It depends what you mean by "paganism" some pagan beliefs are matriarchal
I do think a return to paganism would benefit the west more than retaining its Abrahamic religions. Most Pagans were pretty based and in a lot of Pagan communities, it was common for cheating spouses for example to be brutally murdered by being impailed. Christians and Muslims have the misconception that Pagans had very loose sexual values similar to the Atheists of today but this isn't really true. Their religion had a focus on fertility and a lot of sexual imagery but generally, the union of marriage was respected as much as in any other religion.
Defective/weak off spring was killed in pagan society. I'd prefer traditionalism with a wife whom I could do whatever I want with over being killed at birth
paganism can refer to a lot of things depending on the period, location and even personal interpretation
I wouldn't accept animism or polytheism, but pantheism or monotheism (and such interpretations were present in pre-Christian paganism, at least among the dharmic religions and the Ancient Greeks and Romans who are obviously simply the most documented pagans) is feasible
I think the religion itself doesn't matter as much as the interpretation: you have pretty based Christian denominations who are strongly anti-degeneracy (which is a two-faced sword really, because they can promote extreme puritanism like "video games bad, fun bad, life is for working and praying only") and those pozzed Christian denominations who focus on helping muh refugees, muh LGBT and muh Israel - the same can happen with paganism: you have the red-pilled Asatru people and cucked wiccans
I wouldn't accept animism or polytheism, but pantheism or monotheism (and such interpretations were present in pre-Christian paganism, at least among the dharmic religions and the Ancient Greeks and Romans who are obviously simply the most documented pagans) is feasible
I think the religion itself doesn't matter as much as the interpretation: you have pretty based Christian denominations who are strongly anti-degeneracy (which is a two-faced sword really, because they can promote extreme puritanism like "video games bad, fun bad, life is for working and praying only") and those pozzed Christian denominations who focus on helping muh refugees, muh LGBT and muh Israel - the same can happen with paganism: you have the red-pilled Asatru people and cucked wiccans
this makes a lot of sense, although I wouldn't mind living during Puritan times, having a nice big piece of land and a family somewhere in the North East sounds like fun.
Is that a bad thing though? It prevents people like us from having to endure the suffering of not being accepted by the group and it improves the genepool meaning that less weaklings will be born.
Asatru followers are trying to follow their religion as closely as possible to the way their ancestors did. Wicca on the other hand is a sort of feminist post-modern interpretation of paganism.
The true doctrine of all religion is inherently anti-leftist because leftism promotes a hedonistic lifestyle based purely on doing what feels good while religion requires you to follow certain guidelines. So me personally, I consider pro-Israel Christcucks, Wiccans and other such scum simply as non-religious Marxists who hide behind the veil of religion to spread the ideals they truly believe in.
If everyone became pagans tomorrow we'd presumably still have the same laws and police. Nothing will change until cucked laws change and for that you need control of the media and for that you need control of the money supply and military.
JFL you're better off struggling here than trying to find a mate in such a society
I don't see for what purpose we should continually strive to improve the genepool. Is it not more reasonable to consider the welfare of currently existing humans than to worry about how future humans will or wont have it? The issue with "improving the genepool" is that it's a neverending spiral toward perfection meaning a good chunk of males (around 60-80%) will have to be killed at birth for every generation in order for any sort of pagan sexual market to be "humane" as anything less than that would inevitably create incels. If such a path were to be pursued, innovations would plummet and everything would remain stagnant as it did here in the north for tens of thousands of years until the advent of christianity as there would be no impetus to drive society forward. Any society that rewards people on the basis of their genes as opposed to their work and merit (which you could argue is an extension of one's genes) will inevitably stagnate. It seems to me that the simpler more sustainable solution would simply be to restrict female nature and give everyone, no matter how subhuman, a foid. If you really care about the genepool you could pair sterilized femoids that are too subhuman for whatever you want your genepool to be with subhuman males. Personally I don't care one way or the other, I just think killing people for the sake of improving the genepool is completely unnecessary and would perhaps even destroy society itself. But it is true as you say that a lot of us would've been better off killed at birth under this absolutely pagan sexual paradigm
This is impossible in modern society because of the male-female population ratio. The amount of males being born is always slightly higher than the amount of females which means that any society that does not engage in war for a long period of time (which is practically every society of this era) will have a surplus of males. Perhaps people of the past unconsciously understood this and that is why they did not mind killing off their males.
worked for a few hundred years in Europe. Ultimately what destroyed the harmony was Jews, not the surplus of males
Medieval Europe actually had a shortage of men which caused many women to remain single which is why it worked back then.
And did it really work afterwards? Cheating was extremely common among the European nobility, sometimes even encouraged. A lot of women were probably not that loyal to their husbands, they were just less open about it compared to modern women.
worked hundred times better than our modern dystopia seems to "work" anyway. The genepool can fuck itself, if I get a virginal foid I'm not letting white aryan Chad impregnate her just because he's the preferred mate. I think you're attributing too much value to the autonomy of vapid foids. Their sexual selection strategy has evolved for the jungle and can't possibly coexist with civilization. The idea is to repress it as much as possible
Tengrism FTW
Similar threads
Serious
Do Normie men really think a life of wageslaving and cuckoldry is "Better" than a life of inceldom?
- NepNep
- Inceldom Discussion
VersoffenerAssi
Users who are viewing this thread
