In all fairness, what Zarathushtra is reacting against is not nomadism per se, but the short-sightedness in letting others do the hard job for you and then plundering their results because you did not have patience enough to invest in your success (much like the Vikings of Scandinavia did against innocent peasants in continental Europe some 1,500 years after Zarathustra). This is what Zarathushtra rightly is against. I believe this is referred to as "civilizationism" in ethics and I must agree with Zarathushtra that I am a "civilizationist" myself. I'm also convinced many nomadists are civilizationists.
2009/5/4 Parviz Varjavand
We must realize that Zaratustra comes at a time that the nomadic tribes are settling down. He is for those who form settlements and against those who move in tribal fashions. History has shown that nomadic tribes are not an evil phenomenon on the planet. Nomads are very strong humans compared to those who live in settlements. We can not twist a message given at a specific time with a specific intent in order to make it apply to all times as if it contains the absolute infallible truth and a Divine message.
And is the "Wise Lord" that Zaratustra talks to, what develops ultimately into "Our Father who art in Heaven"? That is another phenomenon that we should be allowed to examine realistically. Those who elevate the Gathas too high are forming a terror nucleus within the Zoroastrian movement just as it exists in Abrahamic religions. To me, no mind can be truly free if at the onset it is thought to be afraid of examining some texts realistically and dealing with it as "Divine and Infallible".