A number of WN and manosphere sites have lately been attacking primarily Germanic paganism. The attacks, based on little or no scholarship, maintain that Nordic paganism in general, and specifically Germanic paganism, in prehistory, supported feminism and homosexual practices. Only a reformed Christianity can save the West.

As stated, the argument immediately reveals itself as profoundly illogical, since it could, and is argued, that even if there were these defects in paganism in pre-history, pre-history is past, and nothing prevents a new neo-paganism from not making the same mistakes, as Alain de Benoist argues in “On Being a Pagan”:

Here is a brief description of this book that anticipates the recent Christian WN critique, and slams it: “In this small masterpiece, the great French thinker Alain de Benoist claims that only the pagan deities of ancient Europe offer a spiritual recourse to the present religious malaise. The guilt, the fear, the narrow petty-bourgeois obsession with well-being, and the self-loathing love of the Other that has left Western man defenseless before the destructive behaviors of our nihilist age derive from the alien belief system that Christianity introduced to the West. They are not part of the pagan spirit that lives still in the Rig Veda, the Iliad, or the Edda. Benoist helps us rediscover these ancient wellsprings and the fonts from which future greatnesses may again flow. But let the reader be warned, his On Being a Pagan proposes no folkloric or New Age "return to the past," but rather a Nietzschean recurrence in which the future bears all the promise of our distant origins—and thus of another great beginning."

—Michael O’Meara, author of New Culture, New Right (First Books, 2004)

Christian WN, along with Christian anything, is a mistaken position which deserves critique. Paganism failed in the past as a survivalist religion, but so has Christianity. If there is no hope of going back to pre-Christian belief systems, it is equally as hopeless to put one’s faith in Christianity to save us. Here, I will be primarily criticizing the anti-pagan arguments rather than attacking Christianity first hand. That will be for a much longer work, but some brief comments can be made in anticipation of the longer critique.

The critics, are no doubt aware that there is no institution more corrupted at present with political correctness than the Christian church, with Protestantism being a form of Leftist social welfarism, and Catholicism, under Pope Francis, championing Islam:

As well, we need not dwell on the fact that homosexualism runs like a jungle fever through the church, especially the sexual abuse of children, and it goes right to the top of the tree. Our Christian WN say that this is all modern degeneracy, although they are not willing to cut any slack to Nordic pagans in this regard.

Nevertheless, homosexual practices have long been part of monastic practice, while being officially denounced:

THE ARGUMENT FROM ANCIENT GREEK AND ROME

Our Christian opponents sometimes have a sympathetic attitude to ancient Greek and Roman paganism, even while Greece and Roman at their peeks had a substantial degree of Nordic blood, and even though female goddesses were part of their theology, parallel to the Nordic religions:

It is also worth noting that one scholarly book, Peter Heather, “The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians,” presents the argument that Rome did not collapse from the sorts of things that conservatives whinge about, such as high taxes, but was brought down solely by the barbarians. As well, the historian Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), in his “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” famously proposed that Christianity had a major impact in undermining Rome:

This is quite consistent with Heather’s work, as Christianity was the internal force weakening Rome and the barbarian tribes, the external force, ultimately destroying it.

As for homosexuality, Greek sex is not called Greek sex for no good reason, no offence to any Greeks. Although there were at times, official condemnations, leading elites freely engaged in homosexual practices, with leading philosophers such as Socrates, losing his supposed reason in the company of “beautiful boys”:

It was not just the elites who practiced homosexuality; graffiti at the ill-fated city of Pompeii was full of homosexual comments: “Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity.”

Likewise for the Romans:

So, here is the first problem for the Christian WN. They will have to drop ancient Greece and Rome from their hit parade because the same argument which they use against Nordic paganism, undermines their championing of the civilizational virtues of ancient Greece and Rome.

IRON AGE NORDIC WARRIORS

Let us step back a little further in time. A post “Hyper-masculine Behavior Among Iron Age Scandinavian Men,” makes some useful quotations from the scholarly work, by Lotte Hedeager, “Iron Age Myth and Materiality: An Archeology of Scandinavia, AD 400–1000,”(London: Routledge, 2011), which discusses hyper-masculinity among northwestern Europeans before Christianity. As the articles says: “It paints a picture of a hyper-masculine, completely militarized society in which male sexual penetration was a marker of power, while being penetrated was, for a male, the ultimate insult. Accusing a man of having been sodomized was a grievous accusation, with the same penalty as for murder. Older males lacking the power or ability to penetrate took on the status of women and were even ridiculed by slaves. Women were spoils of warfare and raiding.”

Here is what the book says:

The Power of Penetration

“In the Norwegian Gulathings law, outlawry was the penalty if a man accused another of being sannsor∂enn (provably sodomised).

Also, full personal compensation must be paid if a person says to another man that he has given birth to a child. The third is if he compares him to a mare, or calls him a bitch or a harlot, or compares him with the female of any kind of animal. … Then he can also kill the man as an outlaw as a payback for those words that I have now spoken, if he takes a witness to them. (Gulathings law 196) …

The same accusation is listed in Norwegian laws, that is, the Gulathing law. Both stro∂inn and sor∂inn refer explicitly to the sex act in which a man played the passive role, while the other performed the action of stre∂a or ser∂a, indicating the male role in intercourse. The sexual meaning of ragr instead implied the general condition of being effeminate (Jochens 1998: 74). … Thus, concerning an accusation against somebody (implicitly a man) taking the form of sexual defamation (ní∂), the law not only prohibited it, but the maximum penalty for this crime equated with the penalty for murder. The outrage always demanded revenge and the insult might simply have been meant as a challenge to fight (Meulengracht Sørensen 1992: 199). …

It is commonly accepted among scholars that ní∂ was not a question of biological reality (after all, pregnant and childbearing men are metaphorical constructions); it was instead a sophisticated form of gendered insult, to be equated with the ‘murder’ of someone’s honour. That is why ni∂ has the secondary meaning of death. The conceptualisation of ní∂ is aimed at the person who was suspected of being the object of sexual penetration, whether man, woman, or animal. The masculinity of the practitioner is not the moral problem. In Old Norse society the physical act of penetration had no moral connotations, neither if one man penetrates another, turning his anus into a vagina (and metaphorically making him pregnant), nor if he practised sodomy, called tidelag. What was deeply defamatory, however, was to accuse a man of having been subject to penetration by another man – or a male animal – or of being transformed into a female or a female animal. The ni∂ was subjected to a transformation into ‘female’, not specifically into an animal (Solli 2002: 143). In short, ní∂ is an accusation of unmanliness and softness, that is, the person is argr (ergi, ergjask, ragr, etc.) (Clover 1993: 385; Meulengracht Søre (116) sexual terminology as a mark of identity, although the word may relate to a practice within a fluid sexual system. …

There was nothing in Greek culture—whether in art, law, or cult—which suggested that heterosexuality was natural and homosexuality unnatural. The Greeks regarded male homosexual desire as a natural part of life, and it was solely the differentiation between the active and the passive role in same-sex relations which was of profound importance (Dover 1989). The Gothic people, the Heruli, and the Scythians are all said to have practised pederasty between warriors and boys. However, by slaying a bear or a wild boar as part of an initiation ritual, boys achieved manhood and were no longer the target of male desire (Wolfram 1990: 107f.). The moral distinction that mattered was that between male prostitution and a homosexual ethos – the first prohibited by law (to Athenian citizens), the second regarded as part of nature (Dover 1989). …"

Thus, the ancient Germanics were hardly the cucks which the contemporary Christian WN critics say they were.

THE QUESTION OF THE CELTS AND GERMANICS

The strongest arguments for the position that the ancient barbarians embraced feminism and homosexualism, comes from a consideration of the Celts. It is a mistake though to equate their culture and religions such as druidism, with that of the Germanic peoples:

One of the main sources quoted against the Celts is by Diodorus of Sicily (400 BCE), who said: “they [Celts] have beautiful women but pay no attention to them – rather they weave around other males in a strange frenzy. They are accustomed to sleeping on the ground upon hides of wild beasts and wallow together with male partners on both sides for fucking. And most paradoxically…they do not regard this as a disgrace; rather the opposite – whenever their freely-offered gift of sexual gratification is not received favourably, they regard it as a dishonor.” The frequently quoted passage is similar to the type of comments made by Hippocrates (460-370 BCE), against the Scythians, who were also viewed as hostile barbarians: and likewise vilified, as a rhetorical strategy.

That being so, much scholarship does not support the position that the Celts had a matriarchy, and most contemporary “feminist scholars,” whatever that means, accept that although women had more rights than in ancient Greece and Rome, Celtic society was “male-dominated”:

Celtic society was patriarchal, with care for children the primary role for women, and Celtic women did not have legal equality with men. That no more makes them feminists, than did the existence of Queens in medieval Europe, although many Christians objected to this:

What about the Germanic barbarians? Here there is even less of a case for the acceptance of feminism and homosexualism, as documented by Roman historian Tacitus (58-120 AD), in “Germania.” This book proclaimed the warrior virtues of the German barbarians, who “have never contaminated themselves by intermarriage with foreigners but remain of pure blood, distinct and unlike any other nation.” He describes how traitors were hung on trees and sodomites drowned in bogs:

In general, pre-Christian Germanic pagans were not women’s rights advocates, nor did they support homosexualism. As Revilo P. Oliver, a WN and professor of classics has concluded:

“That does not mean that the problem can be reduced to simple racial terms. For one thing, we know virtually nothing about our ancestors in the stages of savagery and barbarism through which we assume that they must have passed. The nearest we can come to them, perhaps, is by considering the Germanic tribes who lived on the borders of the Roman Empire, which they later overran and sacked, and then occupied. Homosexuality was not unknown among those tribes, but they disapproved of it, and they signified their disapproval by simply hanging perverts to the nearest tree or, preferably, sinking them in mud under a weight of stones, if a swamp was conveniently available. In recent years, archaeologists have recovered quite a number of such bodies from peat bogs in which they were preserved. Those tribes were, of course, pagans, and I insist on that detail because the persons who distort history to poison our culture will assure you that disapproval of homosexuality is something peculiar to Christianity.”

Pagan Vikings regarded being sodomized as an insult and an excuse for a dual to the death; B. Hubbard, “The Viking Warrior: The Norse Raiders Who Terrorised Europe,” (Amber Books, London, 2015). The only piece of cuck evidence against them may come from goddesses being present in their theology, but here, all we have to rely upon is the records made by Christians who dearly wanted to finish off the old religion. The evidence of shield maidens is weak, but if they existed, they were insignificant.

But, sometimes a glimmer of the real past creeps through the Christian censor, as in this passage from the “Havamal,” the words of Odin:

The speech of a maiden should no man trust

nor the words which a woman says;

for their hearts were shaped on a whirling wheel

and falsehood fixed in their breasts.

CONCLUSION

It is ironic that WN, who are often anti-Semitic, should not see a fundamental problem for their worldview by positing Christianity as the saving grace of Western whites. After all, where did Christianity come from?

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3:

://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/real_case.html&date=2009-10-25+12:15:27

://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/commissary.html&date=2009-10-25+12:14:32

Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:

.