist
community to a point where elimination of difference, rather than
celebration of it, becomes their focus.SM
> Rognvald Bjarne
> a.k.a. "Cheetos"
OOKAMEI
>
>Lucy
>
Ahh, by Redbeard...interesting book...but rather overly gung-ho
Nehalennia
> > Let me ask you, where do YOU draw the line. Seriously, if we allow
> > homosexuality, then why not "man-boy love"? Why not have Asatru
> hofs
> > for heroin users?
>
> Since when did homosexuality equal pedophelia?
It doesn't "equal" pedophilia, but the majority of child molesters are
gay men. If you want to see an example of a pedophile's web site, it
won't take long if you breeze through the homosexual webring.
> Or drug addictions?
> "Man-boy love" is wrong because it is non-consensual...it's taking
> advantage
> of a child in the worst way. Of whom does homosexuality take
> advantage?
Again, breeze through the homosexual sites. You'll see they SAY they
condemn child molestation, but on another link you'll find all kinds of
arguments as to why the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12
and older. That coupled with all kinds of "children's rights" sites.
Now why would a homosexual be so concerned with children?
> Certainly not me...and certainly not you.
>
> And I HAVE met several homosexual couples who do not engage in
> anal sex at all...their relationship is oral only or platonic.
>
> Incidentally, if a homosexual couple wants to practise fisting or anal
> sex,
It becomes our business when the homosexual meets the bisexual, then the
bisexual meets the heterosexual. It's called a death sentence.
> what business is it of yours what they do in the privacy of their own
> home?
>
> And again...many *heterosexual* couples practise both fisting and anal
> sex.
> Neither are exclusively homosexual activities. The only things
> homosexuals
> do that is exclusively homosexual is have relations with a member of
> the
> same sex.
>
> > No one is suggesting a "Homosexual Prohibition Act of 2000." But I
> > will not sit quietly while homosexuals and their apologists claim
> that
> > Asatru is either neutral or positive towards their "lifestyle," when
> my
> > whole being, my personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of,
>
> > indicates otherwise.
>
> MY personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of indicates that
> you
> are intolerant and loudmouthed.
My folk-soul says you are intolerant and hostile to those with diverse
opinions. Need I remind you that AIDS has no cure and that there are a
bunch of "free love" perverts running around out there passing this
disease to heterosexual females? Some people take precautionary
measures, like avoiding bisexuals. Though I don't approve of
homosexuality, I won't say STOP IT. I just ask that bisexuals not
infect the general population with HIV.
> MY personal soul indicates that many
> Asatruar ARE neutral or positive to their 'lifestyle,' since it harms
> no
> one
Tell that to women who have contracted HIV from bisexuals.
> and especially since there is no written Nordic law prohibiting
> homosexual activity.
Unspoken law, tabboo.
> > Homosexuals can make this matter a non-issue by
> > keeping their activities in the closet, or the bedroom...just away
> from
> > public view and discussion. Homosexuality cannot be made on par
> with
> > heterosexual coupling and lifestyle.
True, but it's the bisexuals who are the biggest menace to society.
> Show me the homosexual who is coopting your heritage.
Asatru-Q and their now-defunct link to Fairioes web page.
> Show me HOW someone
> can take something like that away from you.
Easy. Bu changing the meaning and re-interpreting it, like what is
being done to the honor of America's founding fathers.
>
>
> No, but you do demand that homosexuals not practise 'your' religion
> for fear
> of coopting 'your' values and corrupting 'your' heritage.
No he doesn't demand you change your religion. He doesn't want you
using Asatru as a vehicle to promote gay rights. Using the literature
to say the Allfather was a bisexual is one example. Using the
literature to say beastilaity is OK because Loki changed into a horse
and did the dirty deed is beyond appalling. Making Thor's hammers pink
is what I would call "blasphemy." The gays will flock to Asatru if they
think it is a gay religion. The gays will flock anywhere if they see a
chance to make a new gay community. I accept it if there are a few gays
in Asatru, but if it is taken over, we'll have to separate into yet more
factions.
SM
OOKAMEI
>corresponded with are. Perhaps the bad treatment occurred after the
>gathering?
>
>SM
Ever think that perhaps it's them folks out on the West coast? the major East
coast gathering goning on here in the East Coast is the East Coast Althing
hosted by Gladheim...and there was nothing of that nature there.
Doesn't mean either are lying... do all the women you've talked to live in
one area? Any out here in MA? Or the east coast?
I was merely giving my experiences.
OOKAMEI
>soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are a
>different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any atractive
>single young women attend your gatherings.
Hmmm..you seem to have a lot of pent-up anger towards men in general...you
don't seem capable of thinking any man can be a "good guy". Actually, there
are many VERY attractive asa-women here...I saw many at the east coast
althing... Hel, I'm even going out with one now.
Too bad your own experiences have been so lousy that you cannot trust any men,
regardless of how they may treat you at this point.
by the way, yes, there is a large difference in the way men treat women in
different parts of the country...do some traveling and you can't miss it.
Wodening
<Nehal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Either you are lying or the women I've corresponded with are.
>
I would assume the women you are corrensponding with are. Did
they say which gatherings, are they even Asatru? Were these
Asatru gatherings... sounds like Wiccan gatherings to me.
Provide solid evidence...
Frith!
Swain
____________________________________
Dosenhof Wodenson MP3s
http://www.mp3.com/Dosenhof
___________________________________
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Wodening
I am
>soooo surprised to hear you midwesterners and east coastman are
a
>different breed (right!). You probably just don't have any
atractive
of at
>least two young women who chose to date outside of Asatru for
that
>reason. It's amazing when girls start to gossip! Anyway, one
married a
>Christian and is about to get a divorce because he wants to
convert
>her. The other gets the same treatment "on the outside." I
guess men
>are just men. I for one favor an Amazon kindred comprised of
>heterosexual women only. We can eventually have us a village,
and when
>an Asawoman becomes a single parent, she can depend on us to
help her
>with the kids. Oh no! Discrimination! Eek. Sexist and
homophobic.
>Quick, Lavrans and Dirk, hose me down, call out the thought
police!
>
Ah!!! Yes, cause YOU have been BUSTED!!!! There are no major
Asatru gatheirngs on the West Coast outside of the Irminsul
Althing. Unless you count Ravenswood... and there Asatruar are
out numbered by a great deal. Therefore you have just discredited
your correnspondents.... and I will assume they are speaking of
Norse Wiccans, not Asatruar!
As for single Asatru women... we have plenty of them int he
Midwest, the numbers are roughly even. The real difference here
is we on the East Coast and in the Midwest take seriously the
idea that women are equal and that they should be held sacred. We
believe for the most part in monogamy, and they easiest way to
get yur head smashed in by Asatru men is take advantage of a
young girl.
Should have known.... Norse Wiccans!!! Sheeshhhh!!!
ror...@my-deja.com
Nehalennia <Nehal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ro...@yolo.com wrote:
>
> > In article <8fov1h$5ga$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Milton John Kleim, Jr. <kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > religion, homosexuality is incompatible with the belief system.
> > > Period. End of story.
> >
> > Asatru as a "NATURE CENTERED" religion is a myth that has been
> > propagated by the very New Age "Rainbow" types of whom you seem to
> > disapprove. As an instructive exercise on this point, try taking an
> > inventory of the number of trees our supposedly "nature centered"
> > Asatru forebears left standing in Iceland. :^)
> Was this before of after Christianity? Are you sure it was the Pagans
> who removed the trees?
By and large, before--at least before Xianity became officially
sanctioned in that part of the world. However, there is no historical
evidence of any systematic difference in the attitudes of Norse Xians
and non-Xians of those times concerning their relationship to nature.
Indeed, I don't think you would find so much as a single line of pre-
Xian Norse lore that suggests our Asatru forebears thought of trees as
anything but objects to cut down, burn, or sell. Sorry.
Cheetos
>> I think a relevant question is:
>>
>> --Just how far do you wish to go in immitating every aspect of our
>> Heathen
>> ancestors? Is polygamy and eating horse flesh in your agenda?
>
>Polygamy was practiced for only part of our history.
Yeah--the Heathen part. ;-)
>What is wrong with
>eating horse flesh? Do you eat cows and chickens? What is the
>difference?
Mostly symbolic. As horses increasingly became considered by medieval
Europeans to be a military weapon-system, the eating of a potential combat
vehicle was considered to be a sign of economic desparation. Similar to "we
were so poor we have to eat shoe leather." Today there's probably more
potential static one would get from animal-rights groups.
>> Do you
>> believe murder should be compensated by a weregeld instead of prison?
>
>Hang them from a tree.
And make Odins of them all? ;-)
>> Does
>> it go down to the last detail of dress, language, diet, etc.? If not,
>> then
>> where do you draw the line? If you draw ANY line, why not draw a line
>> that
>> allows us to at least be SOMEwhat socially acceptable in modern
>> western
>> culture today, to include tolerance of homosexuality? (Keep in mind,
>> there
>> are no valid historical accounts of PRE-Christian Nordic/Germanics
>> either
>> BEING homosexuals, or having a lot of worrisome laws AGAINST it. It
>> just
>> wasn't an issue to them, one way or the other, and any modern ideas on
>> how
>> they would deal with it if they saw it, is pure speculation.)
>
>It was probably an issue that homosexuals stayed in the closet or that
>it was an unspoken rule then members of the same sex "don't go there."
>One gentleman did give reference to gays being made an example of. It's
>like in the Arab world. If you steal, off goes your hand. There is
>little theft in the Arab world where these archaic laws are in place.
>Not to say I approve of this kind of brutal practice.
None of this was actually codified into law. I have no doubt that some
warriors seething in heterosexual testosterone would harrass and possibly
even kill (each chipping in for the weregeld) a known homosexual. This
happens today, in fact. It just wasn't sanctioned by law, and it was one of
the illegal insults (nið) to make a public accusation of someone being "that
way." This would put tremendous SOCIAL pressure on homosexuals to stay in
the closet, though theoretically they had legal status.
>Copied? "Racism" is an extension of tribalism (which is an extension of
>family) or favoring your own folk over others.
This is an extreme over-simplification of actual tribalism as it was
practiced, and puts the ancestors in the same class as the KKK, doing them a
horrible dishonor. The tribe or folk held together in a necessary form of
coherence, yes. But the *valuation* of individuals was based on DEEDS, not
race or tribe. If simply being of the folk were an automatic feather in
one's cap, then EVERYBODY could have a saga; but that was not the case.
>Animals practice "racism"
>too. It's quite natural. Mountain lions don't look for bobcats to mate
>with, they eat them.
>Surely, we humans can be more tolerant than that,
>but shouldn't be forced into seeing all cat sub-species as one and
>differences between them as reflective of a bigoted "speciesism." What
>do different monkey species do when they come across each other? Some
>of the researchers act baffled as to why chimps try to kill those
>pink-nosed monkeys when they see them. It's territorial"ism" and in
>nature, there are few to no examples of sub-species hanging out and
>intermating. Only human beings do that, and call opposition to it an
>"ism."
You are confusing race here with species. Lions take the whole thing to the
level of "if I didn't sire those cubs, they're DEAD." That's an
even-more-distilled form of "racism" if you want to look at it that way; a
Darwinian imperative to pass on one's own genes and prevent the others from
surviving. But I seem to recall someone here recognizing that we humans are
ABOVE the animals, that Odin breathed the life of intelligence into our
souls. Are you implying this is not so? One of the things that makes Norse
and Germanic ways precious and unique is that the genetic imperative is
transformed into an ideological imperative: that is, rather than simply
work to pass on one's genetic material, one works to pass on the
rememberance of one's ACTS, one's FEATS, and by extension, one's values and
ideas. It raises the arena of "natural selection" from the mere physical.
It can be shown to be the inspiring spark that ultimately civilized the
whole of Europe, as we know "civility" today.
>I am tolerant of otherfolk, but don't believe in interracial
>mixing, it's not for me because I honor my bloodline and the sacrifices
>my ancestors made to create me. I am proud that humans are human
>enough to not want to eliminate people of other races. I appreciate the
>beauty and differences between the three races and consider them to be
>part of the colorful tapestry we call diversity. Race haters may not
>like what I said, but they don't understand true diversity is not
>eliminating difference, it's promoting the survival of each race and
>culture.
You can use "diversity" as a foundation for an essentially genetic-purist
view in the form of separatism (I honestly see the merit), but it has
nothing to do with the actual ways of our real (not imaginary or
hyper-romanticized) ancestors. Our forebears didn't give much thought to
whether or not a particular race would be wiped out--and as such, neither
postulated in favor of it, nor against it. NOR did real-life pre-Christian
Nordics and Germanics worry themselves overmuch about so-called "racial
purity." It's quite possible that if they were as folk-separatist as you
the spread of Christianity would have acted much slower on them, because
intermarriage with the Irish, Scots, Picts, Slavs, etc. would have been
prohibited. But it WASN'T. What mattered most wasn't the "race" or "tribe"
of a potential marriage, but the political advantage combined with the
willingness on the part of the couple involved. You want peace with
such-and-such (NON-NORDIC, NON-GERMANIC) tribe? See if your daughter would
agree to marrying one of their sons, or vice-versa, to form an alliance.
That's the way it was. The 1/8 of Norse blood never would have entered into
Thorfinn Macbeth if his ancestors were "purists."
By the same token, if a party of vikingr went out to plunder, and spared the
lives of the villagers they encountered, it wasn't to "preserve their tribal
diversity." If was usually to leave gold miners in place to mine more gold
for them to take NEXT year, farmers to raise more livestock, and so on, with
foresight. It was a purely pragmatic approach. Enemy soldiers, monks, and
politicians, of course, had no value for keeping in place, so they got the
axe. ;-)
(And of course, concerns for tribal diversity would have prevented rapine or
the carrying-off of slaves, if such a concept existed.)
>> And they didn't do what they did because they were on some
>> crusade to rid the world of homosexuals or "mud people" or whatever
>> other
>> modern perversions have come to infest European and American
>> paradigms.
>
>Who here wants to "rid" the world of "mud people?" Recognizing racial
>differences or having pride in yours is not the equivalent of wanting to
>exterminate anyone. Nor is "racism" a European phenomenon. That is an
>insult to our folk. The fear of differences permeates the universalist
>community to a point where elimination of difference, rather than
>celebration of it, becomes their focus.SM
See above for the diversity argument against cultural intermingling. Of
course, taken to its logical extreme this ethnic/tribal insularity would
result in incest, and perhaps those "kissing cousin" southerners are the
purest "folk" of all? By contrast, cultural integrity can be preserved
without the attendant disadvantages of genetic intramarriage.
I'd rather see a Mongol practicing Asatru than a "genetically pure" Asatruar
be born mongolOID due to inbreeding.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Cheetos
>> Since when did homosexuality equal pedophelia?
>
>It doesn't "equal" pedophilia, but the majority of child molesters are
>gay men. If you want to see an example of a pedophile's web site, it
>won't take long if you breeze through the homosexual webring.
It's 50/50. There are the homo-pedophiles, and the hetero-pedophiles.
Scumbags all.
>> Or drug addictions?
>> "Man-boy love" is wrong because it is non-consensual...it's taking
>> advantage
>> of a child in the worst way. Of whom does homosexuality take
>> advantage?
>
>Again, breeze through the homosexual sites. You'll see they SAY they
>condemn child molestation, but on another link you'll find all kinds of
>arguments as to why the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12
>and older. That coupled with all kinds of "children's rights" sites.
>Now why would a homosexual be so concerned with children?
This is mostly the European groups who are protesting the different ages of
consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals. We here in America have made it
moot by keeping them the same.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Tyrsson
"Nehalennia" <Nehal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3921B418...@mindspring.com...
> OOKAMEI wrote:
>
>
> Those weak and unfit to pass on their genes resort to homosexuality.
> Nature does not favor the homosexual. If animal species favored the
> homosexual (or bisexual), they would be extinct. Only the human species
> is dumb enough to reason their way into extinction.
<me speaking sardonically> We're hardly in any great danger of
extinction...unless it's through mismanagement of resources and the
environment.
If animals figured
> out that bisexuality/homosexuality spreads disease, they would actively
> oppose it. I remember watching a pack of dogs once. One of the male
> dogs tried to hump the dominant male. The dominant male attacked the
> other dog. Would that make homophobia natural?
Easy explanation. The dominant male didn't want sex. So he bites. A
female dog will bite a male who tries to hump her when she doesn't want it.
As humans, we have the tool of verbal communication to display our interests
in each other. (Normally) we don't try to mount another person without
having established there's a mutual interest in each other.
B.
>
> > SM
>
>
>
Tyrsson
> Tyrsson wrote:
> > Why was it necessary to insult Cheetos here? Implying he is sexless
> > or
> > stupid accomplishes nothing to prove your point.
> >
> > What, therefore, of heterosexual oral sex? A penis is not 'designed'
> > to go
> > into a mouth...at least, that's not its reproductive function. Is it
> > too,
> > therefore, 'dysfunctional?'
>
> A mouth doesn't have to be lubricated to be entered by a penis. An anus
> does. A mouth does not not cause so much friction as to break the skin
> and pass on HIV. AIDS is passed on mostly through homosexual acts and
> IV drug use.
Technically, neither does an anus. It just won't be very fun at all if the
anus ISN'T lubricated. And the lubrication of a mouth is due to saliva, not
for the purpose of lubricating the entry of a penis. Breaking of the skin
does not occur if the penis is sufficiently lubricated and entry is
gentle--which is what it should be anyways, including with vaginal entry--or
if they're using a condom, which they SHOULD be.
HIV is passed on through contact with a mucous membrane. It could, if it
theoretically came into contact with them, be passed on through the inside
of the nose or the eyes.
I'm appalled by your assertion that AIDS is a 'mostly gay' disease. It was
just the homosexual population that happened to notice/get noticed first,
and the homosexual population that is generally the most aware of it and its
consequences. The urban myth that HIV is spread mostly through homosexual
acts or IV drug use is just that--a myth. HIV is more likely to be passed
on to a 'receptive' partner than the penetrator--in which you are correct
that it is most unlikely (though not altogether impossible) for lesbians to
obtain the disease unless they are penetrated by a man who has it or use
contaminated needles.
HIV can be passed on through ANY sexual contact--vaginal, anal, oral, or
even just rubbing, if by chance sexual fluids (precome and vaginal juices
for instance) should mix despite non-penetration. Which is, BTW, why the
'withdrawal' method is just as ineffective for HIV prevention as for birth
control. Naturally, there is less risk with each lesser degree of
penetration, which is why oral sex is generally considered to be less risky
than vaginal or anal penetration. (Lately there have been studies done
which seem to indicate that oral sex is NOT less risky, but I am unfamiliar
with them and so will do nothing other than briefly mention them.)
>
> > Human sex is as much about pleasure as about reproduction. If it
> > weren't,
> > then why would be bother having sex at all unless we wanted children?
> > Birth
> > control is a fashion of facilitating sexual encounters with less risk
> > of
> > pregnancy or STDs...but if sex is a purely reproductive function,
> > again, why
> > bother? I submit the theory that human sexual organs are 'designed'
> > just as
> > much for pleasure as for reproduction.
>
> If sex was not for reproduction, no pleasure would accompany it, right?
> The Gods had to put some incentive into reproduction, right?
So why give 'incentive' for anal sex? Why is the prostate gland a source of
pleasure when the only way to manipulate it is through the anus?
For that matter, I don't recieve pleasure from breathing or drinking...yet
they are even more 'vital' than sex. Pleasure cannot simply be seen as a
matter of incentive, because the concept of pleasure is a highly individual
notion and because it is simply not necessary to have 'incentive' to make us
feel the 'drive' for something like food, sex, water, and air.
> > Is 'love' a function of nature? If so, I would expect that since it
> > is
> > perfectly possible to love a member of the same sex (fathers,
> > brothers, best
> > friends, etc) that homosexual love is just as natural as these. If
> > not,
> > then I would expect you to start shouting from the treetops that
> > emotional
> > love between man and wife is also 'unnatural.'
>
> "Love" is more about security and companionship. Friendship.
>
I would disagree with that. Certainly those three ideas are very important
to 'love' but they are not the be-all and end-all. There is more to love
than merely friendship, or else we would call it friendship, or we would
call friendship love. Love implies a degree of intensity that is not
implied with the term 'friedship.' And what I feel when I feel love is very
different than 'friendship.' I'm not saying one can't have a powerful
friendship, or that love excludes friendship...but they are not synonyms for
each other, they simply complement each other and rarely happen without each
other.
> > I'll grant you that homosexuality is not USUAL. But I would disagree
> > about
> > it being unnatural. There are billions of organisms that that have
> > sexual
> > intercourse with the same sex.
>
> There's a simple explanation for that. The more fit of their species
> are the ones getting laid. The others have to resort to unnatural acts
> to satisfy their urges.
So instead of finding a female who is not guarded by a 'fit' male, they
choose instead to 'satisfy their urges' with each other? The only reason
they have sex is 'cause they can't find a woman?
I TOTALLY disagree with that. There are plenty of gay men who aren't 'weak'
or 'feminine' or 'unfit' for anything (save perhaps, if you choose to see it
that way, that they prefer their own sex. I DON'T see it that way.) and
who COULD have their pick of women but choose not to. And there are many
straight men who are weak, nerdy, feminine or whatever who would seem to be
'unfit' yet don't resort to sex with each other.
"Fitness" has nothing to do with sexual preference. "Inability to
procreate" does, but not 'fitness.' Indeed, many gay men (usually closeted)
are married to women, produce children, and in all respects perform as a
'fit' man save that they enjoy sex with men more than with women.
Preferring one thing over another does not equal an inability to perform the
other.
>Think about it....The smarter, stronger, more
> dominant males get all the females. Even male black widows, the
> intelligent and fit escape after copulation to pass on their genes.
>
They don't get ALL the females. There are quite a few that are rejected
because they are ugly, or deformed, or simply unpleasant. Wouldn't those
'unfit' males be able to find a release in these females?
> > Virtually all single-celled animals that
> > reproduce sexually do so...since there are no sexes among these
> > creatures.
>
> Do you think humans should emulate single-celled animals?
>
No. It was provided to make a point, not to provide an example on which we
should emulate our behaviour.
> > But let's not stop there...many species of primate engage in
> > homosexual
> > behaviour. Whether this is a sign of submission to the dominant male
> > of the
> > family group or an indication of true interest in such behaviour is
> > subject
> > to a debate that really can't be solved until we can learn to read a
> > monkey's thoughts.
>
> Again, this is indicative of the smartest and most fit passing on their
> genes.
If only the smartest and most fit pass on their genes, why does it seem that
there are more and more stupid people, people with allergies, people with
myopia, people who are homosexual, or people who are mentally ill the more
and more time that passes?
> Submission is not the issue, it's the REASON for submission that
> is the issue. Tell me about the origin of the AIDS virus.
>
I'm sorry, could you be a little more clear here? I'm not sure if you're
implying that AIDS was transmitted by monkeys, or that AIDS was transmitted
due to submission, or what. I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here.
> > I notice also your extreme focus on male homosexual behaviour, and I
> > wonder
> > why you don't mention lesbians anywhere in your diatribes.
>
> It is NATURAL to be more repulsed by the idea of someone of your own sex
> hitting on you. I am more repulsed by lesbians than I am gay men. Gay
> men, after all, don't care if a woman walks in front of them with
> nothing but a T-shirt on. I get along great with gay men, but with
> lesbians, I feel like putting a gunny sack on for fear the lesbian is
> having fantasies about converting me. YUUK!
>
Good point...I suppose I can understand that. But I am not repulsed...I
guess I must be unnatural. ;)
But I'm curious...why does that idea gross you out so much? It's not like
the lesbian is going to try...and even, if by some miracle she DID try to
convert you, you obviously would decline most wholeheartedly. Since there's
no chance of it happening, why should you let yourself be bothered by it?
> > Surely, if male
> > homosexual behaviour is wrong, lesbian behaviour is just as wrong...
>
> Lesbians are the lowest HIV risk. Male society accepts lesbianism as
> long as the fantasy of allowing men to join in exists.
>
> > or is
> > the penis somehow more 'holy' than the vagina? Perhaps I'm just too
> > 'liberal' in that I believe that women are the equal of men.
>
> Or maybe you, like so many men have the sick fantasy that lesbians will
> allow you to join in?
*laughs* You have no idea how far off the mark you hit with that one!!!
Incidentally, why IS that such a perverse fantasy? Especially since (in
your own words) it's consensual? Perhaps you, like so many women, fantasize
about joining in with two men.
I am equally repulsed--that is to say, not at all--by the idea of two men
having sex together as the idea of two women having sex together. I have no
fantasy to 'join in.' I have never had group sex. Why, then, by your logic
do I accept lesbianism?
>
> > I'm detecting
> > a double standard in your writing. If I am in error, accept my
> > apologies
> > and explain to me the difference, because from what I see, there is
> > none.
>
> Not a double-standard, just the paranoia that gay men may be thinking
> impure thoughts about him. Seriously, any honest person would feel less
> comfortable in the company of gays of their own sex. That's just the
> truth.
Generally, I would say you are right that (straight) people are less
comfortable with gay members of their own sex. I'm an exception, but I
would agree that you are right /generally/.
Though I don't know why straight men would be worried. If they are 'fit'
and gay men are 'unfit,' surely straight men would be able to fight of any
unwanted advances (unlikely as the possibility of such advances occuring
might seem)? Surely gay men would have no power whatsoever to 'convert' a
straight man, because of their fitness and his own unfitness?
>
> > My wife and I have had encounters with members of the same sex.
> > Neither she
> > nor I believe that any of what we did was wrong or unnatural, much as
> > we
> > believe that none of what we do together in the privacy of our own
> > bedroom
> > is unnatural.
>
> This was my point about perversion within Asatru. Are we family
> oriented or are we an orgy entity?
Did I say I had any orgies? No, I did not. I have no problem with those
who wish to participate in group sex, but I myself am not all that
interested. All encounters I have had with men AND women have been
one-at-a-time and monogamous. I practise the Nine Virtues and have never
maliciously hurt anyone. I believe in the family just as strongly as you
do.
> Doug had the nerve to suggest improper
> behavior occurred only in folkish communities, but here I am reading the
> confession of a "progressive" Asatruar.
'Confession' is an ugly word in this usage implying a) I am feeling guilty
and b) there is something for me to feel guilty about. Neither is true. My
behaviour was beyond reproach. I behaved morally in all my relationships.
There was nothing 'improper,' rude, or obscene about my behaviour. Even if
you believe my having had relations with a man was wrong, such relations
occured in the privacy of my home or his, away from prying eyes and
unoffending to those around us.
> It backs up testimonials of
> single women who were treated disrespectfully by perverted Asatru men.
> Can you imagine a woman meeting a "nice" guy in Asatru, only to learn he
> is bi-sexual and has possibly exposed her to HIV?
And you think that a straight man can't betray a woman just as deeply by
passing on HIV? You think that he's exposed her to HIV for the sole reason
that he's bisexual? I have news for you...straight men can pass it along
just as easily. That is why one uses condoms or other barrier devices, and
why a responsable man (or woman!) will have themselves tested regularly for
all sorts of STDs, including AIDs. If a man has exposed someone to HIV, it
is because either a) he is irresponsable and hasn't used protection or
tested himself, or b) it is because he was unfortunate enough to 'slip
through the cracks' of the detection system such that even though he tested,
he believed himself uncontaminated. A person's irresponsability has nothing
to do with his being bisexual, and his misfortune doesn't either.
>
> > And really, how is homosexuality hurting you anyways?
>
> HIV is now being spread to heterosexuals thanks partly to perverts who
> go from anus to vagina without informing their partners they are sex
> perverts.
*shakes head* HIV is also being spread from mother to child and from
contaminated blood--which, BTW, does not necessarily mean drugs but might
also mean reception of a hospital blood infusion, helping a wounded person
who had HIV or another such reason.
It's rather hard for someone to inform their partner if they are 'sex
perverts' if they don't believe they are. And any /responsable/ person will
inform their partner of their sexual history.
Incidentally, HIV is spread much more commonly through contaminated blood
(drugs, hospitals, accidents) by a FAR greater ratio than because of
bisexual men who double-dip. Bisexuals are about as uncommon as homosexuals
if not more so.
And I resent the oblique implication that I am a pervert. If you did not
mean this, please choose your words more carefully in the future.
B.
The sun rises,
Shadows flee;
Behold is the Truth revealed.
Seek ye the light of the Aesir
Behold too the glow of the Vanir.
Tyrsson
> Cheetos wrote:
>
<snip>
> CheetoMan, It's not necessarily a series of events, it's more like the
> experience of single young women I have spoke with. Some uni's prefer
> to think it's a "folkish" thing, but it is not. By contrast, I find
> more family-oriented folks within folkish communities. Then again, men
> trolling for sex won't hesitate to treat Asawomen as common whores.
> Asatru should be set apart from the "good Christians" in some way. Many
> relish the "reputation" of being honorable, but experience lends one to
> see it differently.I can't say I understand the "women use men"
> assertion. I have witnessed the sluts, but never the money whores. I
> hear they exist and I've seen them on Geraldo. More often, I see kind
> hearted women give their trust, only to be used and thrown away without
> explanation. Maybe the men are getting back at the money hoes by
> assuming all women are that way. Burned women also tend to assume the
> men are after only sex. In any event, all get burned. This maiden is
> not prepared to lower her shield for anyone, regardless of that silver
> tongue.
> All-female hetero kindred, YES!
>
> The honorable minority are married. We've reached the "chivalry is dead"
> stage. I consider 95% of all unmarried males to be dishonorable with
> regard to honoring the females. The "outside culture" has much to do
> with that. The feminist movement has much to do with it too. Along
> with liberation came an end to chivalry and a beginning of the values of
> "look at those tits" and "I'd like to spend a month in bed with her!"
And what about women gloating about a man's nice ass or broad shoulders?
> It's time the women go back to before the days of liberation and SLAP
> these perverts across the face for dishonoring them. With the divorce
> and desertion rate so high, why not have an all-female Asatru colony?
> It would be a great alternative to putting children in day care centers.
I pity you, SM, that you have become so cynical and clearly believe no good
of any male. I am sorry for you, that you have never seemed to have any
exposure to any 'good men.' Maybe it's just 'cause I'm Canadian and we're
supposedly more polite up here. But such men as you describe are NOT the
majority. People are generally good people...they just need an excuse to
show you how good they are. Don't let your guard down around
strangers--that would simply be stupid. But don't allow yourself to be
tainted by a depressing view of the nature of society. Don't automatically
assume a man (or woman) is 'guilty until proven innocent' because that is
simply not doing anyone any favours.
It must be a sad thing to see nothing but pain in the world.
RedWolf
1. If you have too much pigmentation in your skin, you just have to go, my
only suggestion get some of Michael Jackson's makeup.
2. Homosexuals, sorry you have been selected for removal, doesn't matter
how white you may be, and Michael Jackson's makeup can't help you here
either.
3. I do not know how it happened, but you Norse Wiccans just got dragged
into the "Contamination" by Swain Wodening. So you have to go, and sorry
Michael Jackson's makeup cannot help you here either.
4. Shield Maiden has selected for termination 95% of all single men. Sorry,
all have been deemed dishonorable and don't even think about Michael
Jackson's makeup.
I am sorry but I did not survive this cut. So come on people tell me who is
left and who did not survive. For those who did not survive, since some of
my ancestors was Irish, we will have the proper Irish wake. The deceased
will give their own eulogy, with the mourners getting a 15 minute time slot
for rebuttals.
Mike
"Wodening" <wodening...@geocities.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0a276348...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com...
Tyrsson
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fjlU4.1477$J06....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Tyrsson <sono...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6DkU4.38392$wz3.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> >
> >
> > It must be a sad thing to see nothing but pain in the world.
> >
> in common?
Very true...but I have had a very hard life, harder than most people I
know...but I do not let it affect my view of the world. I let myself grow
from it, grow stronger. Seeing pain should not be all you do...pain should
make you appreciate the pleasures and joys of life, not overwhelm them.
Sleeping Dragon
> Tyrsson wrote:
>
> > > Let me ask you, where do YOU draw the line. Seriously, if we allow
> > > homosexuality, then why not "man-boy love"? Why not have Asatru
> > hofs
> > > for heroin users?
> >
>
> It doesn't "equal" pedophilia, but the majority of child molesters are
> gay men. If you want to see an example of a pedophile's web site, it
> won't take long if you breeze through the homosexual webring.
It wouldn't take long if I breezed through heterosexual porn sites either.
Have you ever done so? You get a whole series of popups ranging from the
annoying to the disgusting such as bestiality and child porn. Pedophilia is
not limited to gay men, and to imply that the majority of gay men are
pedophiles is as offensive as saying the majority of heterosexuals are
rapists, and just as illogical.
>
> > Or drug addictions?
> > "Man-boy love" is wrong because it is non-consensual...it's taking
> > advantage
> > of a child in the worst way. Of whom does homosexuality take
> > advantage?
>
> Again, breeze through the homosexual sites. You'll see they SAY they
> condemn child molestation, but on another link you'll find all kinds of
> arguments as to why the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12
> and older. That coupled with all kinds of "children's rights" sites.
> Now why would a homosexual be so concerned with children?
Have you actually BEEN to more than one of these sites??? You keep on
citing the same example. It's wrong to make a generalization of a whole
group based on only a few instances.
But even so, I refer you to what I said above; it's 'porn sites' in general
that provide disgusting material, not simply homosexual sites.
> > Certainly not me...and certainly not you.
> >
>
> > And I HAVE met several homosexual couples who do not engage in
> > anal sex at all...their relationship is oral only or platonic.
> >
> > Incidentally, if a homosexual couple wants to practise fisting or anal
> > sex,
>
> It becomes our business when the homosexual meets the bisexual, then the
> bisexual meets the heterosexual. It's called a death sentence.
You're implying that every single homosexual and bisexual is being
irresponsible in choosing their partners or in protecting themselves. If
you chose to research the subject, you'd find that in fact, gay men use
condoms a LOT more than heterosexual couples, including for acts normally
considered of low risk such as oral sex.
You're also implying that straight men can't do the same thing. Which is
very wrong.
>
> > what business is it of yours what they do in the privacy of their own
> > home?
> >
> > And again...many *heterosexual* couples practise both fisting and anal
> > sex.
> > Neither are exclusively homosexual activities. The only things
> > homosexuals
> > do that is exclusively homosexual is have relations with a member of
> > the
> > same sex.
> >
> > > No one is suggesting a "Homosexual Prohibition Act of 2000." But I
> > > will not sit quietly while homosexuals and their apologists claim
> > that
> > > Asatru is either neutral or positive towards their "lifestyle," when
> > my
> > > whole being, my personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of,
> >
> > > indicates otherwise.
> >
> > MY personal soul and the folk-soul which I draw off of indicates that
> > you
> > are intolerant and loudmouthed.
>
> My folk-soul says you are intolerant and hostile to those with diverse
> opinions. Need I remind you that AIDS has no cure and that there are a
> bunch of "free love" perverts running around out there passing this
> disease to heterosexual females? Some people take precautionary
> measures, like avoiding bisexuals. Though I don't approve of
> homosexuality, I won't say STOP IT. I just ask that bisexuals not
> infect the general population with HIV.
Really? I would tend to agree with Tyrsson here. You're right, AIDS has no
cure. But "bisexual free love" isn't the cause of the spread of HIV.
Irresponsability is. THAT is a general human fault, not something that
homosexuals and bisexuals have exclusive privelege over.
Heterosexuals are doing just fine infecting themselves on their own. If
every single bisexual man stopped having sex with heterosexual women, very
little would actually change.
>
> > MY personal soul indicates that many
> > Asatruar ARE neutral or positive to their 'lifestyle,' since it harms
> > no
> > one
>
> Tell that to women who have contracted HIV from bisexuals.
What about women that have contracted HIV from heterosexuals?
>
> > and especially since there is no written Nordic law prohibiting
> > homosexual activity.
>
> Unspoken law, tabboo.
Which nonetheless is not the same as law.
>
> > > Homosexuals can make this matter a non-issue by
> > > keeping their activities in the closet, or the bedroom...just away
> > from
> > > public view and discussion. Homosexuality cannot be made on par
> > with
> > > heterosexual coupling and lifestyle.
>
> True, but it's the bisexuals who are the biggest menace to society.
Really? I think criminals are. I think rapists are. I think kiddy-porn
dealers are. Or drug users. Or deadbeat dads who beat their kids. Or
drunken moms who bring home a different 'uncle' every night.
Even IF bisexuals are a menace to society, they're no more a menace then the
heterosexuals who are spreading the exact same disease in the exact same
way.
>
> > Show me the homosexual who is coopting your heritage.
>
> Asatru-Q and their now-defunct link to Fairioes web page.
I've never been here. I do not know what they profess. Could you provide
me a link?
>
> > Show me HOW someone
> > can take something like that away from you.
>
> Easy. Bu changing the meaning and re-interpreting it, like what is
> being done to the honor of America's founding fathers.
Only if you let it happen. Are you not strong enough in your faith to
resist change? If I have a differing opinion than you, it does not mean
that I'm going to try to change your very being...and personally, I think
I'm strong enough to resist that if someone tried to 'convert' me.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > No, but you do demand that homosexuals not practise 'your' religion
> > for fear
> > of coopting 'your' values and corrupting 'your' heritage.
>
> No he doesn't demand you change your religion. He doesn't want you
> using Asatru as a vehicle to promote gay rights. Using the literature
> to say the Allfather was a bisexual is one example. Using the
> literature to say beastilaity is OK because Loki changed into a horse
> and did the dirty deed is beyond appalling. Making Thor's hammers pink
> is what I would call "blasphemy." The gays will flock to Asatru if they
> think it is a gay religion. The gays will flock anywhere if they see a
> chance to make a new gay community. I accept it if there are a few gays
> in Asatru, but if it is taken over, we'll have to separate into yet more
> factions.
Calling myself 'Asatru' is exactly what he's demanding I don't do. I don't
use Asatru as a vehicle to promote gay rights. I happen to think gays
should be allowed to worship the Aesir--indeed, I believe it's no one's
place but the Gods' to deny them that right--but that's not 'using the
religion.' If a homosexual wants a vehicle to promote gay rights, there are
plenty of rainbow groups and Pride coalitions out there. Me, I'll just
worship the Aesir as my heart and soul directs me. My being gay has nothing
to do with that.
Gays will not "flock" to Asatru. Asatru is a *relatively* unheard of
religion, and gay men are just as diverse in their religious outlooks as
heterosexuals are. There are better and more rational methods to promote
equal rights than through a minority religion.
And I call you a hypocrite. You want to create an "Amazon" community of
Asatru. How is that any less 'corrupting' of Asatru values than a 'gay'
community? How is that not seperating Asatru into factions? Creating a
santuary for battered or abused women is a laudable idea, but that should
not be used as an excuse to create a political organization out of Asatru.
Men and women were and are both important parts to being a 'family,'
something you say you value. Where is the value in excluding men from your
'community?'
Sleeping Dragon
>
> SM
Wodening
or on the East Coast... because according to Shield Maiden there
they are not supposed to exist.
7. Men that treat women with honour and as equals.. again
because they do not exist.
RedWolf
I believe that being Asatru is enough separation that is needed from the
rest of the pagan hoard. In my opinion using "heathen" as we do is only to
further subjugate the rest of the crowd we missed the first time. I can
remember before finding the word Asatru to describe the religion that I was
following all by my lonesome, I stood proudly with my pagan counterparts.
What person would I be, if I was to turn my back? Now, do these people
represent everything that we are, absolutely not, are we so foreign and so
different that we need to subjugate ourselves from them, absolutely not.
What I am saying is by far a minority opinion, so far I have never seen
anyone else take this particular stand. I will admit that I am probably
being difficult, Asatru may make me a heathen, but I will remain a pagan.
Mike
"Swain Wodening" <wode...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fsp2n$g5a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <pP%T4.103$As3....@news.shore.net>,
> "RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
> Yes, Heathen is used to seperate us from the other pagans... just as
> Asatru is. Therefore your reasoning does not hold much weight. If you
> are Asatru, you are Heathen.
>
> Swain
>
> --
> Asatru and Heathen Deja Community
> http://www.deja.com/~asatru
> Haedengyldas
> http://haedengyldas.webjump.com
> Angelseaxisce Ealdriht Webpage
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6909
Wodening
Mike the problem is, by using Asatru alone you are excluding
folks like me, who are Heathen, but not Icelandic or Norse.
Asatru is he more exclusionary form in that it excludes folks
like me who do not practice Icelandic or Norse Asatru. Heathen,
while exclusionary does not exclude other Germanic Heathens.
Which is why I prefer the term Heathen. Myself I have no problem
with excluding other pagans... aftr all we are still covered by
the term pagan as well.
Frith!
Swain
Nehalennia
Thanks for educating me. It's more than I needed to hear.
> HIV is passed on through contact with a mucous membrane. It could, if
> it
> theoretically came into contact with them, be passed on through the
> inside
> of the nose or the eyes.
>
> I'm appalled by your assertion that AIDS is a 'mostly gay' disease.
> It was
> just the homosexual population that happened to notice/get noticed
> first,
> and the homosexual population that is generally the most aware of it
> and its
> consequences. The urban myth that HIV is spread mostly through
> homosexual
> acts or IV drug use is just that--a myth. HIV is more likely to be
> passed
> on to a 'receptive' partner
More likely a gay male receptor or a female who gets it from a bisexual.
> than the penetrator--in which you are correct
> that it is most unlikely (though not altogether impossible) for
> lesbians to
> obtain the disease unless they are penetrated by a man who has it or
> use
> contaminated needles.
>
> HIV can be passed on through ANY sexual contact--vaginal, anal, oral,
> or
> even just rubbing, if by chance sexual fluids (precome and vaginal
> juices
> for instance) should mix despite non-penetration.
VERY UNLIKELY. The vast majority is through gay sex or IV drug use.
Few people find that pleasureable.
>
> Why is the prostate gland a source of
> pleasure when the only way to manipulate it is through the anus?
Incentive to poop, I don't know.
> > There's a simple explanation for that. The more fit of their
> species
> > are the ones getting laid. The others have to resort to unnatural
> acts
> > to satisfy their urges.
>
> So instead of finding a female who is not guarded by a 'fit' male,
> they
> choose instead to 'satisfy their urges' with each other? The only
> reason
> they have sex is 'cause they can't find a woman?
They have a sex drive, given by nature. Humans masturbate, but some
animals don't have the right equiptment to do that.
>
>
> I TOTALLY disagree with that. There are plenty of gay men who aren't
> 'weak'
> or 'feminine' or 'unfit' for anything (save perhaps, if you choose to
> see it
> that way, that they prefer their own sex. I DON'T see it that way.)
> and
> who COULD have their pick of women but choose not to. And there are
> many
> straight men who are weak, nerdy, feminine or whatever who would seem
> to be
> 'unfit' yet don't resort to sex with each other.
There are always exceptions to rules, yes.
>
>
> "Fitness" has nothing to do with sexual preference. "Inability to
> procreate" does, but not 'fitness.' Indeed, many gay men (usually
> closeted)
> are married to women, produce children, and in all respects perform as
> a
> 'fit' man save that they enjoy sex with men more than with women.
Pigs, if they expose their wives to the risk of HIV, let alone betray
her.
> >Think about it....The smarter, stronger, more
> > dominant males get all the females. Even male black widows, the
> > intelligent and fit escape after copulation to pass on their genes.
> >
>
> They don't get ALL the females. There are quite a few that are
> rejected
> because they are ugly, or deformed, or simply unpleasant. Wouldn't
> those
> 'unfit' males be able to find a release in these females?
How do you know they don't? I have been around horses all of my life
and have never seen a stallion reject a mare because she was "ugly."
Animals don't think in those terms. If the mare is unpleasant, he'll
try to soften her up. If she kicks him in the face a few times, get MAY
get the message and give up.
Bad eugenics and social conditioning. Homosexuality is not mainly
genetic, or the gene would have died out by now.
> >
> > It is NATURAL to be more repulsed by the idea of someone of your own
> sex
> > hitting on you. I am more repulsed by lesbians than I am gay men.
> Gay
> > men, after all, don't care if a woman walks in front of them with
> > nothing but a T-shirt on. I get along great with gay men, but with
> > lesbians, I feel like putting a gunny sack on for fear the lesbian
> is
> > having fantasies about converting me. YUUK!
> >
>
> Good point...I suppose I can understand that. But I am not
> repulsed...I
> guess I must be unnatural. ;)
You are not repulsed because you have been with both men and women. My
morality does not allow for "anything goes." I like the company of
women, as friends I can say things to that I wouldn't say to a man,
unless he was a gay friend.. If I want sex, a man can perform anything
a woman can and probably much, much better. Men for sex, women for
intimate friendship.
> But I'm curious...why does that idea gross you out so much? It's not
> like
> the lesbian is going to try...and even, if by some miracle she DID try
> to
> convert you, you obviously would decline most wholeheartedly. Since
> there's
> no chance of it happening, why should you let yourself be bothered by
> it?
>
It's just natural. I can't explain it in logical terms.
> > > Surely, if male
> > > homosexual behaviour is wrong, lesbian behaviour is just as
> wrong...
> >
> > Lesbians are the lowest HIV risk. Male society accepts lesbianism
> as
> > long as the fantasy of allowing men to join in exists.
> >
> > > or is
> > > the penis somehow more 'holy' than the vagina? Perhaps I'm just
> too
> > > 'liberal' in that I believe that women are the equal of men.
> >
> > Or maybe you, like so many men have the sick fantasy that lesbians
> will
> > allow you to join in?
>
> *laughs* You have no idea how far off the mark you hit with that
> one!!!
> Incidentally, why IS that such a perverse fantasy? Especially since
> (in
> your own words) it's consensual? Perhaps you, like so many women,
> fantasize
> about joining in with two men.
I am nnot off the mark, that is what men tell me.I don't understand the
lesbian fantasy because the opposite (two gay men) repluses me. I don't
care how consentual it is, I am sickened by the idea.
It's just the thought. Some may accept that there are gays, but they'll
generally not come to be comfy in the same room with a guy with a hardon
looking at his butt.
> > > My wife and I have had encounters with members of the same sex.
> > > Neither she
> > > nor I believe that any of what we did was wrong or unnatural, much
> as
> > > we
> > > believe that none of what we do together in the privacy of our own
>
> > > bedroom
> > > is unnatural.
> >
> > This was my point about perversion within Asatru. Are we family
> > oriented or are we an orgy entity?
>
> Did I say I had any orgies? No, I did not. I have no problem with
> those
> who wish to participate in group sex, but I myself am not all that
> interested. All encounters I have had with men AND women have been
> one-at-a-time and monogamous. I practise the Nine Virtues and have
> never
> maliciously hurt anyone. I believe in the family just as strongly as
> you
> do.
This is why you are comfy with gay men, because you've been there. I
will never go there, so I'll never have your "progressive" ideas.
> snip snip snip
SM
Dirk Bruere
>
> So why give 'incentive' for anal sex? Why is the prostate gland a source
of
> pleasure when the only way to manipulate it is through the anus?
Gods way of rewarding us for having a good shit.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
>
> It must be a sad thing to see nothing but pain in the world.
>
What do ambulance drivers, social workers, police and prostitutes all have
in common?
Dirk
Swain Wodening
"RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The term "Heathen" in many cases as it is describes Asatru is used to
> seperate our people from the rest of the pagan crowd. I do not have
this
> problem. I am a pagan, and I am Asatru, if people do not like it,
that is
> just to damn bad.
>
> Mike
>
Yes, Heathen is used to seperate us form he other pagans... just as
Swain Wodening
"RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The term "Heathen" in many cases as it is describes Asatru is used to
> seperate our people from the rest of the pagan crowd. I do not have
this
> problem. I am a pagan, and I am Asatru, if people do not like it,
that is
> just to damn bad.
>
> Mike
>
Yes, Heathen is used to seperate us from the other pagans... just as
Aelfwine
Enrolments are now being accepted for Nehalennia's school of Anthropology,
Ancient History and Sociology. This is a 1 Unit diploma program which has a
duration of about five minutes.
Graduates from Nehalennia's College of Anthropology, Ancient History and
Sociology (NCAAHS) will have little or no knowledge of Indo-European
Anthropology, an elementary school level grounding in Ancient History, and
an uncommonly high level of ignorance to all scholarly pursuits.
Nevertheless, graduates can expect their diploma to qualify them for
irrelevant chatter about subjects they know little or nothing about, safe in
the knowledge that they have got their rigorous training from a well
respected academic institution to back them up, if ever they are challenged
on their ignorance :) !!
However, there have been some dissenters, as the following message from a
doubtful critic of the methods of NCAAHS shows...
Nehalennia <Nehal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3921A7EA...@mindspring.com...
> CheetoMan, Multicultualism as we understand it today is about extremely
> different cultures co-existing. The indo-Europeans evolved from one
> European culture.
Indo-European is a LINGUISTIC classification, not ethnic. Yes, the PIE
people evolved from a homogeneous culture, but sadly it wasn't "European",
it was Proto-Indo-European. Furthermore, European people themselves evolved
from an "inter-breeding" between the and IE people and the commonly labelled
Old European who already existed in contemporary Europe. There is no
evidence for the opinion that modern day Europeans are "pure" IE, that is a
19th century scholarly model which has now been superseded, and as I have
said before it is a linguistic not racial term these days.
The religions were pretty compatible and the folk
> were similar, so "integrating" into a Roman culture was easier than
> integrating with the Mongols.
What do you mean by integrating with Roman "culture". What do you mean the
folk were "similar" ? Roman "culture" became one of the most syncretic
movements in the whole of the ancient world. Rome from its very foundation
had already started to incorporate the values of the non-IE tribes around
it. Ever heard of the story about the Romans and the Sabine women ? The
Sabines weren't IE, but akin to the Etruscans (another powerful influence on
the Romans, and surprise, surprise non-IE !). The Romans inter-bred with
these people.
The folk were hardly similar, a simple proof is seen when you compare
average male height. The average Roman Legionnaire was 5' 4", and your
average Germanic warrior was nigh on 6', so the folk had changed a fair bit
genetically as well. Germans were blue-eyed blondes, hardly the description
which best fits the Roman :)
Even in classical antiquity the Romans were importing and worshipping just
about every foreign deity they could find, so it is a myth to believe that
Rome was the "European" paradise which you claim. Although, Georges Dumezil
has done some interesting work to weed out the "foreign influences" in Roman
religion to find its IE core, but ultimately it is postulation.
So Roman culture was probably as foreign as most foreign cultures, to the
people you call European.
The cases where Europeans were
> "asssimilated" by very different folks (i.e. Chinese, Indians), the
> European race went extinct in those regions.
I'm confused if you are taking European to mean Indo-European then you have
a lot to learn about anthropology, linguistics and history.
Can I suggest that you steer clear of the more "scholarly" side of the
heathenry, because you just make a buffoon of yourself when you try to use a
pseudo- academic argument for your position, on those who have a firmer
grounding in the material; not just an introductory level of knowledge
achieved from a book which you obviously have on your shelf, entitled
"Indo-European Culture for Dummies".
Just stick to the hate-filled invective and frantic tirades, that way we all
know where we stand !!
Aelfwine
Dirk Bruere
RedWolf <md...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:J2mU4.218$As3....@news.shore.net...
> It is time to have a little bit of fun with folk who cannot be Asatru!
>
> 1. If you have too much pigmentation in your skin, you just have to go, my
> only suggestion get some of Michael Jackson's makeup.
>
> 2. Homosexuals, sorry you have been selected for removal, doesn't matter
> how white you may be, and Michael Jackson's makeup can't help you here
> either.
>
> 3. I do not know how it happened, but you Norse Wiccans just got dragged
> into the "Contamination" by Swain Wodening. So you have to go, and sorry
> Michael Jackson's makeup cannot help you here either.
>
> 4. Shield Maiden has selected for termination 95% of all single men.
Sorry,
> all have been deemed dishonorable and don't even think about Michael
> Jackson's makeup.
5. Everyone with an IQ below 150 (mine) should be kicked out.
It's lonely in these rarified heights.
But damn Pure, though.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Wodening <wodening...@geocities.com.invalid> wrote in message
> 6. Attractive, intelligent single young women in the Midwest
> or on the East Coast... because according to Shield Maiden there
> they are not supposed to exist.
>
> 7. Men that treat women with honour and as equals.. again
> because they do not exist.
8. Those I don't like.
9. Those who won't obey orders.
Dirk
Les Griswold
>>I am tolerant of otherfolk, but don't believe in interracial
>>mixing, it's not for me because I honor my bloodline and the sacrifices
>>my ancestors made to create me. I am proud that humans are human
>>enough to not want to eliminate people of other races. I appreciate the
>>beauty and differences between the three races and consider them to be
>>part of the colorful tapestry we call diversity. Race haters may not
>>like what I said, but they don't understand true diversity is not
>>eliminating difference, it's promoting the survival of each race and
>>culture.
>
> You can use "diversity" as a foundation for an essentially genetic-purist
> view in the form of separatism (I honestly see the merit), but it has
> nothing to do with the actual ways of our real (not imaginary or
> hyper-romanticized) ancestors. Our forebears didn't give much thought to
> whether or not a particular race would be wiped out--and as such, neither
> postulated in favor of it, nor against it. NOR did real-life pre-Christian
> Nordics and Germanics worry themselves overmuch about so-called "racial
> purity."
Our ancestors also didn't give much thought to mortgages, property taxes, or
foreclosures. Or the rising cost of living.
Maybe because they never encountered those things.
Les!
Manny Olds
>>. For example, some
>>gatherings are used as places where men can get women drunk and screw
>>them, with no consideration given to the idea of honor or respect.
>>Others go to meetings and crudely talk about women's sexual parts, as if
>>the person inside of her doesn't exist. I have experienced this and
>>have heard it from many, many Asawomen. Pretty soon, no respectable
>>woman will want to come into our kindreds because they are looked upon
>>as nothing but whores by so many of the men.
> Wow, that's a totally alien situation to us on the East Coast. I've never
> experienced anything like that.
I've never even *heard* of anything like that. I have trouble imagining
anyone pulling that kind of crap around here more than once. That's what
all the hammers are for, after all.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"I *still* can't get into your world-view. Not a fraction."
-- Andrew Plotkin
"Trying thinking of outrage as an addiction, and see if that helps."
-- Nancy Lebovitz
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
[bullshit deleted]
I used to find it irritating, but now I just find it amusing how every
armchair "scholar" comes out of the woodwork to criticize any assertion
regarding a common origin for the European peoples by nitpicking.
When a European dares use the term "Aryan," then we hear cries
of "hater" and "Nazi," even though the term was used in modern times
before Adolf Hitler's birth, and, it quite possibly is the derivative
of a large contingent of the European Nations' (ethnic, not political
nations) ancestors' self-applied identifier.
When a European uses the term "Indo-European" and possibly misapplies
it to all European Nations' ancestors, then we hear conceited whining
about how this and that are not "anthropologically accurate." Such
imbeciles fail to realize that a) we simply do not know the character
of the PIE people for certain, b) there is a great difference of
opinion among many in the academic world regarding PIE origins and
evolution.
The Jews claim to be descendants of the Hebrews of the Bible, and we
know from history this is not accurate, biologically or culturally
(most Ashkenazim are from the central Asian Khazar Nation). Yet, no
one -- no one dares, for fear of charge of "anti-Semitism" -- to remind
anyone of this fact. The Japanese claim they are of the "Yamato Race,"
and are direct descendants of the God of the Sun. Obviously, this
cannot be proven. In both cases, with persons of Jewish or Japanese
background, it's irrelevant whether their belief in their origins
are "historically correct." It's an ethnic myth, the truth or
falsehood of which we do not always know, nor should it matter.
Again, we see the bigotry against European Nations having the same
rights as other peoples. And before someone froths bullshit about
believing we are "Aryans" automatically leads to genocide, need I
remind anyone that the Jewish belief in being the "Chosen People" or
having a birthright to Palestine has been used to justify genocide, or
the Japanese belief in being a superior race has led, partially, to
severe oppression over biologically-related Chinese and Korean peoples.
On the other hand, European belief in being the Aryan "Race" (the NSDAP
weren't the only ones) or Jewish belief in being the "Chosen People" or
Japanese belief in being the "Yamato Race" has also allowed each
respective culture to develop great beauty and talent which have been
used for the benefit of both self and others a majority of the time.
Belief in a myth that one's people is great and of noble origin
inspires the individual to greatness...and while it may end up leading
to injustice against others, ideologies of "tolerance" and "equality"
have actually killed more people brutally than cultures who are
arrogant about themselves...witness Christianity and Communism.
"Proud of our past, proud of our people."
-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
--
http://www.efn.org/~mjk/ /\ \|/
\/ |
/\ |
Cheetos
>Our ancestors also didn't give much thought to mortgages, property taxes,
or
>foreclosures. Or the rising cost of living.
>
>Maybe because they never encountered those things.
>
>Les!
There was a sort of early form of mortgages and property taxes when a jarl
would offer a hide of land to a warrior of his hird. By taking the land,
the warrior would have to bind himself to the jarl by some way, either
through an oath of service or the payment of a tax. In early days it wasn't
nearly as elaborate as the medieval feudal system, but the concept was
there. "You got this land from me, so you owe me [whatever was agreed
upon]." "Foreclosure" was when a bondman didn't fess up what he owed to his
lord, and the lord would come and take it away by force--but it was rarely
due to "inability to pay." (Usually it was due to a rebellion when a
bondman decided to change alliances with a different lord, who he perceived
to be stronger and able to offer a more advantageous level of protection.
Or sometimes the bondman decided he'd built up his strength enough to defy
his master and hold his land free and clear, protecting it with his own hird
against all challengers.)
And there was indeed an increase of the "cost" of living when there were bad
crops, storms, etc. They'd get less sustenance in return for their labors,
so the ratio of benefit to effort goes down, just as it does today in bad
times.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Cheetos
>
>> Ibn Fadlan, the Arab whose story is "augmented" quite a bit by Michael
>> Crichton's story "The 13th Warrior," was an actual Arab emmissary who
really
>> did live and work with the Rus along the Volga river. There were times
when
>> he assisted them in fights against the Bulgars and Tartars, and he became
>> well-esteemed, even though when they first met him there were the usual
>> taunts and challenges based on appearance and different ways. Once he
>> acquitted himself well in battle, however, he was one of them.
>
>I, too, read "Eaters of the Dead" and only the first three chapters dealt
with
>actual historical documents, the rest was Crighton fiction. The first
three
>chapters only dealt with the travel and NO warring so....The documents are
very
>damaged and there is no mention of warring...not that you are wrong, yes
there
>are great warriors in many cultures and have helped each other..BUT with
out
>giving up their identity! Attila the Hun felt his folk soul calling and
return
>to the mongols after being raised in Germany, I think he is a perfect
example
>of the folk soul! Every culture has it!
There are other sources besides Crichton for the Ibn Fadlan story. I first
read of it in Gwyn Jones' "History of the Vikings." It gives other examples
as well, but "Ibn" is what comes most readily to mind.
It's true of human nature for a person to want his cultural alignment to
match his ethnic/genetic origins, in many cases. This is why many in the
U.S. who are black reconstruct certain elements of their tribal/ancestral
African "roots." I'd put it at a large minority, unscientifically. But a
slim majority of people don't give a rat's ass. The average white person in
America right now quite simply says "I'm American," with satisfaction, and
has no "folk-soul" tugging at them to study or honor the ways of their
ancestors. All they care about is their economic success and the happiness
of their family and social ties. Attila would be in the 40% or so who would
do the "roots" thing, while the many Celts who hopped onto the longships
with the Víkingr to join them would be in the 60% who would go after success
at the risk of cultural/ethnic identity. Rome knew a lot about these
tendancies, and played on them well. They offered just enough "folk"
identity to their client kingdoms to make them feel at home, while the more
important aspects of administration and control resided in Rome. The U.S.
is getting more savvy about it today, as well.
>> Another example, though less extreme, is Thorfinn MacBeth, Jarl of
Orkney,
>> who was 7/8 Scot and bore no physical resemblance at all to his Norse
>> subjects. He was described as "ugly and swarthy" by contemporary
accounts.
>> But he "kicked ass" in battle, viking with the best of them, and his
>> following bordered on the fanatical. His nephew Rognvald was pure and
fair
>> (blond hair, blue eyes, you know the drill), but his deeds never equalled
>> those of Thorfinn and he resorted to some of the lowest skullduggery
>> imaginable (attempted rape of Thorfinn's wife Ingibjorg, etc.) to try to
>> humiliate and challenge him. Ultimately, Thorfinn had no choice but to
kill
>> him, but the people were on his side anyway--he was a greater
>> warrior/chieftain than the other.
>
>"Swarthy" and "ugly" is a matter of perception...just like it is now.
So's "genetic purity."
>It could
>of meant dark hair or simply not blonde and not blue eyed. Who knows? I
didn't
>live back then so I can't comment on what some people perceived as
"swarthy" or
>"dark".
Thorfinn's lineage through Malcolm, King of Alba, would indicate heavy
Pictish influence, and the Picts were roughly about as dark-complected as,
say, Pierce Brosnan. Theoretically they'd tan well, but that far north
they'd just be a tad less "albino" of skin than the Norse. Nevertheless,
these differences were well-noted, and darkness among, not only the Norse
but MOST of Europe, was considered synonymous with ugliness. A "fair lady"
was just that--FAIR. White in complexion. Thorfinn had visible differences
in skin color, compared to his purely Norse subjects, that were as
noticeable and significant to them in their day, as it would be to have Will
Smith as President of the United States today. Thorfinn wasn't black, but
he might as WELL have been, for the way his appearance was treated by the
Norse. But as his deeds came to be known, and his decisive rulership
brought greatness to the Orkney isles, and he expanded his jarlship to Moray
and then ultimately becoming King of Alba as well, he was resoundingly
popular and fanatically followed--"blackness" or no "blackness." And THAT
is a significant point. Racial/ethnic differences were always NOTED, of
course, and sometimes picked-on, but DEEDS were what determined opinions,
not the genetic background itself.
>I do not think vikings had the market cornered on great warriors by any
>stretch, but I am honoring their memory by remembering THEIR great deeds.
So was Thorfinn not a víkingr if he was 7/8 Scottish? Are his deeds not to
be remembered even though he commanded fleets of longships and walked with
the Aesir and ran along the oars like Leif Erikson? His father, Sigurd, was
himself 3/4 Scottish, but he came close to conquering Ireland in the name of
the Allfather. So when you say "their," are you talking GENETICS or are you
talking CULTURE?
>Every
>culture should honor their own heroes and heroines. Just because some
other
>cultures hero helped ours does not mean they are part of the folk soul,
they
>probably had some "profit" from it and when done went back to their people.
If
>they stayed, well then fine...it wasn't something forced like it is now!
If folk-soul were an universal force acting on everyone, both Sigurd and
Thorfinn would have shunned the longships, taken on names like Eachmarcach
or Diarmidh, and flocked to the Culdee churches to ponder the Celtic
mysteries of the Book of Kells. (And then there'd be a sudden fondness for
sheep....)
Culture and UPBRINGING is the "folk-soul" most people answer to.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
karlwe...@hotmail.com
[snip a bunch of crap generalizing all men as losers who treat women badly]
>
You know, you might have some valid points if you didn't succumb so readily
to overgeneralizing.
It sounds like you know of one Kindred, and have attended some of that
Kindred's
gatherings, and on that basis have decided that all are like it.
I won't try to defend anybody. I will say that your own myopia is causing
you
to consider a single toothpick as a forest. This problem was identified in
previous discussions regarding "racial behaviors". Perhaps you'll recognize
it now.
Dux
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Cheetos
>A mouth doesn't have to be lubricated to be entered by a penis. An anus
>does. A mouth does not not cause so much friction as to break the skin
>and pass on HIV. AIDS is passed on mostly through homosexual acts and
>IV drug use.
Any sexual contact without an occlusive latex or other chemical barrier
between tissues allows the potential for the exchange of bodily fluids, and
hence the HIV virus. To think that only homosexual or anal contact can pass
it on is a VERY dangerous misperception.
>If sex was not for reproduction, no pleasure would accompany it, right?
>The Gods had to put some incentive into reproduction, right?
There is incentive for reproduction, and indeed there is also an
evolutionary-psychological urge for the man to impregnate and for the woman
to be impregnated. Nature does indeed inject us with these urges. But if
you look at the frequency and unseasonal nature of sexual urge and
readiness, it becomes readily apparent that a normal human sex drive is
"overabundant" for a "breeding-only" mechanism. For most animals there is a
*season* in which they experience sexual urge, and their activity is limited
to that *breeding* season. Even when pregnant, the human female sex drive
marches on, while for almost all animals it shuts down. Could it not be
that with the lucidity and self-awareness and higher intelligence, and
whatever else the Allfather gave us to set us apart from the rest of the
animal kingdom, ALSO came an ability to expand sexual activity beyond the
realm of mechanical breeding?
>> I'll grant you that homosexuality is not USUAL. But I would disagree
>> about
>> it being unnatural. There are billions of organisms that that have
>> sexual
>> intercourse with the same sex.
>
>There's a simple explanation for that. The more fit of their species
>are the ones getting laid. The others have to resort to unnatural acts
>to satisfy their urges. Think about it....The smarter, stronger, more
>dominant males get all the females. Even male black widows, the
>intelligent and fit escape after copulation to pass on their genes.
As a parallel, among us humans, only the most fit and intelligent of the
males can escape the wrath of divorce court! ;-)
I don't think the average homosexual subscribes to his sexual preference out
of desparation or inability to "get" a female, though. Quite the contrary,
with many of their ilk I see females swooning and saying "oh gawd what a
waste!!!" They take good care of themselves, they're good
conversationalists, rather civilized, and women WANT them. So what could it
be? What is triggering these men and women to only want to "do" their own
sex? My theory is population density. Nature gave us not only the urge to
breed, but also the urge to regulate our numbers when they become
overabundant. Different species deal with this in different ways--for
example, rats will become both murderous of their own kind and suicidal when
densely-crowded in a small cage (as pet shop owners sometimes find out the
hard way). Quite possibly, shifting paradigms and sexual preferences away
from the reproductive to the non-reproductive would be a sort of "cooling
off" period, a slow-down of reproduction, and possibly a warning-sign, a
"yellow light," that population density is nearing a limit where the natural
triggers could become more drastic later on.
>> Virtually all single-celled animals that
>> reproduce sexually do so...since there are no sexes among these
>> creatures.
>
>Do you think humans should emulate single-celled animals?
Should we emulate those animals who have sex ONLY for reproduction? Why
could we not be in a different class of creature?
>> But let's not stop there...many species of primate engage in
>> homosexual
>> behaviour. Whether this is a sign of submission to the dominant male
>> of the
>> family group or an indication of true interest in such behaviour is
>> subject
>> to a debate that really can't be solved until we can learn to read a
>> monkey's thoughts.
>
>Again, this is indicative of the smartest and most fit passing on their
>genes. Submission is not the issue, it's the REASON for submission that
>is the issue. Tell me about the origin of the AIDS virus.
Submission and the dominant-gene factor is probably most explanatory for
homosexuality in primitive/primate settings (as is also evident in the
prison system--where it's the passive homosexual who's the "fag" and the
active one is still, well, at least acting like a "man.")
But in the modern context where there are men and women who PREFER to be in
a homosexual situation, even though their other features would be more than
adequate to enable them to breed with the opposite sex, the explanation has
to get more complex. By definition the behavior is non-reproductive, but
the determining factor in who practices it becomes less one of dominance and
more a question of how they react to what may be natural triggers at an
instinctive level.
And homosexuality may not be the only non-reproductive trigger experienced
by humans. It may also extend to pedophilia, zoophilia, auto-eroticism,
voyeurism, or just plain good-old-fashioned "heterosexual sodomy" between
men and women. The whispering, deep down, may be saying "DO NOT BREED," and
the response may be varied by the one who reacts to it, depending on the
personality. Keep in mind that the subconscious mind doesn't understand the
nature of condoms and "the pill." ;-)
>> Surely, if male
>> homosexual behaviour is wrong, lesbian behaviour is just as wrong...
>
>Lesbians are the lowest HIV risk. Male society accepts lesbianism as
>long as the fantasy of allowing men to join in exists.
And as long as the women aren't butt-ugly. ;-)
>> My wife and I have had encounters with members of the same sex.
>> Neither she
>> nor I believe that any of what we did was wrong or unnatural, much as
>> we
>> believe that none of what we do together in the privacy of our own
>> bedroom
>> is unnatural.
>
>This was my point about perversion within Asatru. Are we family
>oriented or are we an orgy entity?
Evidence suggests that the ancient answer to the question was "yes." That
is, yes, they were family-oriented, and yes, there were "orgies" of a sort.
(Not as typified in cheesy porn today, but more in the sense that a dominant
warrior was going to have his slave-girls right there in the longhouse and
he didn't care who saw it.)
>Doug had the nerve to suggest improper
>behavior occurred only in folkish communities, but here I am reading the
>confession of a "progressive" Asatruar. It backs up testimonials of
>single women who were treated disrespectfully by perverted Asatru men.
>Can you imagine a woman meeting a "nice" guy in Asatru, only to learn he
>is bi-sexual and has possibly exposed her to HIV?
Anyone can expose anyone to HIV. You endanger yourself unnecessarily to
think otherwise.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
karlwe...@hotmail.com
>It is time to have a little bit of fun with folk who cannot be Asatru!
>
>1. If you have too much pigmentation in your skin, you just have to go, my
>only suggestion get some of Michael Jackson's makeup.
>
>2. Homosexuals, sorry you have been selected for removal, doesn't matter
>how white you may be, and Michael Jackson's makeup can't help you here
>either.
>
>3. I do not know how it happened, but you Norse Wiccans just got dragged
>into the "Contamination" by Swain Wodening. So you have to go, and sorry
>Michael Jackson's makeup cannot help you here either.
>
>4. Shield Maiden has selected for termination 95% of all single men. Sorry,
>all have been deemed dishonorable and don't even think about Michael
>Jackson's makeup.
>
>left and who did not survive. For those who did not survive, since some of
>my ancestors was Irish, we will have the proper Irish wake. The deceased
>will give their own eulogy, with the mourners getting a 15 minute time slot
>for rebuttals.
>
>Mike
LOL!
Well, given that in this select group we only have white, heterosexual single
women who can't be described as Norse Wiccan, and married white couples who
are similarly not Norse Wiccan, I guess Nehalennia's preference is for
lesbian
women, poly circles, or asexual, racially pure pod-people who never disagree.
karlwe...@hotmail.com
writes:
>"Aelfwine" <aelfwine...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[bullshit deleted]
>
>I used to find it irritating, but now I just find it amusing how every
>armchair "scholar" comes out of the woodwork to criticize any assertion
>regarding a common origin for the European peoples by nitpicking.
[snip rant]
The solution is simple: don't argue scholarly issues unless you have a clue
what you're talking about. That includes not using scholarly jargon unless
you know what it means. Your source of irritation will disappear
immediately,
and the scholars will stop being irritated as well.
Lucy-ferr
Cheetos wrote:
> Lucy-ferr wrote in message <39217B14...@uswest.net>...
> >
> >> Ibn Fadlan, the Arab whose story is "augmented" quite a bit by Michael
> >> Crichton's story "The 13th Warrior," was an actual Arab emmissary who
> really
> >> did live and work with the Rus along the Volga river. There were times
> when
> >> he assisted them in fights against the Bulgars and Tartars, and he became
> >> well-esteemed, even though when they first met him there were the usual
> >> taunts and challenges based on appearance and different ways. Once he
> >> acquitted himself well in battle, however, he was one of them.
I read of this elsewhere also, although I cannot remember where right now. I
still don't recall any battles, but I can barely recall what I ate for dinner
last night...=P.
I believe they are called "the mass" and that is what the world runs on is the
mass of people willing to just consume, sleep and defecate. There is always a
minority in any culture, clique, or what ever group that cares more about stuff
like identity and advancement, than the mass. But the mass always benefits from
the deeds of the few who do answer the folk soul and act upon it. Like Attila
or say Thorfin.
> Attila would be in the 40% or so who would
> do the "roots" thing, while the many Celts who hopped onto the longships
> with the Víkingr to join them would be in the 60% who would go after success
> at the risk of cultural/ethnic identity. Rome knew a lot about these
> tendancies, and played on them well. They offered just enough "folk"
> identity to their client kingdoms to make them feel at home, while the more
> important aspects of administration and control resided in Rome. The U.S.
> is getting more savvy about it today, as well.
UHH I don't think this is a good thing...didn't Rome fall cuz of this and isn't
America on the same route?
>
>
> >> Another example, though less extreme, is Thorfinn MacBeth, Jarl of
> Orkney,
> >> who was 7/8 Scot and bore no physical resemblance at all to his Norse
> >> subjects. He was described as "ugly and swarthy" by contemporary
> accounts.
> >> But he "kicked ass" in battle, viking with the best of them, and his
> >> following bordered on the fanatical. His nephew Rognvald was pure and
> fair
> >> (blond hair, blue eyes, you know the drill), but his deeds never equalled
> >> those of Thorfinn and he resorted to some of the lowest skullduggery
> >> imaginable (attempted rape of Thorfinn's wife Ingibjorg, etc.) to try to
> >> humiliate and challenge him. Ultimately, Thorfinn had no choice but to
> kill
> >> him, but the people were on his side anyway--he was a greater
> >> warrior/chieftain than the other.
> >
> >"Swarthy" and "ugly" is a matter of perception...just like it is now.
>
> So's "genetic purity."
Absolutely, some people think it is being purely European and some think mostly
European. So who is right and does it matter? I think it is the former, but
then that is my perception.
>
>
> >It could
> >of meant dark hair or simply not blonde and not blue eyed. Who knows? I
> didn't
> >live back then so I can't comment on what some people perceived as
> "swarthy" or
> >"dark".
>
> Thorfinn's lineage through Malcolm, King of Alba, would indicate heavy
> Pictish influence, and the Picts were roughly about as dark-complected as,
> say, Pierce Brosnan. Theoretically they'd tan well, but that far north
> they'd just be a tad less "albino" of skin than the Norse.
Well my husband is blonde and blue eyed...he tans quite well...I on the other
hand, I have Auburn hair and green eyes...I basically burn, peel, and fade back
to white within a week. I know many "dark" individuals that do. So go
figure...
> Nevertheless,
> these differences were well-noted, and darkness among, not only the Norse
> but MOST of Europe, was considered synonymous with ugliness. A "fair lady"
> was just that--FAIR. White in complexion. Thorfinn had visible differences
> in skin color, compared to his purely Norse subjects, that were as
> noticeable and significant to them in their day, as it would be to have Will
> Smith as President of the United States today. Thorfinn wasn't black, but
> he might as WELL have been,
HUH? He wasn't black but he might as well been? He was treated badly cuz he
had brown hair and brown eyes...were the Norse that big of "racists"?
> for the way his appearance was treated by the
> Norse. But as his deeds came to be known, and his decisive rulership
> brought greatness to the Orkney isles, and he expanded his jarlship to Moray
> and then ultimately becoming King of Alba as well, he was resoundingly
> popular and fanatically followed--"blackness" or no "blackness." And THAT
> is a significant point. Racial/ethnic differences were always NOTED, of
> course, and sometimes picked-on, but DEEDS were what determined opinions,
> not the genetic background itself.
I agree and they still do...to an extent. But I think it is a weighing
game...his good outweighed his bad...although I don't think him having dark hair
and dark eyes and a tan makes him "bad". He sounds like an interesting guy!
I just seem to identify more with the Europeans deeds than some other
cultures deeds. I see lessons in other cultures "deeds", but still identify and
celebrate deeds of my own culture and race!
>
>
> >I do not think vikings had the market cornered on great warriors by any
> >stretch, but I am honoring their memory by remembering THEIR great deeds.
>
> So was Thorfinn not a víkingr if he was 7/8 Scottish? Are his deeds not to
> be remembered even though he commanded fleets of longships and walked with
> the Aesir and ran along the oars like Leif Erikson? His father, Sigurd, was
> himself 3/4 Scottish, but he came close to conquering Ireland in the name of
> the Allfather. So when you say "their," are you talking GENETICS or are you
> talking CULTURE?
Actually, I was referring to other cultures and how they regard their
heroes...not commenting on Thorfin. What was his other "1/8"? He sounds from
your description a "european mutt", that is his parents were from different
regions of Europe. I personally do not differentiate between Irish or Norse or
whoever European. If he was a great warrior, he was a great warrior. I meant
that we should honor our heroes from our past (meaning European heroes). I
could care less that the guy was 1/8 Irish, 1/8 Scot, 1/8 German, 1/8 French,
1/8 Spanish, 1/8 Scandinavian, 1/8 Finnish, 1/8...well you get the idea. He is
European. So his deeds should be honored by Europeans and European's
descendants. My question is he part African or something? (No I am not being a
smart ass, I really want to know) I am intrigued by this person. I always like
to learn about new people...I don't get a lot of time to learn about ALL our
European ancestors....with a big family, school, home schooling, writing and
everything else I must take care of, which is unfortunate.
>
>
> >Every
> >culture should honor their own heroes and heroines. Just because some
> other
> >cultures hero helped ours does not mean they are part of the folk soul,
> they
> >probably had some "profit" from it and when done went back to their people.
> If
> >they stayed, well then fine...it wasn't something forced like it is now!
>
> If folk-soul were an universal force acting on everyone, both Sigurd and
> Thorfinn would have shunned the longships, taken on names like Eachmarcach
> or Diarmidh, and flocked to the Culdee churches to ponder the Celtic
> mysteries of the Book of Kells. (And then there'd be a sudden fondness for
> sheep....)
>
> Culture and UPBRINGING is the "folk-soul" most people answer to.
You say tomato...you know! I think it is something specific to each folk....I
believe we have genetically encoded into us as Europeans soooo you don't oh
well!
I have one question...how do you news group people do this all day......it is
just sooo time consuming!
>
>
> Rognvald Bjarne
> a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Cheetos
>CheetoMan, Multicultualism as we understand it today is about extremely
>different cultures co-existing. The indo-Europeans evolved from one
>were similar, so "integrating" into a Roman culture was easier than
>"asssimilated" by very different folks (i.e. Chinese, Indians), the
>and it is not dishonorable to worry about extinction. We worry about
>animals' extinction, but bat our arrogant little eyelashes at those
>human sub-species facing extinction, unless they happen to be brown or
>black. Why is that? Isn't biologoical diversity a good thing?
>
>SM
Actually, diversity of both biology and culture are very liberal pursuits,
behind which they put an enormous amoung of political energy. I for one am
not worried about the prospect of any sort of "uniculture" movement or
_____-supremacist (fill in the blank with whatever) group winning the day
here. Diversity will go on.
What I find to be curious is when some people worry SO much about how
fragile they think their culture is, that they have to practically mummify
it in bubble-wrap to make sure nothing from the outside can come in and
"pollute" it. I find that to be a rather un-Víkingr attitude, personally.
I can just imagine the scenario in real life that brought the gold Buddha
statue to that discovered site in Sweden: "OH NO! It's an artifact from
outside our Norse culture! Put it down! Run away! We must all hide in
caves before the un-Norseness of it all pollutes us and exterminates the
very existence of our heritage! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!" In reality, the
reaction was probably more like "Cool, a gold statue. Put it over there by
the rest of the treasure." And that would be that.
Our people were strong, not just physically but psychologically. They did n
ot live in fear that contact and intermingling with other ways and other
people would drown them out. If a curious Norse trader decided to put on an
Arab head-dress to try it out, sure there'd be a lot of giggling and
horse-play about it, in the good nature of warriors, but they wouldn't all
cower and say "oh gods, there goes the neighborhood! We'll NEVER be able to
survive as a people now!!!" They had an inherent confidence that the heroic
manliness of the Folk would live on no matter whom they traded with, no
matter where they went, and indeed--no matter whom they INTERBRED with as
well. They knew themselves to be inherently dominant in all things, and for
the most part they were right. Look where Russia got its name! Look at the
influence of the Norðmanne on Western Europe. Look at how Leif Erikson's
discoveries, and maps inspired by his explorations, allowed Columbus'
contemporaries to not entirely think him insane, and thus, make his voyage
possible. We've made our mark, and we're still making it. Even in
"melting-pot America," with all the gatherings of all the different peoples,
we have the work-ethic and warrior-like spirit and entrepreneurial love of
discovery and success that finds its origins, not in some Italian basilica,
not in some African jungle, and not even in the sweat lodges of the
Skraelingr--but from among the Germanic and Nordic people who are our
ancestors. When Colin Powell climbed his way out of the ghetto to become a
General and lead men into battle, I like to think that he got a bit of the
Víkingr bug in him. It wasn't "folk-soul" whispering to him, it was just
plain SOUL. Human drive, human spirit, exemplified in our own people, but
also an inspiration to all.
Rognvald Bjarne
a.k.a. "Cheetos"
Lucy-ferr
Cheetos wrote:
> Nehalennia wrote in message <3921B137...@mindspring.com>...
> >A mouth doesn't have to be lubricated to be entered by a penis. An anus
> >does. A mouth does not not cause so much friction as to break the skin
> >and pass on HIV. AIDS is passed on mostly through homosexual acts and
> >IV drug use.
>
> Any sexual contact without an occlusive latex or other chemical barrier
> between tissues allows the potential for the exchange of bodily fluids, and
> hence the HIV virus. To think that only homosexual or anal contact can pass
> it on is a VERY dangerous misperception.
Well actually, the reason it is so easily spread analy is because the colon is
an absorption organ. Any doc will tell you the best way to get a medication
into the system is to use a suppository. So that is why AIDS/HIV is spread
among homosexuals. It is also spread because of promiscuity. Each person who
has AIDS has its own form of the disease, when someone goes from one AIDS
infected person to the next in say one week you are being injected with each of
their own viruses. In the colon each of these viruses are readily absorbed into
the person and turned into their own virus. Now, AIDS is still primarily a
Homosexual disease...that is a fact. Passing AIDS between heterosexuals is not
as easy and since the uterus is not an absorption organ...but the more
promiscuous you are the better chance of getting it. My mother, who is a RN,
has taken care of numerous AIDS patients over the past 20 yrs. She said that
nearly all are homosexuals and the only other few were women whose husbands were
closet fags. The notion of it being a threat to EVERYONE is just a ploy to get
funding for research, not that they shouldn't research it, they should just be
honest about the threat to the population. Are any of you familiar with the
connection of AIDS to vaccines tested in Central Africa? I am curious if any of
you know anything about that.
Dirk Bruere
Lucy-ferr <sda...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3922EB00...@uswest.net...
>
> > tendancies, and played on them well. They offered just enough "folk"
> > identity to their client kingdoms to make them feel at home, while the
more
> > important aspects of administration and control resided in Rome. The
U.S.
> > is getting more savvy about it today, as well.
>
> UHH I don't think this is a good thing...didn't Rome fall cuz of this and
isn't
> America on the same route?
The most 'multicultural' part of Rome continued for another 1000yrs after
the fall of Rome itself. It just changed it's name to 'Byzantium'.
Dirk
Nehalennia
than IV drug use or anal sex. The point was that because of these acts,
along with bisexuality, it is being spread into the heterosexual
community. Who do we have to thank for this?
SM