Ah, truly godlike physique, if there ever was one, to be honest.
But that is actually not today's topic.
I want to pick some low-hanging fruit this fine day.
And yeah, as you might discern from my facial expression, this is a topic which I have quite a hard time to take seriously.
So we're gonna talk about powerful female Viking warriors.
And I'm actually not gonna elaborate on the archaeological find itself, but I want to explain something about the primordial truth, which I then think can explain how silly this whole misconception of powerful female Viking warriors is.
Now, this is a perennial truth for all men.
It doesn't matter if it is my Scandinavian ancestors from a thousand years ago, or if it is perhaps your ancestors, wherever you're from.
This is a perennial truth for all men.
This is the primordial truth.
This is a biological reality.
That modern nature intended it to be a man and a woman loving each other.
And in that relationship, the man will, on a biological level, at any given moment, give up his life to defend his woman.
Simple as that.
It doesn't matter if some feminists do not like it.
It doesn't matter how much gender studies says otherwise.
It is the truth.
It is the objective truth that that is in our biology as men to protect our women.
It is true today, and it was true a thousand years ago in Viking Age Scandinavia.
Now then, we know this.
I have told you this, and this is true.
So, with that said, how would it be possible for these gallant Viking warriors to say to themselves, okay, cool, we're gonna bring our wives out to the battlefield with us so that they can jeopardize their lives?
It is so incongruent with the primordial truth, I don't even know where to begin.
Of course, the men would not bring their wives onto the battlefield.
It's so obviously not the case, because it goes against the very nature of human biology.
And I mean, everyone realizes this today.
You would not let your woman go out and put herself in a dangerous situation because that's your job.
We know this now, even despite decades of brainwashing.
So, then would anyone think that a thousand years ago, when Swedish men had top-tier testosterone levels, that they would then say to their wives, like, oh, of course, my love, you can endanger your life?
No, absolutely not.
The key, the biological role of a man is to defend his woman.
And the best way to defend your woman is not to bring her out on the battlefield.
It is absolutely preposterous.
So, yeah, no, Viking female warriors absolutely blasphemous.
So you see this stupid show Vikings where a really good shield maiden defeats the other men with this.
Like I'm not saying anything about female capacity for violence.
That is not even what this is about.
This is about the biological role of a man which says that you don't put your women in danger.
That's a kind of the point with the men of the tribe to defend the women and children.
Now I will say though that the perfect woman, yeah, she should be comfortable enough with violence.
I mean if she can shoot a gun, if she's a good marksman, if she can throw a punch, if she can throw a kick, if she is physically fit and healthy, yeah, that is requirements as well, that is really good, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't put women in the front lines.
Simple as that.
So feminists might argue like, oh, you doubt female capacity, etc.
That's another topic, but like the main topic is that it is an affront to the honor of my ancestors by saying that they were to put these women, put their wives that they were supposed to defend in harm's way by having them in the front lines.
It is not the case and it is bothersome to say the least to see this sort of shield maiden myth because I mean what does that say about the men?
What does it say about her brothers, her husband, her father?
That allows her to put herself in harm's way etc.
It is absolutely not congruent with the primordial truth and that is what I want to elaborate on here.
So archaeological findings aside, that doesn't really matter.
What matters is that it is completely not logical one bit if you study the biological purpose of men.
And then some feminists might argue otherwise, but that is just the biological reality.
It's not something I just came up with because it suits my worldview.
My worldview is based upon the primordial truth, the biological reality.
I don't argue against nature.
I subject myself to the wishes and the teachings of modern nature.
And that stipulates that as a man it is your duty to defend your woman.
And a thousand years ago this was equally true.
Which then means that you don't put your beloved wife in the front lines of a fucking battlefield.
So, rant over, that's all I had to say about that.
