“If you want to install a particularist moral code, you'll have to re-constitute the Scandinavian tribes, long gone through exogamy.”
The tribes have apparently long gone, because Christianity introduced exogamy. What is “exogamy,” though? Sociologically, it is marriage outside of a social group. Biologically it refers to breeding with people less genetically related, which within limits, is genetically good. The argument seems to be that Christian universalism has led to wider marriage and mating options, thus leading to a loss of the “genes” for in-group loyalty. Hence, doctrines like neo-Odinism have no chance because we are now genetically programed to breed out. Accept universalism, migrants, feminism, transgenderism…
Look, one can even reference Human Biodiversity Chick, presumably an expert in human genetics, for support:
But, I note the lack of reference to peer-reviewed articles and genetic material, indicating an interested amateur rather than expert. The shift from cultural concepts to biological/genetic ones is made with breath-taking frequency at this site.
The reply to the main objection to neo-Odinism, is that the disappearance of European tribes was a product of modernity, industrialization and urbanization, with increased mobility, not Christianity alone. In 1300 AD, say, people in villages in England, basically lived and married as they did in 500 AD. The changes have only been recent, with the introduction of migrants who are not of the same race, or sub-racial type. Even with all the propaganda by the elites, who use a “divide and conquer’ strategy, the percentage of interracial marriages is relatively low even today. The highest figure I have seen for the US is 12 percent, but that is disputed, and may well be much lower. For the exogamy argument to kick in, the percentage needs to be at least five-times the present rate.
In any case, none of this refutes neo-Odinism and justifies Christianity. All that is required for neo-Odinism, is survival of the Nordic gene pool, regardless of whether it comes from Ireland, England, the US, Australia, or wherever the tribes went. That is the line taken by actual neo-Odinist groups e.g “Renewal” magazine:
The claim that genes for group loyalty have disappeared, is not supported by the available evidence. It is possible that Northern Europeans have a lower in-group loyalty, but this cannot be due to contemporary gene changes, for such changes are not established so quickly. White pathology is either there in the beginning, or it is a social construction. This is not to say that it is not real:
Come the collapse, tribalism will be re-established, while, hopefully, alien religions like Judeo-Christianity, will continue to mutate into exotic Third World varieties, as Christianity drowns on exogamy and diversity:
Of course, the major counter-example to this line of argument is given by the Jewish people, who have also been subjected to modernist forces of exogamy, and have a high degree of genetic mixture with various populations, such as Europeans, yet, to their credit, have maintained a particularistic theology and morality, far superior to Christianity. We should all follow their wise lead.
The Great Train Wreck of the West
"the disappearance of European tribes was a product of modernity, industrialization and urbanization"
Here you've confused cause and effect. The disappearance of European tribes (apparently we're agreed on that) allowed for the rise of a contractual and not exclusively nepotistic society. The increased division of labor (a genuine wealth-creating mechanism) and meritocracy, as well as the higher intelligence that exogamy delivers, are necessary requisites for modernity, industrialization and urbanization.
People create cities and not vice versa (see Detroit for a graphic example).
gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/08/islam-and-inbreeding.html
nationalreview.com/article/219989/marriage-and-terror-war-stanley-kurtz
The above articles deal with consanguineous marriage as practiced by Muslims. The first one deals exclusively with the deleterious effects that flow therefrom. The second one explains why these unions make sense in an evolutionary sense, despite the higher retardation and lower intelligence they beget.
Now, I'm not suggesting that consanguinity prevailed in the pre-Christian European tribal era to the same extent it did/does in Jewish or Islamic societies, but the Church's edicts changed mating patterns in a massive way over one millennium ago. Recreating the Viking just ain't happening.
(Jews have a high degree of consanguinity, but have bred selectively for intelligence, ie. the rich man's daughter marries the brightest rabbinical student, repeated one thousand generations. The superior mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is, however, accompanied by specific neurological problems. Genetic counseling is actively pursued in Israel to minimize this.)
The Church's war on endogamy, divorce, adoption, widow re-marriage etc. could be viewed cynically as a way to accumulate riches; estates that otherwise would have gone to extended family went its way instead.
The Church, in the place of the tribe, with its ethic of particularism, forged civil society with universalism as the ethic. Note that the support for globalism expressed so fervently by today's Christian churches has more to do with giving away other people's resources and birthrights than real charity. (How many refugees sleep within the Vatican walls?) Churches that express nationalistic sentiments find their tax-exempt status under review, or worse. Sweden's national church is strongly influenced by the government policy. The Zio-evangelists, another example of co-option by the supporters of globalism.
In the spirit of no horse too dead to flog, here's another piece on the diffusion and pros/cons of consanguineous marriage across different ethnic groups. The example of Bedouins is particularly interesting. Pan-Arabists will be punished by obligatory viewings of "Lawrence of Arabia"
themuslimtimes.info/2015/11/12/cousin-marriage-why-why-not-dr-lutf-ur-rehman