Historian BTFOs anti LGBT bog theory

Yup a real Historian Scholar (uni student) DISPROVES the bog theory. BTFOd chuds!

this real scholar doing REAL SCEINCE, BTFOs and proves that yes, Pagan german was progessive.
This real scientist, has no biases what so ever. Just a trans queer pagan btfoing stupid racists who thinks pre Christian society was anyway bigoted or anti gay.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick off glowie

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Yup a real Historian Scholar (uni student) DISPROVES the bog theory
    I know you're memeing but the bog theory has been debunked for fricking years at this point, the only people pushing it are usually people with black sun pfp's because Himmler pushed the idea that gays were pushed into bogs as ancestral justification for executing homosexuals. You can read the Kersten Diaries and find it in there iirc.

    td;lr: we know, only morons and nazi pagan types say different

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do you "disprove" a historical fact?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No! I said that it's been disproved! You're a nazi!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tacitus says that men who commited "corpores infames" (a term he uses to refer to homosexuality, effeminacy, and crossdressing at various points in other texts) were executed. The Grey Goose laws attest to this fact, and proscribe execution for homosexuals. The fact that accusations of ergi were legal grounds for a duel to the death is also well attested, and both of these practices came from the prior Asatru faith and were in contradiction to Catholic judicial practices of the time. Furthermore, there's attestations of a holdover custom of sexual deviants, oathbreakers, cowards, and sacrilegists being denied Christian burials, even when the committer of the profane acts confessed and repented of his sins before death, on the grounds that a similar practice was done under the prior Asatru faith, which is in absolute contradiction to Christian harmatiology.

        So, not only do we have Romans attesting to the practice, but we also have the practitioners of the practice themselves telling us that they practice the practice. I don't see how you could "debunk" or "disprove" this.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Great post, thank you for having actual knowledge to share.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The troony in the OP says that Christianity made them more averse to homosexuals. What is your response?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity reduced the homoaversia of the Germanics, although nowhere near to modern levels (something that it actually failed to do). For example, the Germanics kept disliking homosexuality so much that they refused to let homosexuals have Christian burials (unheard of outside of Scandinavia). Likewise, as already mentioned, the accusation of ergi (which amounts to "being gay") was punishable by a blood duel. Like, that was the codified judicial procedure to solve someone calling you a gay, a fight to the death. That makes ZERO sense unless being called a gay was a grievous insult, and that can only be the case if the majority found homosexuality to be deviant. This practice of dueling for being called a gay continued despite the Catholic Church, and later Protestant Churches, trying REALLY HARD to make it stop.

            Furthermore, the general structure of Germanic society was of decentralized order formation, in a situation similar to Vedic India. Kings and other central judicial structures were only used when threats of political disunity came up, meaning that the laws were just enforced via creative technical means (the mound-donations that the priesthood of Freyr ran, or the various "runes of X" that people painted on themselves to ensure that the community saw what they were doing) or just by people enforcing them themselves. So when the Grey Goose laws say that homosexuality was punished by death, what this effectively means is that if you got caught packing fudge or diddling kids that you'd be dragged out of your house and tortured to death by your neighbors. That's just not possible unless you live in a society that views homosexuality as evil, and it doesn't get CODIFIED INTO LAW unless it's considered the norm.

            The Church wanted all of this to go away as a means of centralizing power and control btw, it didn't like Scandis, and much earlier Germanics/Celts, just going around and doing shit even if it (nominally) agreed with what they were doing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Tacitus says that men who commited "corpores infames" (a term he uses to refer to homosexuality, effeminacy, and crossdressing at various points in other texts) were executed.
          An observation of the Roman writer Tacitus has sometimes been used to claim the Germanic tribes condemned homosexuality. Tacitus stated that the Germans drowned in swamps those who were ignavos et imbelles et corpore infames, usually translated as “slothful and unwarlike and infamous in body.” The latter expression has been taken by some to mean passive homosexuals, perhaps those above a certain age....To apply the phrase, “those of infamous bodies” to homosexuals would not have made any sense to readers of the period in which Tacitus wrote, the Roman Empire of the first century A . D ., where homosexuality was taken for granted, participated in by a vast majority of the population at some point in their lives, and where male homosexual prostitutes were so well established that their earnings were taxed and they had their own national holiday. A description of homosexuals as corpore infames, in fact, resembles more the anti-homosexual preaching of ascetic Christian clerics of later periods. The phrase more likely was meant by Tacitus to refer to the deformed, or those who avoided military service by maiming themselves, which would be consistent with the first two categories of individuals named by Tacitus, the slothful and unwarlike, and who would be people who would have no place in the rigidly ordered scheme of things contemplated by the Germanic military ethic.

          John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), page 70.
          William Armstrong Percy III, Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996), page 18

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a term he uses to refer to homosexuality, effeminacy, and crossdressing at various points in other texts
          Source? I'm not aware of him using it in these contexts at all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The specific quote I have in my notes is:
            >Tacitus elsewhere uses the phrase to refer to a mime-actor (Ann. 1.73.2) and to an effeminate senator (Ann. 15.49.4). In those two cases, it is a euphemism for a man who takes the passive role in homosexual intercourse (Much 1967, Rive 1999).
            It should be noted that in the Scandinavian laws there is no distinction made between "passive and active parties", sodomy is sodomy and it's the same no matter whether you're pitching or catching. This may have been a Scandinavian quirk, or it may have been Tacitus just translating the concept as best he could (the lack of understanding of the distinction is mutual after all).

            >Tacitus says that men who commited "corpores infames" (a term he uses to refer to homosexuality, effeminacy, and crossdressing at various points in other texts) were executed.
            An observation of the Roman writer Tacitus has sometimes been used to claim the Germanic tribes condemned homosexuality. Tacitus stated that the Germans drowned in swamps those who were ignavos et imbelles et corpore infames, usually translated as “slothful and unwarlike and infamous in body.” The latter expression has been taken by some to mean passive homosexuals, perhaps those above a certain age....To apply the phrase, “those of infamous bodies” to homosexuals would not have made any sense to readers of the period in which Tacitus wrote, the Roman Empire of the first century A . D ., where homosexuality was taken for granted, participated in by a vast majority of the population at some point in their lives, and where male homosexual prostitutes were so well established that their earnings were taxed and they had their own national holiday. A description of homosexuals as corpore infames, in fact, resembles more the anti-homosexual preaching of ascetic Christian clerics of later periods. The phrase more likely was meant by Tacitus to refer to the deformed, or those who avoided military service by maiming themselves, which would be consistent with the first two categories of individuals named by Tacitus, the slothful and unwarlike, and who would be people who would have no place in the rigidly ordered scheme of things contemplated by the Germanic military ethic.

            John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), page 70.
            William Armstrong Percy III, Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996), page 18

            >using ChatGPT to be wrong
            Concession accepted.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Ann" is "The Annals" btw, and of course male actors were known by all good Romans to be homosexuals as a rule (hence why he uses the term to describe the mime actor).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >using ChatGPT to be wrong
            I know for a fact I'm not wrong and that those citations are accurate.

            >Tacitus elsewhere uses the phrase to refer to a mime-actor (Ann. 1.73.2) and to an effeminate senator (Ann. 15.49.4). In those two cases, it is a euphemism for a man who takes the passive role in homosexual intercourse (Much 1967, Rive 1999).

            From the same reddit post you got this from (lmao):
            "Some scholars have speculated that in this passage Tacitus is translating the word argr (or is explaining the concepts involved — it is unlikely he knew any Germanic language). He uses three terms to describe the "criminals" who are drowned in the swamp: corpore infames (as above); ignavos (lazy, cowardly); imbelles (unwarlike). Rather than imagining each term refers to a separate crime, it may be that each denotes a constituent part of argr. For a German, all three terms may have been part of the same concept, as Much (1967) notes."

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They weren't as anti-gay as you actually think. execution was only by duel (which were not always gay)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is literally zero proof of Germanic or Celtic homosexuality or "free love". I know how much you homosexuals love ruining everything you touch and trying to rewrite history but its simply just not true.

            They were extremely anti-homosexual. Also completely wrong. People were drowned in bogs, taken to the sea and had their ears cleft and castrated as both judicial and religious punishment, or hung as offering to Odin.

            [...]
            >How do you "disprove" a historical fact?
            By finding evidence that contradicts it, we have plenty of graves of Germanic men buried in the same grave with trinkets, facing one another etc. indicative of them being in a homosexual relationship, we have a plethora of writings relating Germanics and their fondness for homosexual relationships and so on.

            We can also look at other tribal societies around the world in the past and see that homosexuality, bisexuality etc. was accepted and tolerated in the vast majority of them and beyond that we can look at semi-uncontacted tribes today and see how they live and whether they accept homosexuality or not. With all of this knowledge we can then look at other tribal groupings (Germanic, Brittanic, Slavic etc.) and see the same shit.

            A good book on this is James Neill's "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies" from 2009, it goes over a shit ton of data on this subject and comes to the conclusion that humans are like other mammals in that we have a general ambisexual tendency as a species which isn't a very outrageous conclusion and what one would expect when looking at this from a purely scientific lens. We give birth like other mammals, we generate milk like other mammals and we love and frick like other mammals as well, not a big surprise.

            >being in a homosexual relationship,
            How does that indicate homosexuality? That is a massive leap
            >We can also look at other tribal societies
            Who have a totally different material culture, with totally different beliefs, totally different political and social organization and social mores. How does this prove Germanics accepted homosexuality again?
            You can lie and gnash your teeth all you want, but the reality is that homosexuality was never accepted in north western European society until very recently, and has been a massive mistake.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            homosexuals were not killed. were integrated into society after losing their ears

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It should be noted that in the Scandinavian laws there is no distinction made between "passive and active parties", sodomy is sodomy and it's the same no matter whether you're pitching or catching.

            Tacitus says that men who commited "corpores infames" (a term he uses to refer to homosexuality, effeminacy, and crossdressing at various points in other texts) were executed. The Grey Goose laws attest to this fact, and proscribe execution for homosexuals. The fact that accusations of ergi were legal grounds for a duel to the death is also well attested, and both of these practices came from the prior Asatru faith and were in contradiction to Catholic judicial practices of the time. Furthermore, there's attestations of a holdover custom of sexual deviants, oathbreakers, cowards, and sacrilegists being denied Christian burials, even when the committer of the profane acts confessed and repented of his sins before death, on the grounds that a similar practice was done under the prior Asatru faith, which is in absolute contradiction to Christian harmatiology.

            So, not only do we have Romans attesting to the practice, but we also have the practitioners of the practice themselves telling us that they practice the practice. I don't see how you could "debunk" or "disprove" this.

            >The Grey Goose laws attest to this fact, and proscribe execution for homosexuals.
            Can you source these statements? Everything I encounter merely discourages playing the passive part

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >proscribe execution for homosexuals
          ?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Tacitus
          the same guy that said the germanics didn't have temple nor used idols for worship

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, Tacitus attests both. He's speaking about a specific koryos out doing koryos shit when he talks about the lack of temples and idols. It's why they wear wolf pelts and live for nothing but battle and so on: they're literally a group of roving bandits formed from the excess youths of a more settled society. This is also why they drowned gays in bogs instead of going through the judicial proceedings discussed upthread.

            >using ChatGPT to be wrong
            I know for a fact I'm not wrong and that those citations are accurate.

            >Tacitus elsewhere uses the phrase to refer to a mime-actor (Ann. 1.73.2) and to an effeminate senator (Ann. 15.49.4). In those two cases, it is a euphemism for a man who takes the passive role in homosexual intercourse (Much 1967, Rive 1999).

            From the same reddit post you got this from (lmao):
            "Some scholars have speculated that in this passage Tacitus is translating the word argr (or is explaining the concepts involved — it is unlikely he knew any Germanic language). He uses three terms to describe the "criminals" who are drowned in the swamp: corpore infames (as above); ignavos (lazy, cowardly); imbelles (unwarlike). Rather than imagining each term refers to a separate crime, it may be that each denotes a constituent part of argr. For a German, all three terms may have been part of the same concept, as Much (1967) notes."

            >try to use chatgpt to PUNCH a NAZI
            >it just says that ancient germanics thought that homosexualry, laziness, cowardliness, and stupidity are all part and parcel of the same condition
            Damn, you cut your wiener off for this? lmfao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No! I said that it's been disproved! You're a nazi!

      >How do you "disprove" a historical fact?
      By finding evidence that contradicts it, we have plenty of graves of Germanic men buried in the same grave with trinkets, facing one another etc. indicative of them being in a homosexual relationship, we have a plethora of writings relating Germanics and their fondness for homosexual relationships and so on.

      We can also look at other tribal societies around the world in the past and see that homosexuality, bisexuality etc. was accepted and tolerated in the vast majority of them and beyond that we can look at semi-uncontacted tribes today and see how they live and whether they accept homosexuality or not. With all of this knowledge we can then look at other tribal groupings (Germanic, Brittanic, Slavic etc.) and see the same shit.

      A good book on this is James Neill's "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies" from 2009, it goes over a shit ton of data on this subject and comes to the conclusion that humans are like other mammals in that we have a general ambisexual tendency as a species which isn't a very outrageous conclusion and what one would expect when looking at this from a purely scientific lens. We give birth like other mammals, we generate milk like other mammals and we love and frick like other mammals as well, not a big surprise.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >indicative of them being in a homosexual relationship
        That's not the case.

        >we have a plethora of writings relating Germanics and their fondness for homosexual relationships and so on.
        No we don't.

        >homosexuality, bisexuality etc. was accepted and tolerated in the vast majority of them
        No it isn't.

        >we can look at semi-uncontacted tribes today and see how they live and whether they accept homosexuality or not.
        They don't.

        >and see the same shit.
        Right, we see that they punish sexual deviancy with violence.

        >James Neill's "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies"
        This has been debunked and disproven.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That's not the case.
          According to? Based on?

          >No we don't.
          We do? This isn't up for debate, you can easily purchase Procopius' works for example and see he wrote that that Germanic warriors selected from their tribe three hundred boys of good birth, “whose beards had not yet grown, but who had just come of age,” and offered them as house slaves for Roman patricians. These Roman men were more than willing to accept the services of these good looking young males, no doubt because in accordance to longstanding Roman customs, these services would also have included the youths’ sexual submission to their masters. On a pre-determined date, the youthful servants rose early in the morning and killed their masters, facilitating the Vandals’ capture of the city. It is evident that the Vandals’ disapproval of passivity in males, reported by the Roman writer Salvian (who's works you can also buy) a century earlier, did not extend to sexual passivity among their youth.

          >No it isn't.
          This also isn't up for debate. In a well-known study on sexual behavior published in 1951, Clellan Ford and Frank Beach reported that of 76 societies for which information on sexuality was available, homosexuality was present and considered an accepted form of behavior in 63% and sociologist David Greenberg examined a study on the relation of homosexuality to population control which cited 39 societies for which information on sexual behavior was known, 19 of which (nearly half ), were categorized as “not accepting” homosexual behavior. Greenberg found other evidence showing that in 15 of the 19 “not accepting” societies homosexual practices were indeed accepted and present, bringing the number of “accepting” societies in that particular study to 90% of the total.

          David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) pages 81–88.
          Jonathan Ned Katz, Gay American History (New York: Meridian, 1992), pages 288–293

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This has been debunked and disproven.
          When? Where? How? and by who?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When?
            since the beginning of time.
            >Where?
            everywhere outside your goon cave.
            >How?
            by having a functioning brain capable of basic reasoning.
            >who?
            everyone who has a functioning brain capable of basic reasoning.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're clearly moronic, have no interest in the facts presented and got sufficiently BTFO'd for me to consider this an easy W. Later, Nazi.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    frick off glownog

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Man I feel so horrible for people who bought into the gender ideology, made permanent changes to their body, and are gradually coming to realize they were pawns in a globalist game of transhumanism and pharmaceutical profiteering.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >mutilate yourself
      >pump your veins full of poison
      >fill your head with nonsense
      >go hundreds of thousands of burgerpesos into debt at university
      >still get dabbed on by some dude who worships thor
      Being Woke must fricking suck.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So these societies who preached homosexuality, why did they went away?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    can the brown christgays who insist that white people are naturally gay (that goes for you especially, OP) please explain why the germanic equivalent of satan was a literal homosexual troony

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would anyone except homosexuals care one way or the other about this? I cannot imagine a psychologically normal heterosexual man being obsessed with this

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Germanics jumped right back into mass homosexuality the second Christianity loosened its grip. Cry about it LARPagans

  10. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    it's highly doubtful a lot about what tacitus wrote about in "germania" was true, it's likely he was saying "look, you romans, how these barbarians you deride are more moral than you are"

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Asks not for whom the Bogdanoff makes the call. He calls for thee.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not reading this shit but why would she take T THEN grow out her hair? Trannies are so fricking stupid.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *