What settings feature barbarism being superior to civilisation?

Jesus sacrificed his life to save all humanity
Varg BTFO

To save the jews. They were his people.

Elfquest

god put on a show with meatpuppets to WOW the audience. he was in no real danger at any time

except if the Barbarian doesn't like the rules of his tribe he strikes out on his own and leaves, or he challenges the chieftain

ANARCHO PRIMITIVSTS COLLECTIVIST KEKS BTFO

>strike out on your own
wierd way to say you got bannished

Anyone can go out and start their own tribe. you don't need to be banished to do that.

There is no such thing as "barbarism."

No Christian, you are his people.

Glorantha, of course. Sartar rules, the Lunar Empire drools.

all im saying is if i run across some loner in the woods saying he chose to be a half starverd hermit im calling bullshit

they still did that. lmao
stfu civilised man

...

>barbarians are so shit at life that they cant cooperate with other human beings and must act like manchildren all the time

Different user here, alienating your tribe by using excessive force on your own people doesn't seem like the best course of action if you want to keep your tribe together.

you'd complement the murdering with some bronze age propaganda convincing your tribe it's straight up dangerous to let him and those he takes with him to leave. people are hardwired to be suspicious of nonconformists and new-thinkers so you'd have to be a pretty shit leader if you couldn't win this one

Fictional ones

What do you consider a barbarian then?
Because the germanics surely didn't thought like that.

Besides, banishment was a horrible thing, don't pretend it was a desirable thing.
Your fellow tribesmen could kill you and anyone that tried to help you(as in giving water or shelter) would be punished too.
For the barbarians of old their tribe was everything.

>they still did that. lmao
"Civilised" men did it too. See the Thirteen Colonies in the US.

Moving to another land to start a new life is hardly a barbarian thing. And even then, they did only after getting banished or if their homeland doesn't have resources enough for everyone.

except germanics were individualistic, incredibly individualistic. they would have either challenged the chieftain or left the tribe if they didn't like it
you mad, civilised cuck?
>Great and powerful governments, Commanding Peace, come into existence only in ages of decadence; when nations are on the downward grade. If the human animal lives a natural, cleanly life, out on the plains and forests away, where oceans rollers crash along the shore, or on the banks of the pouring rivers he requires no police-force to 'protect' him — no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests — no tax-gathering legislators to vote away his property, and no 'priests of the Idol' to 'save' his soul.

>except germanics were individualistic, incredibly individualistic. they would have either challenged the chieftain or left the tribe if they didn't like it
Do you even know something about germanic law or for you it's all memes?

There were no individualism before the enlightenment. It's a modern phenomenon.

No mate, I was beginning to agree with you there except you brought up Jews instead of the ruling class.

>they would have either challenged the chieftain or left the tribe if they didn't like it
How many examples of it do you have?

Read it again.
The legislators would be the "ruling class"

The chieftain role was not passed down, the people in the tribe fought for it. tactius germania
the jews are the ruling class, however it's not 100% jewish, you get many rich capitalists up there as well

>The chieftain role was not passed down, the people in the tribe fought for it.
No, initially they were elected and later it was inherited.

>asked for examples
>no examples, more ranting

Literally this. There is no barbarism without a civilization to compare to.

No, there is no such thing as barbarism

I think we fundamentally agree in this issue, but I'd like to hear your argument.

They were elected by comparing their strengths to what the previous chieftains was. I'm right again.
not an argument, read some tacitus germania

Barbarism is a term solely used to label a type of civilization as inferior. Even in terms of having defining traits then it is completely useless. It does not help the people in the discussion further understand natural human organizational habits.

>refuses to provide examples

>They were elected by comparing their strengths to what the previous chieftains was. I'm right again.
No, you said that they fought for the title.

You've hit the nail in the head user. Barbarian is just a term used by city snobs to sneer at supposedly inferior cultures. It's always rather funny that some people in this thread claim to be proud of their "barbarainess".

Avatar

France

yes, they often fought each other and the chieftain. hahaha
i just said tacitus germania you dumbfuck

Except Frfance is LITERALLY the opposite of that. The shining beacon of Western civilization and culture is being supplanted by something objectively more barbaric and inferior as we speak. Though the masses are applauding as Rome is burning, so maybe it only serves to expose the true weakness of civilization?

Anime-tier social commentary.

...

Proud barbarians are the exemplars of dunning-kruger

What the fuck sort of fedora tipping scrawny nu-male fantasy is this?

Primitive cultures are collectivist, and typically gerontocratic. Barbarians aren't a political concept, you just think they embody what you see as ideal because you have a narcissistic fantasy of being a badass barbarian because you think civilization is the only thing holding you back from being this ultimate badass, when in all reality it's just because you are pathetic.

>yes, they often fought each other and the chieftain. hahaha
And so did Napoleon.

You mad, civilised cuck?

>A man's first duty in this world is to himself, and the word 'himself includes those near and dear ones, who have twined their tendrils around his heart. A man's kindred are part of himself. He should not forget that when fighting for his own hand, he is fighting for them. His strength is their rampart. Their strength is his glory. The family and the individual are a unit.

In the past if the tribesman didn't like or believe his chief, he would challenge his right to be a chief. Nowadays, people are collectivist, and don't challenge authority. They are herd.

>Using the buzzword cuck
I bet you're fat

>In the past if the tribesman didn't like or believe his chief, he would challenge his right to be a chief
Source?
You keep mentioning Tacitus, but I don't remember reading about it.

Alright, then explain your narrative of France being the story of barbarism trumping civilization. I can only see two possibilities, and both make the average anime look like high class political commentary. The first is a horribly misreading of Rousseau based on Voltaire's accusations of primitivism, and the second is that you're either a Butthurt Brit or a flagwaving American who can't help but show off his francophobia at any given moment. I really hope you'll blow my mind with a third option that actually makes sense.

I'm not even sure what Barbarian means except "uncivilized" which I take to be a value-judgment that will vary from culture to culture. I am picking up a lot of "noble savage" vibes from posts in this thread but I don't think being noble is a necessary component of being a barbarian. Nobility is itself rare in nature, meaning that most barbarians will be ignoble. I don't see how some random guy braining another guy with a rock while he isn't looking then cooking him in a stew is going to be this lofty freedom-infused paradise.

In any case, any setting where monsters are stronger than people ( or animals are stronger than people ) will make it so that barbarism is stronger, comparatively. In those settings civilization will be the main goal for those that use that to survive ( like humans ) but will be disadvantaged compared to monsters. Something like Kingdom Death is a pretty good example probably.

Dude, you want Beasts and Barbarians, the Savage Worlds setting.

>Civilized cuck.
Nigga, I live in rural Texas, practically always innawoods unless I'm at work. Just by proxy I'm more "barbarian" than your low testosterone wannabe ass that shitposts about this on his computer in mommy and daddy's basement. That's why your only argument is posting buzzwords, and romanticizing vague definitions of primitive civilizations by saying that the words of some random dude define what it means to be this idealization.

In all reality, I bet you are either a 9-5 worker who hates his life and feels like just another gear in society and wants to reclaim his individuality by blaming his problems on society, or an edgy teenager. Either way, lose the fedora.

>except if the Barbarian doesn't like the rules of his tribe he strikes out on his own and leaves, or he challenges the chieftain
actually, no, he just gets shot or bombed by the people who weren't too retarded to eschew technology

Jesus, I really wish I had a serious opinion on this but I was genuinely just making fun of you for the way your comment sounded. No idea about all this french shit. Sorry to dissapoint you, friend.

To top it off, I'm not even american or british.

I don't know what that is. I have only been into tabletop gaming for like 10 years, and I am a basically a normie at it.

Neo-pagans are the new fedora.

Instead of embracing science and futurism, it's a embrace of the past and what they perceive is "barbarism"

>Neo-pagans are the new fedora.
Couldn't it be said that they're the natural consequence of fedora rather than an evolution, in that ye olde folk beliefs try to fill the spiritual hole post-Christianity left?

From what I understand, it's typically /pol/tards who want to live back before da joos controlled da gubbermint. To them being Christian is being "cucked" because of the (((globalists))) who are involved. Instead they want to be extra white by having the religion of their mud hut dwelling ancestors, mostly Norse because the nazis liked Norse symbolism a lot.

/Pol/ is a larping christian board.
The few pagans of /pol/ are constantly mocked.

>mostly Norse because the nazis liked Norse symbolism a lot.
It's because most of them have germanic roots. It would be silly if someone decided to worship to worship Marduk or Quetzalcoatl while living in the Faroe Islands

Not really. They're still rejecting what they see as the standard christian mainstream.

The whole neo-pagan thing is about making "Christ-cucks" angry. Not making atheists angry.

Yeah, but I meant non-/pol/ neopaganism. Shit like Wiccans or those communities that are getting popular again in Ireland and the Baltic states. Not Varg and his ilk.

I don't know if there has been a wiccan/neo-pagan revival outside of Veeky Forums, to be honest.

All the wiccans that I knew did it to piss of their parents, religious or not.

You have a pretty flawed understanding then
Also
>>>reddit

nah
Read it again. And read some more Germanic literature. i have some books i could reccomend to you
>Nigga, I live in rural Texas, practically always innawoods unless I'm at work. Just by proxy I'm more "barbarian" than your low testosterone wannabe ass that shitposts about this on his computer in mommy and daddy's basement. That's why your only argument is posting buzzwords, and romanticizing vague definitions of primitive civilizations by saying that the words of some random dude define what it means to be this idealization.
Many conservatives live in rural areas yet they are still civilised. It's the same with hippies. They both believe in civilised concepts.
we're talking about in the tribal society
Science is the new christianity. People have a blind trust and faith in it. Scientists are the new clerics, "progress" is the new god, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic. You are one of those worshippers
i haven't been on /pol/ in years because it's become worse than it already was, and because it's full of trump supporting redditors. get your strawman away.
The only wiccans that exist are edgy feminist leftists who want to """rebel""". And the pagans in latvia, in eastern europe are traditionalists who are more right wing

Nah, speaking from experience about a guy I knew in my D&D group. Didn't ask much, but he hated Jews and gays, and wanted to be manlier than he was. Kinda like when Mexicans try too hard at being macho.

Everyone in this thread needs to read a book on modern anthropology instead of getting their information from what I assume are anime or psuedoscientific colonialist propaganda

My Brother's into it. It does seem to be a rejection of Christianity. Personally, anybody who worships a dead religion or a revival is kinda cringy in my book.

Or historical texts heavily edited and misunderstood by christians

>yet they are still civilised [sic]
My point is, so are you, infact you are moreso a civilized "cuck" than anyone in this thread. You live in and participate in a civilization, unless you live off of neetbux which is even more pathetic. You aren't a "barbarian", you are a pathetic wannabe who wishes he was a viking.

Pretty much.
I wish they'd get into lifting instead of spazign out about dead religions.
>Personally, anybody who worships a dead religion or a revival is kinda cringy in my book.
That's pretty much my take.
It's pretty amusing to me that it's supposed to be a middle finger to Christianity, but the biggest sources we have on the culture and religion are Christian monks.

>Am a strong independent barbarian
>still post on Veeky Forums
I for one see no contradictions.

>Many conservatives live in rural areas yet they are still civilised. It's the same with hippies.
No, civilisation means cities. If you live in the city you're civilised, if you live in the fields you're not civilised.
There's no such thing as "civilised concepts".

>Science is the new christianity. People have a blind trust and faith in it. Scientists are the new clerics, "progress" is the new god, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic. You are one of those worshippers

Tejasfag here, I'll have to disagree with you on that.

I'd say no matter where you are, as long as there is a group, there is technically civilization. That's what neo-paganfag doesn't understand, he just equates primitive society with no society with being innawood and testosterone.

This is an extremely good post.

He's right about it though. Simpletons have always worshiped people that they think is smarter than them. Since the death of religion, they decided to blindly follow what "smart" people says.
That's why you see people in social media obsessed with Hawkings and Tesla. They don't really understand what these man did, but they have a quasi-religious faiths in what they say.

The flat x round earth is another example of it.

>I'd say no matter where you are, as long as there is a group, there is technically civilization
No, there's differences between some small populated villages where people live 1km from each other and cities. The line is fairly blurred, but there are differences.

Of course there are differences. Hell, where I'm from if you're good with the Sheriff he'll let more than a few things slide. That wouldn't happen in some place like Dallas.

I'd say that societies (at least in the US) differ more based on rural vs. urban than technological or scientific advancement.

The absolute state of vargposters. Next he’s gonna come out with some pseudo race science theory about turianic people or neanderthals or proto-indo-europeans, just watch.

>Hurr a head transplant is completely possible!!!, you are a retrograde for thinking its not possible!!, ENEMY OF PROGRESS REEEEE!!!

Futurism is literally a religion

If futurism is a religion, it sure as hell beats the "religion" of mud huts and dying of cholera.

If you hate technology so much, get off the computer and roll around in some mud.

Modern anthropology is propaganda.
implying i'm not working towards being uncivilised. hahaha. And there's nothing wrong with neetbux, it's better than working for the system.
Yea, so if a rich urbanite moves to a rural area in an expensive mansion, and he doesn't know how to chop wood, hunt, and gets his servants to do all the work for him, it means he's uncivilised? stop joking.
It's true though. All the redditors are blind believers in science. They will reject religion blindly, even ones that have truth in them (such as hinduism) but embrace science blindly.

How can you despise truth of religion and spirituality because you believe some religions are bad, yet embrace science blindly?

Well, not speaking Greek is not necessarily superior or inferior to speaking Greek.

Geddit? Because "barbarian" is a useless term that originated as onomatopoeia describing foreign languages and their speakers (BARBARBARBAR) and has been watered down further by subsequent users to mean "not me?"

>only one glorantha response
Fucking Veeky Forums

Ill have science without your retarded delusions of grandeur, thank you

>the kvlt barbarian is on NEETbux
AHHHAHAHHAHAHA fucking called it

>He's a welfare queen NEET who thinks scientific findings and anthropology are jooish propaganda.

Tell you what buddy, I got a small plot of land. If you can spend some of the tax money you live off of to get a plane down to Texas, I'll let you wallow in some dirt. No charge, i just want to see a fat bumbling autist try and go a week without air conditioning or anything to clean his glasses with. Afterwards, I can probably find you a therapist.

Is this a you laugh you lose thead? I have no idea, I just came here and saw this post.

>there's nothing wrong with neetbux, it's better than working for the system

>Yea, so if a rich urbanite moves to a rural area in an expensive mansion, and he doesn't know how to chop wood, hunt, and gets his servants to do all the work for him, it means he's uncivilised? stop joking.
Yes. Why do you think they say that Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilisation?