Germanic Paganism and Whites

You have these freemason larpers and you have real historians who know that there is so little left, nothing really.
That's why the "Viking" is so popular. Because Viking means Pirate… And it was the pirates who were the last to be multiculturalized by the Jew-worshipers.

There are no books. They fucking wrote over them or burned them. EVERY BOOK you will find (like the Edda) is a Jew-worshiper telling local folktales through their eyes. That's why everything ends in Armageddon and matches Christian lore.

There is no going back from Jewish mythology taking over the West. That's why Europeans have been fucking muslims, niggers, and Aztecs for hundreds of years now.

Kill yourself, you Jew worshiping atheist. No Christian believes in that shit either.

Fuck off with your Christian interpretations/ It's all dead… And these writers have a Semitic perspective on our ancestor's stories

You fuck off nigger.

The poetic edda is written down by a Christian so you'll have to read the book for yourselves and see what you think about it.

The Germanization of early medieval christianity is also a very good book if anyone is interested. Talks about how missionaries would tell the story of Jesus as a warrior and his 12 disciples as thanes. Some interesting contacts with pagan and christian Europeans throughout the book.

I rest my case. Christians telling us folktales = Christian interpretive lit. The old ways are lost. Stop dreaming and start memeing the New Man.

Vilhelm Gronbech wrote in his book, The Culture of the Teutons;

“In the high seat, in the grove, and on the mountain, we stand face to face with a power which
seems never before to have forced itself upon us: that of holiness; but in reality, we have traced its
influence at every step. It is luck in its mightiest shape. The connection lies in the name, for heilagr —
holy — and heill — good luck or good fortune — are radically akin. From the point of view of form, the
one is a derivative of the other: heilagr is that in which heill resides; but the formal relation does not show
that the idea of the adjective should be later than that of the substantive. We can get nearest to the spiritual
kinship by viewing both as linguistic expressions of the fundamental idea wherein Germanic culture once
gathered the innermost secret of life in one sum; heill is humanity, and heilagr is human, in the widest
sense of the words.”

Basically, to the Ásatru (or heathen) world-view, the concept of the holy, health, luck, and
wholeness are all one and the same. They are all inexplicitly linked to evoke the power and restoration of
each other. To be holy, one had to be healthy, filled with luck (or megin), and part of an encompassing
wholeness of the concepts together. This is the background to the modern/ancient greeting “Heil/Heilsa”
used by modern heathens today. You are not just saying, “Hi.” or “How are you?” You are saying, “Be
healthy.” or “Be whole.”

The concept of the unholy is directly counterpart to the concept of the holy. The Old Norse word
for unholy was óheilagr and the Old English word was unhálig.
Again, in modern usage, Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1996) gives the
definition of unholy as:

Un·Ho·ly (un hō′lē), —adj. 1. not holy; not sacred or hallowed. 2. impious; sinful; wicked. 3.
Informal dreadful; ungodly: They got us out of bed at the unholy hour of three in the morning. [ bef. 1000;
Old English unhālig (c. D onheilig. Old Norse óheilagr)] —unholiness, n.

We can easily deduce that just as the word holy meant, “with luck”, “health(y)”, or “whole(ness)”
that the opposite being unholy meant, “without luck”, “unhealth(y)”, or “lack of whole(ness)”. So that
which is unholy is unhealthy, sick, without luck (or megin), and not whole or holistic. A major supporter
of this existed within Icelandic law were as a person who was declared an outlaw, then violated the terms
of their outlawry was referred to as being óheilagr. By becoming that last step beyond the harsh outlaw,
you became the opposite to that which Gronbech said in that to be heilagr was to be human. So, to be
óheilagr was to not even be human. They were considered far away from the sacredness of the inner
enclosure of society. They were the true outlanders.

"One is no longer at home anywhere; at last one belongs back to that place in which alone one can be at home, because it is the only place which one would want to be at home: the Greek world!… A few centuries hence, perhaps, one will judge that all German philosophy derives its real dignity from being a gradual reclamation of the soil of antiquity, and that all claims to “originality” must sound petty and ludicrous in relation to that higher claim of the Germans to have joined anew the bond that seemed to be broken, the bond with the Greeks, the hitherto highest type of man."
-Nietzsche

A Hellene as Liantinis said.

"Do you want to have an accurate portrait of a modern Greek? Take the robe of a vulture and of a
crow. Take the stuffed bellies of the priests, the black frock of Makarios II, from Cyprus. And the
long beards of the monks, which hide the face like thick overgrown and unkempt fences hide the fields
beyond. And the covered up nuns, the other version of the Turkish veil, and you have got a faithful
picture of the modern Greek.
Now next to this dark and foreboding image, bring the image of the ancient, and measure the
difference.
Bring the shapes of the youthful bodies, well-built and proportioned. Ascending from Olympia and
Delphi, accompanied by the clarion sounds of silver cymbals. The beautiful sleeveless tunics,
appealing in their simplicity, and the flowing white garments. Sandals of fine leather, made to fit
strong ankles.
Bring the picture bequeathed to us by the ancient Greek women. Slim-lined with their thin belts, a
blue headband and deer-like grace. The Greek women of Argos and Ionia, slender in their short skirts
and unashamed. Racing on the mountains together with Atalanta. And sleeping in their final resting
places like the Euthydikos Kore.
All of them supported peacefully on some marble pedestal, at the head of a column, at the base of a
white cistern in the Agora. Surrounded by elegantly proportioned temples, bathed in sunlight and
azure skies.
Men, and gods, and statues, all one.
All these, so that you may compare the old and the new Greece, to consider and weigh them. And
put a northern European next to them, so that he may do a fair appraisal. He will have every right to
say: Clean air and daylight is not the same as putrid smells in the dark of night. You cannot mix
hyacinths and weed.
And they will eventually conclude their critique reprehensibly:
- “How presumptuous! How dare they ask us for the Elgin marbles back? Who do they think they
are? Those religious nutters.”

Sure thing man. Don't read anything close to the time of the pagans, it's all lost blah blah.

Just read for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.

There is no need for those "books" (which actually existed as an oral tradition, because the mere act of learning it was an important aspect of the mystery cult) once one learns what causes those traditions to emerge. By understanding the source of religion in society, it is possible to create a religion which is in line with that society simply through knowledge of how that society was organized and other specifics of the ways of life it harbored. Identify the archetypes and ideals which prevailed in that society, then select culture heroes (ancient or modern) who fit those things.

When the old religion has become so defaced that heroes have been lost or are no longer relevant, new heroes must rise to fill the void. It is all symbolism which identifies a system of beliefs. Reconstruct those beliefs from knowledge of their effects in shaping the society observed through the data which has survived in various forms, then re-encode with new symbolic structures.

Swain Wodening:

"The Elder Heathens had more than one concept of what was holy and sacred; in truth, they had two separate concepts. The readily familiar is OE hálig (OFris. hélich; OS hélag; OHG heilag; ON heilagR; Gothic hailags), our word holy. The other concept after nearly twelve hundred years of Christianity has been largely lost to us, but when looked at from a Heathen context is easily understood. It is one of separateness, otherworldliness, and is represented by Old English wíh (ON vé, OHG wíh) "religious site." Both hálig and wíh can be represented by the Latin words sanctus (Greek agios) and sacer (Greek hieros) respectively.

The concept of something that must remain whole or healthy must be a very old concept. Etymologically, Latin sanctus is related to Old English Gesund (High German gesund) as in "healthy, in good condition," just as our word "holy" is related to other Indo-European words for health. The concept of "health and wholeness" was widely used in the Germanic tongues, and even then seemed to be the more important of the two concepts of the holy and the sacred. Hálig and the words immediately related to it were used in a variety of ways, amongst which were Old English hálsian (ON heilla) "to invoke spirits," not to mention our words health, hale, whole, and hail. All of these words revolve around the concept of health and wholeness, and the ability of healing. It was therefore a quite attractive term to the ancient Heathens, and was thus widely applied to the realm of Man.

Unlike hálig, wíh and its proto-Germanic ancestor *wíh- were applied more to the realm of the Gods. Proto-Germanic *wíh- comes from IE *vík- "to separate," and has a cognate in Latin vic- as in victima "sacrifice." As an adjectival prefix it survives today in German Weihnacten "the sacred nights" used of the Yule season. Formerly, however, *wíh- and the words derived from it saw a variety of uses all revolving around that which is separate from the everyday. Such terms as Old English wíh (ON ve; OHG wíh) "sacred site;" weoh "idol;" and wíhian (ON vigja) "to consecrate" saw fairly extensive use at one time. It was largely applied to things that were seen as "otherworldly;" and, even more so than the enclosures of Mankind; must remain separate from the "wilds" around them. The term was applied to words for cultic centers, temple sites, idols, and grave mounds, the very symbols of godly order as opposed to the "wilds" outside. This can especially be seen in Old Norse Véar, a general term for the gods. Anything that was *wíh- was something that was, at least partially, in the realm of the gods, separate from all else. An ealh (OE "temple") was therefore *wíh-, as was a friðgeard (OE "cultic site, vé), thus proto-Germanic *wíh- came to mean such sacred sites. With wíh-, we are seeing the ultimate opposition of innangarðs versus úttangarðs, which is the enclosure of the gods versus the "wilds," all that lies beyond the enclosure of Mankind. Whereas hallowing something makes it whole, *wíh-ing something makes it separate from the ordinary (places it in the realm of the gods), and therefore gives it something of the Gods' power (protection from the "wilds").

A term that may be a combination of the concepts of hálig and wíh appears on the Gothic ring of Pietroassa, at the end of a runic inscription; wíhailag would appear to be synonymous with the Latin term sacrosanct, "that which is whole and separate from the ordinary." Another similar term appears in Old Norse vé heilakt "sacrosanct," as well as in Old English sundorhálga "saint." While sundorhálga may have been a creation of the Christian missionaries, it could just as well been a term used to replace a more familiar though Heathen term. The fact that Old English sundor- appears in the place of wíh- indicates it may have been a substitution of a more acceptable Christian term for one with strong Heathen connotations.

What can be drawn from these concepts of the holy and the sacred is that while the concept of "health/wholeness," was represented by the term hálig for both Man and Gods, *wíh- represented yet another concept, that of "separateness, otherworldliness." This "separateness" or "otherworldliness" would be the divine forces themselves, the gods, and the powers of their realm. Anything that was *wíh- was endowed with the qualities of the gods and their realm, it contained their m‘Gen. This concept can be difficult to understand at times, but per-haps it is best not to try to understand it, but realize that if something is *wíh- it has qualities of the gods' realms, and carries with it powers that leave Man in awe. It can be seen in what Tacitus had to say about the drowning of the slaves who washed the goddess Nerthus' cart.

There is a fear of the arcane attached to this custom for there is a reverence sprung from ignorance about that which is seen only by men who die for having done so.

The slaves may have had to die because they had touched something of the godly realm, and therefore may have ceased to be of this realm. The kindest thing to do then, would have been to send them to the realm of the gods. This type of action is reflected in the Latin term victima "sacrifice," a term which shares etymological origins with the Heathen term *wih-. This type of religious awe can be seen elsewhere, as in Tacitus' tale of the grove in which the Semnones worshipped a god they believed ruled all. To enter the grove a Semnone had to be bound with rope, and if he fell, he could not stand up, but had to roll out of the grove.

The concept of *wíh- forms part of a greater Heathen perception of reality, one which is best defined by Kirsten Hastrup in Culture and Society in Medi‘val Iceland.

When we turn to the layout of immediate space, it appears that the most significant distinction pertaining to the spacial arrangement of the farmstead was inni:úti ("inside:outside"). The borderline between the farmstead as centre and the world outside as periphery was drawn along the fence that surrounded the farm. The opposition between innangarðs and útangarðs ("inside" and "outside fence" respectively) had important socio-legal implications.

These implications were applied to more than the simple farmsteads of the Icelandic farmer, and can help us better understand the concept of *wíh-. But before we can fully understand the concept of *wíh-, that which is a part of the gods' realms, we must first look at how the ancient Heathens viewed their own socio-cultural order, and how that understanding of themselves next ended to their understanding of the other nine realms.
The concept of *wíh- "that which is a part of the gods' realms" was related to other concepts revolving around how the ancient Heathens viewed society and the law. Hastrup in her book addresses this concept of "separateness" between that of a husbandman's farm and the wild lands outside it and expands this explanation to Heathen society itself.

The important point is that in our period a structural and semantic opposition was operative between "inside" and "outside" the society-as-law, allowing for a merging of different kinds of beings in the conceptual "wild." This anti-social space was inhabited by a whole range of spirits…landsvættir "spirits of the land," huldufolk "hidden people," jötnar "giants," trölls "trolls," and álfar "elves"…all of them belonged to the "wild" and it was partly against them that one had to defend ones-self… In this way the secure, well-known and personal innangards was symbolically separated from the dangerous unknown and nonhuman wild space outside the fence, útangards.

I'll happily admit that Roman/Hellenic pagans were some of the greatest Europeans to ever exist, if not the greatest… but Germanic pagans were really just savages. Their "accomplishments" include attacking unarmed civilians and being some of the last people in Europe to develop a commonly used writing system.

As Heathen familiar with our own cosmology, we know this paradigm not to be entirely correct. In truth, what the ancient Heathens truly saw was a series of enclosures comprising even larger enclosures. Thus individuals comprised the enclosure of a farmstead, several farmsteads com-prised a godord and all the godhords, the Icelandic state. In most ancient times, individuals made up families, families made up clans or kindreds, clans or kindreds made up tribes, the tribes made up Middangeard. Middangeard and the other eight abodes made up the multiverse and were held in the world tree Yggdrasil. Hastrup points out later in her book:

Horizontally the cosmos was divided into Míðgarð and ÚtgardR. Míðgarð was the central space..inhabited by men (and gods), while ÚtgardR was found outsidethe fence .

This view of the universe as a series of enclosures governed nearly every socio-political factor of an ancient tribesman's life and extended beyond a socio-political philosophy into the very theology of ancient Heathenry. At the base of all of these enclosures was the individual. An individual was part of a mægd "a family" and as an individual held certain responsibilities towards that family. He or she was expected to contribute to wergeld should another family member commit a crime, avenge any fellow family members wronged, defend the family's enclosures from encroachment, and generally contribute to the common good of the family. As an individual he or she possessed mæen, his or her own spiritual energy, and a fetch inherited from some ancestor. Individuals determined their own Wyrd through their own actions, each action resulting in an appropriate outcome according to a personal law that individual had laid down throughout his or her life time. All of an individual's actions had to be in keeping with that which is good. That which is good was determined by the tribe as a whole, and generally came down to "that which did not harm the tribe or one of its individuals," but actively contributed to the tribe as a whole. The word good, which has cognates in every Germanic tongue, derives from Old English gód which in turn derived from proto-Germanic *gad- "to unite, bring together." It is related to the word gather and referred to the collectiveness of the family and tribe.

Individuals are rarely treated as being solely responsible for their deeds in the ancient law codes. According to Bill Griffiths, "Compensation itself would be collectable and payable to a kin-group rather than an individual, suggesting communal responsibility." In time, an individual's lord or guild would be held responsible (notably after the Conversion when Heathen custom was dying), but in the earliest times it was the family or kindred that was responsible for the individual's actions. The mægd was the institution that enforced the law for its members. Should a mægd fail in preventing a member from committing a crime, it was then held responsible for making compensation to the victim's family. If the mægd held that their family member was innocent, they could then take the matter to thing, or fight the ensuing blood feud. Even should the culprit of the crime flee, the family was still responsible for half the victim's wergeld under some Anglo-Saxon law codes.

A notable absence in the ancient law codes are laws dealing with crimes within a kindred. These crimes were dealt with by the mægd itself without outside interference. This was because the mægd formed a legal unit in and of its self. A glance at the Icelandic sagas will quickly reveal the strength of the family in this respect. The strength of the family as a legal unit also extended into the spiritual realm. Just as the individual possesses a fetch, the family possesses a kin-fetch called in Old Icelandic the kinfylgja, and as an individual possesses mægen, so too does a mægd. Similarly the collective actions of a family comprised that family's wyrd. Families were the most important enclosure within a tribe. While within Anglo-Saxon England there were Hundred courts, and Iceland, the Godords, that came between the families and the tribal assembly itself, it was the family that wielded the most power.

While families were the principle enforcers of the law, they were not its creators. In a metaphysical sense, every individual lays down law as personal wyrd, as does every family. But the laws that governed individuals' behavior were generally decided upon by the tribe as a whole in various mæþels and things. The þéod or tribe was the enclosure, the innangards. The law created by the þéod was customary in nature. The tribal assemblies did not "make laws" so much as rule on how existing customs or traditions would apply to a given situation (for example the dispute between two families over a boundary). The customs or traditions of a þéod were considered its wyrd, its doom, the actions that as a collective whole the þéod had laid down in the Well of Wyrd. Kirsten Hastrup maintains that "In Iceland 'the social' was coterminous with 'the law'…it was eloquently expressed in the notion of vr lög ('our law'). By logical inference 'the wild'…was coterminous with 'non-law.'" This philosophy was expressed when the Heathens and Christians in Iceland declared themselves ýr lögum "out of law" with each other at the Icelandic Althing of 1000 CE.18 Ancient Germanic law was not connected to political boundaries as modern law is now, it was by tribal membership, by blood. That is, an ancient Jute would only be tried under Jutish law, not by the law of the þéod he had committed his or her crime in. The tribe was the law, was that which was good, was the innangard, and all outsidethe tribe was útangards for all practical purposes. The tribe as an innangard served as "contained space" for deeds to be done. It is the sort of contained space Bauschatz is talking about in his book the The Well and the Tree:

For the Germanic peoples, space as it is encountered and perceived in the created worlds of men and other beings, exists, to any significant degree only as a location or container for the occurrence of action…The container is action, whether of individual men, of men acting in consort or in opposition, of men and monsters, or whatever. In all cases, immediate actions are discontinuous and separable deriving power and structure from the past.

These deeds done within the innangard of the tribe by its tribesmen are its law, its orlay. A þéod is no different than a mægd or an individual in that it too lays down its own wyrd in the Well of Wyrd. This wyrd or doom is the law of the tribe. Just as there are spiritual correspondences between the individual and the family, so too are there between the tribe and the family. The tribal leader was seen as possessing the mægen of the tribe, and for the tribe to remain successful, it had to obey its laws. Failure to do so would result in a loss of mægen. The Anglo-Saxon Eldright believes that our law, orlay, wyrd, and mægen operate on the very same principles. The same principles that the ancient Heathens may have believed in.
Here we are brought back to the discussion of *wíh-. The tribe in ancient times was the largest social enclosure of Mankind. In a sense, that which was *wíh-, was also outsideits realm, outsidethe innangards of Mankind, tho not a part of the "wilds," the Útgard. Not all outsidethe realm of Man was thought threatening. In sooth, much of what lies outsideMan's realm is helpful, esp. the Gods. Perhaps then we have struck upon the primary reason for worship, to build a bridge between the enclosures of the gods and the enclosures of Man.

In her book Culture and History in Medieval Iceland, Hastrup makes it appear that the Elderen saw all outside the guarded enclosures of their home as dangerous, not to be trusted. However, this is not in keeping with the ancient Heathens being fearless adventurers, routing the Roman navy on the open seas, colonizing Russia, and even sailing to the coasts of America. It could be argued that the physical unknown did not faze the ancient Heathen, but that the spiritual unknown was quite a different matter. To a great extant this may be true. In the ancient lore when we are met with otherworldliness it is often of the dangerous variety. Grendel is a prime example as are the countless tales of ettins and thurses. Yet, we are faced with the concept of *wíh-, that which was part of the realm of the gods, and therefore seemed to be desirable to achieve. To the ancient Heathen, there were but two types of beings outside Mankind, those that would help Man, and those that would harm Man. There were countless shades of gray between, but most beings fell into these two categories. The ancient Heathens worked charms to rid themselves of arrows shot at them by ill wishing elves and sang prayers to invoke the gods. All of this constituted an interaction between enclosures. It also constituted the ancient Heathens' concepts of good and evil.

Good was, of course, that which helped the entirety of one's tribe. Included in this would be the members of the tribe, their dead ancestors, the tribal gods, land wihts, and other beings that had proven themselves worthy in a time of need. Evil was that which sought to destroy the tribe. The contrast between the two can be seen in the early words for evil. The majority of words fall into two groups. The first group is in stark contrast to the concept of the "holy " for these words deal with evil as illness. Old English bealu, our word bale "evil," derives from an Indo-European root meaning "illness" and is related to Old Slavic bolu "sick person." Similar is Old English traga "evil" a variation of trega "grief, pain," and Old English niþ with its secondary meaning of "affliction." A term that came down to us as meaning "sick" originally meant "evil" in Old Norse. Illr should be readily recognizable as our word "ill."

This concept of evil as an illness can be seen in the Anglo-Saxon charms where wights from outside the enclosures of Mankind are blamed for causing illnesses. Illnesses, growths, and sharp pains are seen as ésascéot "arrows or spears" from elves, witches, and other wights or fléogende áttres "flying poisons."

Evil was not only seen as illness, but also as the wights outside of the innangarðs of Man that might cause illness. Thus Old English wearg meant not only "outlaw" but "evil" as well. Similarly, Old Norse fiandR "outsider" was cognate to Old English féond "demon," our word "fiend." Just as illr is in opposition to holy, so was wearg to good, and such words as Old English sibb which meant not only "relative or kinsman" but "peace."
How the ancient Heathens handled these "out dwellers" can only be seen in the Old English charms and in the interaction with outlaws in the Icelandic sagas. Throughout the Old English charms, "outdwellers" are threatened with sheer magical strength. In the charm Wiþ Færstice the spellcaster after stating he has shielded himself from the "mighty women" causing the sudden pain in the victim goes on to say:

Stód under linde under léohtum scielde
þær ða mihtigan wíf hyra mægen beradden
and hie giellende gáras sendan
ic him oðerne eft wille sendan
fléogende fláne forane tógeanes.

I stood under linden Under light shield
There the mighty women Are deprived of their strength
And their yelling Spears sent
Another I will Send back at them
Flying arrows Forward in reply!

Here it is clear that the spellcaster has taken an active and somewhat combative role in chasing off the wights causing the sudden stitches in the victim. Other charms are not quite so dramatic, but clearly reflect the ancient Anglo-Saxons belief that illnesses were caused by "outdwellers" and that these "outdwellers" must be dealt with in an aggressive way.

Outlaws fared not much better in the Icelandic sagas. They were open game for anyone that came upon them (it was not illegal to kill an outlaw as they were no longer a member of the tribe and therefore, not protected by its law), and could not expect the aid of anyone. They were stripped of any lands they might own, and more often than not wound up dead at the hands of some citizen. Outlaws were men without tribe, and men without tribe were without law. Not even hospitality, one of the greatest of Heathen virtues, need be extended to an outlaw.

Of course, not all "outdwellers" were considered a threat to the enclosures of Mankind, and many such as the Gods were considered necessary, so that while illr and wearg came to be used of wights intent on harming Man, holy and *wíh- came to be used of those that were helpful to Man. Here we come to one of the primary reasons for engaging in Heathen worship: to provide a way in which modern Heathen can interact with those beings that help Mankind. This may mean more than just performing rites and prayers however, for to receive the aid of any wight, much less the Gods, one must first prove to be trustworthy, brave, and worthy of the other qualities our forbears found desirable. First and foremost one must understand Wyrd and the Law." [Wholeness and Otherworldliness]

Haha, Europe was a cucked by then fully and you know it.

This and This

The new Holy man will be the Higher Man — the OVERMAN.

Overman + a Heraclitus/stoic version of Greek philosophy (excluding all esoteric for the marvels of science) will the the faith of the future white man… If he lives that long.

Satan would of made a great meme if the fucking Larp faggots like Crowly hadn't of wrecked it.

you do realise the vikings were but a small and backwards subset of the germanic tribes, who didn't emerge as a recognisable faction untill the 800's

the continental germanic tribes at that point had already migrated south and rebuild kingdoms out of the husk of the roman empire
the most succesfull of these were the franks who converted to christianity. this gave them the advantage of assimilating the various roman peasantry throughout gaul and having old fashioned warriors, thus united technology and civilization with the will of conquest
it was this in about 500-600 that our modern world was born
now the christianity of that day was very different than the one we have today, the knight aristocrat ethos was very much intact, and the nobility and freemen of europe kept this untill at least wwI
the global rise to power in europe came after the scientific breakthroughs in the enlightenment, which was the point were the real christianity died, but europeans rose

the problems we have now are twofold.
first jew subversion of christianity, the pope washing the feet of poor dindus would be very much undreamable in the past deus vult times
second population dynamics: christianity is at its base a slavemorality religion and over the many wars in europe the warrior caste was culled while the serf caste grow exponentially
luckily this growth is unsustainable and will eat itself
but tthroughout all of this christianity was merely a sideshow, its one big attribute being a unifying factor to europeans
but from the start christianity was reshaped by the morals of the europeans
or do you really believe the beggars cult of oppressed slaves that was christianity in 200 ad has any semblance to the deus vult templars of 1100

Don't shill the thread like a fucking Jew. This is why Holla Forums hates your board.

You are correct about the Vikings, but they traveled the world and set up the first Russ kingdom as they were requested to by the King for their military and civic knowledge. The "brute" viking is really a sophisticated world traveling pirate who even entered New York State, and conquered parts of Christian Rome/Greece. Partly because they took German wives and they made them clean up a bit.

continuing with the germanic concept of "holiness":

gamall-steinn.org/Gering/Weiha-Hailag.htm

Weiha and Háilag: A Closer Look at the Germanic Conception of Holiness

By Ælfric

The ancient Germanic peoples understood holiness in a way that has been largely forgotten in modern times. Their conception of the holy was two-sided, each aspect being described by its own word, but only one of these words has survived in modern Germanic languages. With the coming of Christianity into Europe, one of the two concepts of the holy slowly began to disappear, and today is almost entirely absent. The two words are Proto-Germanic *wíhaz and *hailagaz,1 Gothic weihs and háilags, Old High German wih and heilig, Old English wéoh/wíg and hálig, Old Norse vé and heilagR. *hailagaz survives as the modern word “holy” in many Germanic languages including English, but *wíhaz does not enjoy such common currency. The complete Germanic (and Indo-European) concept of the holy, however, cannot be understood as *hailagaz alone, but must be understood as *wíhaz-hailagaz.2

Gárman Lord summarizes the difference between that weihs and, háilags:3

…wéoh, understood to mean something like “set apart,” and halig, understood to mean something like “wholesome,” are two quite different concepts, which, if so, are useful to us in understanding how it may be that a “holy” innangardhs (i.e., a wholesome place for people to live) may contain within itself a “wéoh” stead, a parcel reserved for certain very special sacral kinds of community purposes and kept roped off against casual trespass.

In his article “The Holy,” Edred Thorsson discusses the meaning and significance of *wíhaz in the Germanic concept of the holy.4 This important study sheds a great deal of light on this topic. Nevertheless, some questions remain, and there is further ground to cover in a thorough understanding of some key points in such a study.

For example, more clarity is needed concerning the similarities and differences between the two concepts of the holy. Thorsson writes, “Although the two terms have been separated by history, we must again understand them as two parts of a single concept – as they were to our forbears – inseparable and mutually dependent.” Further, he states, “So something must be *wíhaz before it is *hailagaz – the two are merely functions of the same state or process.”5 These statements can falsely give the impression that weihs and háilags are simply two different ways of describing the same thing, even though the rest of Thorsson’s article is dedicated to demonstrating how they are two entirely different aspects of the holy. The unity between the two aspects is that they are both parts of a single process (i.e., the process of consecration), not that they are they same. After all, if the two were the same, there would be no need for using different words to describe them.

Weihs is the doer of the act of consecration, and háilags is that which has been consecrated by weihs. Weihs, as “that which is set apart,” is the divine source of blessing, and háilags is that which is blessed. An example from grammar can be used to illustrate the relationship between weihs and háilags: weihs is like the subject of a sentence, and háilags is like the object.

That weihs is a very different concept from háilags can be seen in the connection between weihs and battle. In the various Germanic languages, weihs means “set apart,” sanctity, priest, village, idol, sacred grove, grave mound, site where court is held, standard or banner, sanctify, consecrate, hallow, ordain, and also refers to the altar and temple. Further, it seems to refer to the warrior, battle, strife and battle grounds.6 “In Gothic, weihan means both “to consecrate” and “to fight.” In Anglo-Saxon, the only surviving verb form of wéoh is wígan, which also means “to fight.” When one considers that Germanic religion was a warrior tradition, and many of its gods were associated with aspects of battle, it is easy to see why the Germanic concept of sanctity would be closely related with the concept of fighting.

The warrior tradition in Germanic society was important, because defending the folk in battle against the enemy was a way of preserving the sanctity and wholeness of society and its land. The enemy must not be allowed to profane the folk and land with raiding and pillaging, or by conquering and subjecting the folk to a different tribe and their customs. The gods, who are weihs,7 were understood to have a significant role to play in deciding the outcomes of battles, and thus the act of battle among men itself was the means by which the gods protected (sanctified) the folk Religion and battle were intertwined among the Germanic tribes. The ideal death was a death in battle defending the folk, which the warrior hoped would earn him a seat in Vallhal, Woden’s hall of the slain warriors. Therefore, battle and warriors were considered weihs, or “set apart.” Battle, thunder, and ritual sacrifice show how weihan often involves giving up or destroying one thing as a means of preserving and sanctifying another.

Weihs reflects the Germanic notion that worth is forged in the fires of ordeal, that conflict brings about right, and that anything worth while will be earned through challenge. Háilags carries no such associations, but instead has a more peaceful and nurturing nature. In that sense, weihs and háilags might be compared to the differences between worth and frith, male and female, and the natures of the Æsir and Vanir gods, respectively.

In what contexts does the holy apply? Holiness primarily seems to be present (or absent) in people, places and things. There are the “holy people” in the sense of weihs, such as kings, priests and warriors. In Gothic, a priest was called a weiha. Therefore, the person of the Germanic priest possesses and embodies that mysterious, dangerous divine power which makes things wholesome for the people of the tribe. He was “set apart” from society by his possession of divine power in larger quantities than the ordinary man. One can see why a Germanic priest would be considered weihs: the Germanic “holy man,” possessing the mystical powers of the Germanic poetic tradition, could kill a man or drive him mad with words alone.8 He represented the gods to the folk, and knew the secrets of maintaining the tribal rituals by which the raw divine power was invoked to respond with hailiz to the human community. In this way, the old Germanic sacral priest-king could also be considered “set apart” from society, and thus weihs. The rest of the people in the tribe were made “whole” or háilags, by the actions of the weiha or priest.

Aside from those men who are weihs, there are the people who are háilags, or “made whole;” by weihs in its various forms. In a tribe, this group should ideally include as many of the folk as is possible. It is the duty of the weihs such as the king, priests, reeves and other authorities to ensure the háilag-ness of the folk to the best of their abilities.

Beyond the human ambit, holiness is widely associated with places: holy steads and sacred sites were and are central to the practice of Germanic religion. A vé in Old Norse is a holy stead, and the place where court is held. In Gothic, a village is called weihs. Villages, towns, shires, kunja and kingdoms each surrounded a central holy site. A village is weihs not only because it surrounds a central holy site which sanctifies it, but because the village is the weihs-center from which men go out into the fields to work at making them háilags, or fertile and fruitful.

Holiness can also be found in objects. Holy objects can be either weihs or háilags, and can be either naturally occurring or man made. The wéoh, or god-image is a good example. The paraphernalia of worship is considered weihs, and so are such things as a thors-hammer pendant, holy stones, the altar, and the holy sword. A great, worthy sword is weihs because it is dangerous item, forged with ancient mystical smithing secrets, and which has the power and function of bringing háilag-ness. Also weihs are the ancient sacred cult objects of the tribe which had been passed down from kings, priests and heroes of old, such as those which the Tervingi Goths carried across the Danube with them when they crossed into the Roman empire.9 As for naturally occurring weihs, it is present in such things as sun, lightning, sky, rain, stones, trees and rivers, which have wights (spirits) living in them, or higher concentrations of main. These are some of the sources of weihs upon which all things háilags, or whole, are dependent.

Concerning the relationship between weihs and háilags, Thorsson states that “the two concepts cannot exist without one another,”10 however, he does not give any evidence of why this is so. It is clear that the existence of háilags is dependent upon weihs, because weihs is the source of háilags. There is, however, nothing inherent in these concepts to indicate how or why weihs would be dependent upon háilags. Neither does Thorsson give any evidence for a dependence of weihs on háilags.

In ancient times, the survival of men depended upon them being recipients of the háilags, and the blessings of the gods were the source of that háilags. The gods, or véar, could thus be said to fall into the category of weihs. There is very little indication that the gods depend upon men for their survival, even though such a dubious belief seems popular amongst certain Asatrurar. (At the most, it could be said that the memory of the gods on earth is dependent upon men). Do the gods need the gifts of men in order to survive? Considering that the little which men can give back to the gods came from the blessings of the gods in the first place, a divine dependency upon men does not seem likely. Furthermore, between the times of modern and ancient heathenry, hundreds of years of Christianity have passed in which the gods have received hardly any worship from men. If the gods’ survival depended on our gifts, then it seems unlikely they would have survived to refound their religion among men in the 20th century.

Or perhaps the gods depend upon men to be their army to fight against ettins at Ragnarok, as is told in the late Norse sources, and in that way, “they need us as much as we need them.” It should be remembered that the entire Ragnarok myth is of very late Norse origin and is not evidenced among other Germanic tribes or in earlier Germanic times. Also, since the myth can be shown to be a Christianized and dualistic reduplication of the “Battle of the Heodenings” legend, which had nothing to do with the gods, the idea that the gods depend upon men begins to seem arrogant and highly unlikely. Thus, while it is clear that háilags is dependent upon weihs, there is in fact no compelling evidence or arguments to indicate that weihs is dependent upon háilags.

Further, is Thorsson’s statement that “something must be *wíhaz before it is *hailagaz” actually true? His article does not discuss things which are weihs but not háilags, and vice versa. Does something that is weihs have to be háilags, and does something that is háilags have to be weihs? If something were to be both weihs and háilags, it would have to be something which is both the consecrator and the consecrated. Anything which is consecrated must have become so from contact with something else which was already possessing the power of consecration. Certainly some things have been consecrated, and now themselves consecrate other things. The question here, however, is if all things holy must be both consecrators and the consecrated.

To answer the above question, perhaps it would be best to discuss a couple of examples. A Sacral King has the power to make the fields fertile. In so doing, he is weihs, because his embodiment of mysterious divine power makes the land háilags. He himself, however, was not always weihs: rather, at one time, he was consecrated, or installed as king and shown to the gods. Therefore, a king, as both the consecrated, and a consecrator, is weiháilags.11

Is this the case with all holy things, though? What about thunder, which also hallows the fields? Thunder obviously embodies a mysterious and sometimes dangerous divine power which is necessary in order for the crops to properly ripen, and thus thunder is unquestionably weihs. Is thunder, however, háilags – is it something wholesome that was once consecrated? Not really. It is powerful and dangerous, (not particularly wholesome qualities), even if it can bring about wholesomeness in other things. Also, there is no evidence, either materially or in the Germanic lore that indicates there was ever such a thing as “unholy thunder;” there is no thunder wielded by the ettins or other baleful sources. Rather, thunder is raw holy power that was always so even though itself was never consecrated.

Another example of something weihs is the sun. It is very powerful, and its levels of heat and light could be described as dangerous, to say the least. Yet the heat of the sun produces the temperatures on earth required for life, and the vegetation which sustains all life on earth is built out of sunlight in the process of photosynthesis. It destroys the freezing cold that would otherwise annihilate almost all life. The sun, which was never consecrated, is one of the most primal sources of weihs, and it makes life on earth háilags.

A Greek philosopher might argue that a thing cannot bestow wholesomeness unless itself first possessed wholesomeness, just as a man with no money could not give money to others. Fortunately, the Germanic peoples did not make use of Greek logical thinking, which so often tends to outsmart itself, as our above examples demonstrate. háilags does not need to have its origins in a pre-existing háilags; rather, háilags has its origins in weihs. Something weihs might be able to bring about wholesomeness in other things, but this does not mean that it is wholesome within itself. Thunder is thus weihs, but is not háilags. We can see, therefore, that there are two categories of consecrators: those which are weiháilag, and those which are only weihs.

The question remains, does something that is háilags but not weihs have the ability to consecrate? The fact that one Germanic word for “consecrate” is “hallow” may suggest that háilags does have consecration powers, but the use of the word “hallow” to describe the process of consecration in Germanic languages might also have come about due to the Christian reinterpretation of the holy (see below). We have already established, with the example of the Sacral King, that something which has been consecrated can itself become a consecrator. However, once something that has been made holy begins to consecrate other things, it graduates to the type of holiness embodying the more central divine origin, and is thus referred to as weihs.

An example is the “idol” or graven images of gods which were made by the Germanic peoples, and called wéohhas in Anglo-Saxon. The image begins as a piece of wood from a tree, perhaps from a sacred grove and therefore already considered to posses special powers. The wood is cut in a customary way according to mystical principles, perhaps accompanied by special chants or galdors, designed for the purpose. Then the piece of wood is consecrated: it is made holy by being formed into the shape of a god. The image is then ritually installed on the altar, and the divine power is invoked so that the god may use the image as a “seat” during the ritual times, when he descends from heaven to the sacred grove. The god’s presence in the image is the final stage of consecration which makes the image holy. The image is, however, not merely something to be blessed and made fruitful, but rather, it is consecrated so that it may be the seat of divine power from which a god blesses his people and their land. It thus becomes a wéoh because it has an active, rather than passive role in the consecration process.

you're a joke

In Gothic, the earliest recorded Germanic language (mid 4th century), the distinction between weihs and háilags is more pronounced, no doubt due to the fact that translation of the bible into Gothic took place while the Goths and their religious conceptions were still heathen. As a result, more archaic heathen concepts can be seen in Gothic than in the later Germanic languages.12 In Gothic, the term used to denote consecration was weihan – “to sanctify,” or weihnan – “become holy, be hallowed.” The verb forms of Gothic háilags were hailjan – “to heal,” and hailnjan, become well, be healed, whole.” háilags referred only to that which was consecrated, or made whole, and was not used to describe either the source or process of consecration. This clearly demonstrates the importance of the differences between weihs and háilags.

In many later Germanic languages, the old heathen concept of weihs was falling out of use and being replaced with háilags. In Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon, which post-date Gothic by several hundred years, the use of weihs has narrowed in scope. For example in Anglo-Saxon, weihs survives only in wéofod: altar, wíg: idol, strife, battle.13 Hal still means whole, but the meaning of halor has been mutated to mean salvation.14 Haligan retains its original meaning “to heal,” but now halignes denotes sanctity, a holy place, a sanctuary, a holy thing, a relic, and sacred rites, where such things were previously called weihs.

It might be argued that because Anglo-Saxon is not directly descended from Gothic, and developed in a much different and far away land among tribes who were only distantly related to the Goths, the use of the verbs weihan and halgian could be merely tribal peculiarities to the east and west Germanic peoples respectively. However, the several hundred year gap between Gothic and the West Germanic languages, in which few traces of intermediate Germanic languages survive, and in which Christianity was regularly practiced by Germanic peoples, is too large not to assume that Christianity had changed the Germanic concept of the holy within that time period.

While weihs did not survive in Modern English (accept perhaps as vie: to strive, through French envier), it did survive in other modern Germanic languages. In Icelandic, “holy” is also only heilagur, and a consecrator is only a helgar, or halgari; however, “hallow” and “consecrate” are both helga and vigja. A “consecratory” is sem lytur ath helgun etha vigslu: both halgian and weihan. This seems to indicate that in the Christianized Norse lands the old heathen concept of the holy might have been preserved to some degree along side that of the new Christian viewpoint. It is clear, though, that vigja is still secondary to helga in importance, as would be expected in a Christian society.

Weihs also survives in modern German with much of its original meaning intact: German weihen, “consecrate, sanctify, ordain.” Heil is “well being, salvation, whole, savior, heal,” and heiligkeit is “sanctity.”15 Weihs enjoys continued use in such words as weihrauch, “incense,” and weihwasser, “holy water,” where its original meaning as the source of consecration is preserved.

And despite all this they managed to be some of the best shipbuilders and navigators of their era. It was a bunch of supposedly backward savages who were the first Europeans to explore the new world, as well as fully exploit the rivers in modern day Russia for the purposes of trade.

To call them savages is to lump them in with worthless peoples like the native americans or subsaharan africans. And that simply isn't true.

One way to trace changes in the concept of the holy in Germanic tribes is to look at the lord’s prayer in various Germanic languages to see if weihs or háilags is used. The line “hallowed be thy name” gives us a good opportunity to observe the changes. As might be expected, the Gothic version preserves weihs: “…weihnai namo thein….” While some of the other early and/or east Germanic related versions of the prayer retained weihs,16 all later Germanic versions of the prayer accept the Old Saxon call “the lord’s” name not weihs, but háilags.17 Further, all versions of the prayer in modern Germanic languages use háilags exclusively. This reflects how the Germanic view of the holy changed after exposure to Christianity. To the early Christian Goths, then, “the lord’s” name embodied the nature of a god, and the power of the divine was present within the name itself; thus it had to be surrounded by taboo. The name of the god could be used to invoke the god and bless something, making it holy, but it could not be casually spoken or bandied about carelessly, lest the god be offended and his wrath invoked. The Gothic use of weihs to describe a god-name, and the taboo which this implies is exactly the way in which Germanic heathen viewed the names of their gods.18

On the other hand, “the lord’s” name to the long Christianized Germanic peoples was no longer a mysterious divine power which had to be treated with care, but rather, was merely a spiritual comfort that nobody actually understood or really truly believed in, that was subordinated to the needs of the individual. It was merely a vehicle for the more self centered conception of nurturing halignes. After all, halignes had also come to mean “salvation,” in the Christian sense. The use of háilags to describe a god-name is not in keeping with Germanic heathen religious conceptions, but instead reflects a Christian way of thinking.

This change in the conception of holiness reflects the de-spiritualization of the Germanic peoples. By adopting Christianity and abandoning their old heathen faith, the Germans were abandoning weihs, or the real divinity, for the false divinity of the foreign Christian pantheon. No longer was the divinity itself important or understood in Christianity; all that mattered was its effect on the individual. With the true divine abandoned and no longer responding, the true nature of the divine was no longer visible to men. The divine was therefore only seen in terms of “what it could do for you,” in other words, the supposed “halignes” of good feelings in life arising from self-delusion, and supposed salvation at the time of death.

The importance of weihs, and the distinction between weihs and háilags are very important both on the level of their primal manifestations, and in terms of human involvement with the two aspects of the holy. According to Thorsson, the object of "magic" is to "…reach into the *wíhaz realm with a form that is intelligible to it that it may respond with hailiz – holiness – in some form."19 From a religious, rather than magical perspective, a Theodsman might instead say that “it is the object of the Wéofodthane or priest, and his ritual workings, to reach into the weihs realm with a form that is intelligible to it that it may respond with háilags.”

Now, in modern heathenry, or at least in Théodism, the old Germanic two-sided concept of the holy is being revived along with the old gods and traditions. Concerning the distinction between weihs and háilags, Gárman Lord is most certainly correct when he says “the difference seems so crucial that if we didn’t already have words for such a distinction, we’d have to invent some anyway; it’s all quite necessary to everything we do.”20 It could even be said that the proper practice of heathenry is dependent upon understanding these two distinct aspects of the holy, and how they work together in a single process. “The bridging of the gap between the world of *wíh- and the mundane world is the true purpose of religion…”21 It is important that modern heathen set aside the Christianized concept of the holy as a single force, separated from the true nature of the divine, and instead understand the true spiritual reality of weihs and háilags.

what out of my post makes you thing i am /christian/

i specifically stated christianity was a sideshow and died in the enlightenment
are you even familiar with the nietschen concepts of slave and aristocrat morality, would recommend looking them up, they are relevant to the discussing as why christianity was once a powerfull factor and isn't anymore

You're a Christian who believe in "real Christianity" and then denies his lord in public. You're not going to heaven now. Real Christianity was Paul (that's his group) who killed off Jewsus's followers one by one. Then turned it into a Jew worshiping cult for slaves. It fed off of Rome and killed it, created Islam, and made Jews the richest little parasites on earth. END

Don't you just reconstruct it from the shared roots in the Illiad and the Vedas then?

The Germans are directly responsible for destroying the Roman Empire through their immigration. They attenuated the legions, refused to assimilate, and reduced the caliber of the average Roman citizen.

LEL CHRISTCU– Oh wait my scrubber must've went to the wrong thread. Carry on fellow pagans remember to practice your mysticism and sacrifices

SAY IT WITH ME NOW, EVERYONE

VE
VAZ
KAISERS

No… Because the Vedas were written POST-Aryan greatness. When race mixing was thick, and the memory was fading.
Think of writing about the Constitutional government of America in about 100yrs from now. It will look more like multiculturalism than Enlightenment. The advanced scientific truths that held such mysteries in the Veddas, only men like Tesla and Oppernhiemer were smart enough to translate because of their fore-knowledge of the electric Universe.

Just like THOR = Thunder (and may have only existed as an analogy for scientific electrical conduction: hence his bracelets and belt, and wife the Lightening who hits the "frost giants falling to earth" {meteorites and the ionosphere protective field})

In other words, I've never EVER seen ANYONE (especially that faggot Evola) who has a grasp of the Veddas because they are now muddied with mud-blood worship. Slowly the Aryan degraded themselves, until DUALISM (Zoroastrian) became their curse and the nail in the coffin of former greatness.

This is why Nietschzzze wrote about going beyond "good and evil" (dualism = paralysis of the spirit, and thus the wolves do evil and the sheep wait for "karma" or "gods vengeance"). This is why Vikings kicked ass, only as a small group of pirates, because they're weren't limited by false dichotomy except HEALTHY behavior… See anons "Holy men" speech above.

...

Sacrifice is for Semites. We've moved beyond animal torture because we no longer kill what we eat. So it's just edgy emo degenerate faggotry to murder your neighbor's cat. Especially when cat's have more honor than most men these days.

''…. For Pagans it is nobility, the connection of self to ancestry, to reality, the spirit that refuses to go on living without dignity, honesty, honor.
God, the gods, for the pagans are not some vague abstraction detached from reality, and their morals reflect this.
Pagan gods begin as a worshiping of dead ancestors, manifesting as self.
When a pagan prayed to his ancestors it was to himself, for they participate in his becoming as genetic memory, as DNA.
When he honored his ancestors he honored himself, and when he respected himself he respected his ancestors.
So when he did not want to shame his ancestry he was holding himself accountable in relation to them.
And what are ancestors but past?

Then gods became anthropomorphic representations of natural processes, and those the pagan worshiped because they made him possible.
The past took on a broader perspective, because past = nature - the sum of all previous nurturing.

Nobility finds its meaning here.
To be true to self is to be true to your past.
True to your past is to hold yourself accountable before nature, the sum of all nurturing.
True to your past means your object/objective will not dishonor, or detach from it, nor will this object/objective negate, ignore, forget, this past/nature.

Nobility means to refuse to live without your core principles: honor, dignity, freedom, awareness, honesty…and to hold yourself accountable.
It is refine and discriminate, sharpening your sense of self, your identity.''

''The pagan man, the natural man, wants to take a woman and turn her from sex object, from means to self-gratification, into a mother, a means towards legend.
The Modern man takes woman and wants to retain her as sex object, as means to his own ephemeral gratification, or takes mother and wants to reduce her, like a nihilistic miser, to sexual object, even to her sons.
This is Freud, another Jew dominating western psychology.
To understand why children, especially males, are shamed away from mother, and approach father as a sexual competitor, and how this diminishes human power, you must first understand nihilism and its most vocal proponents.
In traditional families it was the female who entered into the male's clan, as a subordinate mother, to the maternal head.
In modern "marriages" of convenience, the male is expected to first break away from his family, and then become subordinated to her family’s hierarchies, no matter how dysfunctional these might be.
The male is subordinated to the father figure, which most often is subordinated to the mother, with the alpha-male, figurehead being the institution, the system.
The male is not only detached from his heritage, which he is supposed to be the representative of when his own father dies, but he becomes a representative of a representative which has no clout, no connection to anything other than the alpha-male abstraction of institution, to which he is expected to submit to and live-up to.

The process of decline can be found in Christianity where the God, the monopoly of alpha-maleness, is placed above father, as is seen in the Abrahamic tale of emasculation.
Christ takes his disciples away from their families, and tells them this is the only way they can be saved – an anti-family position where family is considered a subordination to a male other than the father figure, the corporeal real man.
In paganism the male was a direct, real, corporeal representation of his entire clan, in Nihilistic structures the male is a nothing; another female beneath the only One male.
He is second even to the female because unlike her he cannot be this alpha male’s means, except as a fertile womb for the shared memes.

The absence of blood lines, of cultural and genetic homogeneity has made the search for the shared lowest-common-denominator a concern among lost, emasculated males with no sense of self, no blood connections and no self-knowledge.
With no father figure to respect and look up to, and prepare to replace, they seek the absolute authority outside self, in the before and the after.

With no solid father figure to connect the boy to his past/nature, and give his existence meaning, stability, direction, the boy turns to mother, wanting to be the father of himself.
In the absence of a mother he becomes woman himself, a stray womb looking for fertilization; to be someone's means to an end, displaying the cynicism of the stringently critical, looking for perfection to deal with their emasculation and need to be mind-fucked until complete, absolute, fullness.
Some emasculated males find their alpha in an idea(l) and surrender to its authority completely…the ones who do not, or cannot, roam from idea(l) to idea(l) seeing the fallibility in all so as to not bend over to them: some dive into being mind-whores, others resist, wanting to save themselves for the perfect one.
The last, being not fully matures males, and not fully awake females, settle for the cynical path of 'freedom" from all; lost in space/time.
This lostness is what they call "liberty".
They laugh at everything and everything.
Their artistry is found in the thumb on nose.''

The first 3 are the older or sick and they set the pace of the group. If it was on the contrary, they would be left behind and lost contact with the pack. In ambush case they would be sacrificed. The following are the 5 strongest. In the center follow the remaining members of the pack, and at the end of the group follow the other 5 stronger. Last, alone, follows the alpha wolf. It controls everything from the rear. That position can control the whole group, decide the direction to follow and anticipate the attacks of opponents. The pack follows the rhythm of the elders and the head of the command that imposes the spirit of mutual help not leaving anyone behind.

counter-currents.com/2012/10/the-fourfold/

"This is the first of two essays dealing with the Germanic cosmology. Only in the second essay will I actually discuss the details of that cosmology, as presented in the Eddas and other sources, and offer an interpretation of it."

"In the Germanic-Scandinavian realm, local land spirits are called landvættir (plural), but they are often commingled with elves (álfar), giants (thurses and trolls), and even with the dead as well as with the Dísir, ancient deities of the third function. In recent times in Iceland it was still believed that the “Stones of the Land Dísir” (Landdísarsteinar) were the home of the genii loci.

These land spirits were merged with elves since the latter had also been confused with dwarves and therefore lost, long before the year 1000, their nature as helpful beings. It should not be forgotten that elves were worshipped. Prayers and sacrifices were offered to them in exactly the same way as to local spirits. The Church demonized elves for this reason by making them into malevolent and deadly dwarves and emanations of Satan, as I have shown before. They are confused with the giants who live in wild areas, and with the dead who spend their lives beyond the grave inside the mountains.

The “dweller in the mountain” (bergbúi) is for this reason sometimes a dead soul and sometimes a giant. All of these beings were commingled in a process of collective anathematization and became demons. A runic staff from Bergen (Norway), which could date from 1200, offers evidence of these depreciations:

I carve the runes of remedy,
I carve the runes of protection,
Once against the elves,
Twice against the trolls,
Thrice against the thurses.

A curse that is recounted in the Bósa saga ok Herrauðs (Saga of Bósi and Herraud), which probably dates from earlier than the twelfth cen tury, says:

May trolls and elves
and wizard-norns,
the dwellers [of holes, rocks, and so on]
and the giants of the mountains (bergrisar)
burn your hall.
May the frost thurses rend you!

These two texts provide a good glimpse of the individuals haunting the world of this period. In the third verse, the plural “dwellers” (búar) is a collective noun designating all the spirits (Norse vættir; Middle High German wihte) inhabiting nature. Moreover, the Bergen amulet and the saga are useful in showing us the merger that took place between different creatures that the Church simply designated with the cover term troll, which came to mean “demon” and “devil.”

The historical Icelandic Book of Settlements provides the following information:

"Because of his popularity, sacrifices were offered to Grim once he was dead and he was nicknamed kambann. (H 19)"

One detail reveals that a man venerated in this way was not an ordinary deceased individual:

“Einar lived in Laugarbrekka; he was buried beneath a tumulus . . . and his mound is always green, in winter and summer alike(S 75)."

Thanks to the Gísla saga Súrssonar (Saga of Gisli Súrsson), we learn what this means. Thorgrim’s tumulus remains green: “The people thought that their offerings had attracted the good graces of the god Freyr who did not want him to be cold”. In the Ketils saga hængs (Saga of Ketil Hængr) sacrifices are mentioned being made to a mound that the snow never covers.

The good dead individual therefore becomes, among other things, a conduit between the living and the higher powers. Such deification is a theme that can be found in the first chapter of the Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks (Saga of Hervör and Heidrek) and in the Bárðar saga Snæfellsáss (Saga of Bárðr Snæfellsáss). The details given in the latter text make it quite interesting; when Bard vanished, it was believed he had gone into the Mountain of the Snows—the inside of mountains is one form of the beyond—and prayers were made to him as if he were a god (heitguð). He was called “mountain spirit” (bjargvættr) and is nicknamed the “God of the Snaefell” (Snaefellsáss). It should be noted that a figure deified in this manner is intrinsically linked to a specific place.

It is undeniably clear that the dead individual becomes a tutelary spirit of a specific location. In the Celtic sphere, the Triads in the medieval Welsh manuscript Llyfr Coch Hergest (Red Book of Hergest) say that the head of Llyr’s son, Bran the Blessed, was hidden in the White Hill of London with its head turned facing France. As long as it remained in that position, the Saxons could not oppress the island. The remains of Gwerthefyr (Guorthemir) the Blessed were hidden in the principal ports of this island and so long as they remained concealed there was no fear the Saxons would invade the country. Pomponius Mela tells how the Philaeni brothers had themselves buried beneath a dune to ensure Carthage took possession of a contested territory and, certainly, in order to become tutelary spirits. The place took the name of Arae Philaenorum.

It is safe to say that after a certain stretch of time nothing remains of the good dead individual except his aspect as a spirit. Time eventually banishes his name and deeds from memory. Later there occurs a merging between local spirits and the deceased. This type of merger is still detectable in Scandinavian folk beliefs collected in the nineteenth century. One legend records the following: a peasant gave offense to a genius loci (gardvord, literally a “guardian of the estate”) and the narrator of the tale remarks:

“He should not have done so because the gardvord is the soul (or the spirit or ghost: attrgangaren) of the man that cleared that land where the house stands, so he should be honored and respected.”

This amalgam came about on two levels, in my opinion: 1) the local spirits and the dead worthy of offerings were merged with elves by virtue of the latter’s beneficial nature and their habitat; 2) all were the object of agrarian and/or domestic worship, and they were therefore demonized by the Church and merged with the dwarves, creatures reputedly malevolent and dreadful. Since these creatures also lived in the natural wild, it was easy for churchmen toiling for the greater glory of God (ad maioram Dei Gloriam!) to incorporate them with spirits, if only by virtue of the Augustinian principle according to which pagans worshipped demons. This shift in meaning—which was a brilliant move because it played upon an already existing opposition among the indigenous people between spirits/the dead/beneficial elves, and malefic dwarves—was quite prominent in the national lexicons of the Middle Ages, especially in the Germanic lands where the scribes were indifferent in their use of the names corresponding to elf, dwarf, and spirit. An example of this drift is provided by alp (elf), which became the name of the nightmare, a substitution that speaks for itself.

Although the evidence for it is much more sparse, it is not impermissible to think that these mergers were also facilitated by the lumping together of the dangerous dead and evil spirits (meinvættir). If the good deceased became a good spirit, why couldn’t the evil deceased—someone whose death took place under strange circumstances, or who had been a wizard, seer, or who had been a terror to his neighbors because of his asocial and brutal nature—become a demon? A passage from the Icelandic Book of Settlements deserves our attention:

"Ölvir, son of Eysteinn, took the land east of the Grimsá. No one had dared settle this area because of the land spirits since the time Hjörleif had been slain. (S 330)"

It so happens that Hjörleif had been treacherously murdered by his slaves, which means, according to the thinking of the ancient Scandinavians, that he had the right to avenge himself and thus return from the grave. Another hypothesis is conceivable: he had made an alliance with the land spirits of the area in which he settled, and they would not accept intruders. A second clue corroborates the fact that the evil dead are dangerous. People got rid of their corpses by burying them in remote locations, far from the passage of men and livestock. This is what was done with the body of Thorolf Halt-Foot in the Eyrbyggja Saga, and the danger that such corpses pose is often indicated in the place-name. The place where Olaf Tryggvason had sorcerers drowned was called Skrattasker, “Sorcerers’ Reef,” but skratti, which we encountered above in its German form schrat, also designates malevolent spirits that live in the wild. The place where Hallbjörn Whetstone-Eye was buried is called Skrattavardi, “Sorcerers’ Cairn.”

It should not be forgotten that the deceased are never truly dead and can take action from their graves. Saxo Grammaticus tells of the setbacks suffered by those who tried to violate Baldr’s tumulus. The guardian spirits of the site struck them with terror and sent them fleeing. When they finally managed to open the tomb, a torrent of water gushed out. In his analysis of this passage, Paul Hermann pointed out that the deceased was behaving both as a spirit and a mound-dweller (haugbúi).

Even at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Swedish Lapps (Sámi) avoided erecting their tents over spots where death had occurred for fear of disturbing the sleep of the dead or prompting their vengeance, as the spirits of the dead were believed to settle in these spots. This precaution was all the more justified as the dead had long been buried on mountains and in forests, even though cemeteries had come into general use since around 1641.

In fifteenth-century Germany, dangerous areas were called unsteten (singular: unstete), which were described as being “places of uncertainty” (loca incerta). “When someone who walks there is struck by a sudden illness or feel pains in his limbs, the ignorant say: ‘He has gone over an unstete.’” It is claimed that the land spirit has punished him for having violated its sanctity (et quia is sanctus sit, genius loci illum punisse)." [Spirits of the Land] [Lecouteux]

I could continue dumping wall of text, but I can't be arsed.

Most of it taken from here: knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1229-paganism-and-natural-order
…if any of you are interested in reading further.

Thanks

Now where are the "Christian" shills?

THANK YOU BASED POSEIDON

DROWN THE BROWN!

You mean the last to be civilized and incorporated into Western European culture?

No I mean the last to lose Civilization for Jewish slavery

we can still join the somali pirates if you want

I'm saving and reading later. Need your "Holy" = Healthy analogy for future works. Thanks

Nice try christfag

You are a retard user, an hero.

Hey man remember when literally all violence stopped when the last white man pledged his soul to the Jewish volcano spirit?

Friendly reminder that the Jews greatest fear is that Europeans will follow their blood faith. It is impossible for a euro pagan to be exploited- he/she cannot be brainwashed, led astray, or otherwise duped or tricked.

((They)) would no longer be able to destroy forests, oceans, rivers, and nature as a whole for muh profits.

((They)) would no longer be able to flood and mix our respective people's and blood

((They)) would no longer have control over us with their slave morality internationalist cuckold religion

All of Europa's problems stems from this one thing- our lack of exclusive, ethnic/blood religions. It is Christianity that made us weak and soft in the first place, allowing the parasites to latch onto us. For the Jews would never have gotten the control they have today over the west if we were not already weak and sickly. A parasite cannot latch onto a healthy, strong host- it will be rejected. It can only latch itself to a already tired, sickly host.

Holla Forums is not redpilled. They think they are, but they are not. They may hate Jews(which is good), but Jews controlling our society is a symptom of the disease; of the rot of Europa. In order to get rid of the symptom, you must get rid of the disease, the root. And this is Christianity.

As long as they fight the symptom, and not the disease of western weakness and softness, they will fail. All alt right movements will fail- they simply will not accomplish anything. It is cognitive dissonance to fight and hate Jews on one hand, and on the other hand, embrace their religions. It is best for those of us that see the truth, that follow our blood faiths, to simply ride the tiger, and let all this rot collapse in on itself. This is the only viable option for us.

Is that M.A.S.C thing an actual thing? Where do I sign up?

It's called Heliand. I've got a good translated copy.

amazon.com/Heliand-Gospel-G-Ronald-Murphy/dp/0195073762

Look guys, the pantheons of the Middle East weren't really different from the Indo-European pantheons. I know you pagans like to say stuff like "Semitic cult" and such but the gods were the same.

For example, the Greeks equated Baal Hadad with Zeus, and El with Cronus. They are the same gods with only slight differences in story.

We've been through this countless times.

And the early Germans converted to Christianity peacefully (an exception would be the Saxons) because Christianity was already so damned similar to their cults to Tyr and Odin.

that's great, compared to the hundreds of thousands genocided by Rome so they could plunder the province and get slaves while they imported Africans into its multicultural Empire.
the conflict in Christendom was great for its technological advancement. Never big enough to destroy the civilizations but allowed for constant improvement. The reason it couldn't get big was because of the Pope and the war had to be done according to the just war doctrine. So already we see that Christendom was better for European countries than Rome. Don't be like one of those French Enlightenment thinkers who worships the Roman who genocided their ancestors and destroyed their civilization while plundering their wealth. Funny how you anti-Christian misinformation posters nevermention how multiculturalist Rome and Greece was before Christianity. Alexander wanted to mixAsians and Greeks by moving one population to the other.. Caesar became Caesar because he was so rich after plundering gaul.

Tip ttip tip tip. Couldn't win arguments against Christianity as an atheist so you now pretend Europeans are one race and that you are a pagan?

Also confusing the Greek and Italian nose for a Hooked, blue pill as fuck.

Somali's are Christian

GTFO your argument is stupid so people ignore it. You're a Christian Globalist trying to say "we're all the same here". It's out-right multiculturalism. Kill yourself.
There is ENDLESS stories of murder, rape, human disgrace, and total destruction of a culture and people that was Christians destroying their own race.
If you read your own religous history you would know this. They are proud of it. And some was Christians killing others who followed your kike god.

It's was an endless blood bath for the first 1500yrs until all of Europe was finally converted. Then came the endless church-royalty wars Now look at what Communism is doing… same scam

You can't. There is nothing to meme.

you mean after they attacked a Christian village for pillage and then they got justice? Germans were peaceful hippies before evil Christian men came and raped their daughters then put a sword to their throat and yelled
Then they drowned the peaceful noble German men and the evil Christians laughed.

I think there are practical things to learn and practice, call it larping or whatever…

- Seeking harmony and balance with nature.
- Venerating the past and your ancestors.
- Reclaim the view of time as cyclical and not linear.
- tribalism, and a role-based society

There is none. Germanics only did great things once they adopted practices from higher civilizations. Even the conquerors of Rome were Arian christians.

this is the problem with christians. you put your religion ahead of your racial interests, so europeans dying doesn't matter to you as long as they aren't christian, or as long as they aren't a part of your specific branch of "true" christianity..
And if they are non-white and christian, well, their souls are divine. we are all one in christ jesus after all :^).
Division is all that christianity achieved for europe.

for pagans, the religious and racial interests coincide; there is no such conflict. this is the advantage in following your peoples ancestral religion and also why it can be the only genuine nationalistic spiritualism.

My favorite pic is the one where the Christcuck cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring to prove his god is real.

...

THANK YOU BASED POSEIDON

Pull the trigger on every nigger

That which one's one race has organically produced as a religion is objectively superior in all contexts because values are ranked in accordance with the degree to which they are of utility to a group, and naturally whichever value system as is created organically was created with this self-survival value system in mind.

No, and even if it were, it would be infiltrated in no time.

Sounds like the Abrahamic cults.

that doesn't make your religion true, though.

Also, a religion can not be subjective to a certain group of people and only be true for them. Religious beliefs must be objective facts, so to allow them to be racially subjective completely negates its validity

and you sound like a LARPagan cultist. Congrats. I'm adhere do neither religion, so stop trying.

what objective fact does any religion demonstrate or stand for?

every religion inserts into the unknown human fantasies that hope to explain, using myth, what cannot be explained at the time.
priests then use this metaphysical system to justify a moral code which forms the basis of society.

reality is objective, correct, however our reactions towards and perceptions of reality are not objective, in the sense that they differ, particularly between races and ethnic groups.
So, you get the different racial religions and their different interpretations of the world and their different moral systems … all of which have grown out of their particular genetic character which forces them to react to the world in different ways.
I mean, above I posted essays about how germans thought that to be holy you needed to be healthy, lucky, whole in body; that to die in defence of your folk was a holy act.
whereas the semitic, or Abrahamic if you prefer, view of chosen-ness stemmed from them being weak, victimized, chosen to suffer. they then derive validation and moral justification from being persecuted. christianity is the same victim psychology extended out from the exclusivity of jews to all gentiles: specifically the slaves of the roman empire.
You don't have to believe in the objectivity of your ancestor's subjective beliefs to honour them, you simply have to recognise the racial character that went into their construction and honour that instead, in yourself. By honouring your ancestors, you honour yourself.

so, if you want to be religious, your choice is a heroic religion that you have inherited from your ancestors, or an imported slave cult made up by hostile foreigners.

Christianity was successful in converting Europeans, yes, but so was liberalism. All this indicates is the seductiveness of a cult of victimhood.

i'm a fedora actually, so wrong may-may newfriend.
I've read a lot of the german philosophers so I have a sympathy for the symbology, values and morals of our ancestors, but I don't actually think it's real.
there is a distinction here between the metaphysical worldview of a religion on one hand and it's moral code on the other.
our race's value system matters. christianity has obscured that. it's important to rediscover, remember it. because it has a future, in us.

sadly paganism was destroyed by stick yid worshippers. i say we make a new religion, with the teachings and myths (or what we have left) of all european pagan religions.

Christianity only seems superior (in that it destroyed paganism in Europe) because it inherited many aspects of Roman civilization into it.
Charlemagne was very romanized and thus had a superior (for economics and warfare) social system with which to back him.
Religion played little part except perhaps to ground people in a society where you need fewer Tribes and more organization.
The claim that Christianity is more of a slave religion may be true, and may have helped develop the Feudal system and the masses of peasants it required.
t. Atheist

What the FUCK is truth?
Truth is whatever is of benefit to a particular group.

For example, a Jew says: "I am the best, my race is the best."

There is no objective way to disprove this.
This is just his subjective view of reality, and the organism believes this because it MUST believe this, it believes whatever is of utility to itself.
If a European says: "I am the best, etc."
There is also no way to disprove this, because valuations of "best" are just whatever aids and benefits the expansion, propagation, and maintenance of group or individual, especially a biological group.
Best varies from group to group,
we may feel Beethoven is the best, because Beethoven is an expression of our own racial heritage, but to a sub-Saharan African Beethoven isn't "the best" – they don't have the ear for it, it doesn't benefit their group, etc.
Values are subjective and are not rooted in anything really objective.
And this is a good thing – we should take advantage of it – it is an acknowledgement that THEIR values are not OUR values, that ours are SPECIFICALLY ours cannot be steamrolled over others, now can others steamroll us. This is the basis of National Socialism, separate biological autonomy and an organic systems whereby values are set in accordance with the degree to which they benefit the group. If you know of some objective values please tell me what they are, tell me more about these "objective" values and I will be more than happy to point out the logical fallacies in them. Objectivity is racial suicide.

christ I join this thread and the first post is some kike trying to turn christians against pagans, the second is trying to turn pagans against christians (I think? how fucking retarded do you have to be to think the Eddas are Jew worship? You just alienated every pagan in the thread)

fuck off with your subjective reality garbage. You sound like a fucking post-modernist who believes truth doesn't exist. Truth is simply facts and reality that exist outside of anyone's opinions or will. Truth exists whether people are willing to accept it or not. Stop trying to justify your idiotic beliefs by denying truth as a valid concept.

actually, there would be an objective way of proving this given a set of standards to compare other races with Jews. I would say that Jews are the best race when it comes to infiltrating and corrupting nations, but this is all relative to other races. If someone claims that they're the fastest, you have to have to ask "relative to what?". They very well may be the fastest human, but their speed is being compared relatively to the speed of other humans.
Then based on this evolutionary standard, should we not assume that Europeans are the best when it comes to expanding and conquering, based on our success as a race throughout history? Again, I'd like to point out how, using this standard, whites are relatively objectively the best.
What do you even mean by this? We aren't talking about "bests" we're talking about truth, which exists outside of individual convictions or opinions.
You sound like a relativist leftist who claims that "standards" are just opinionated and irrelevant things that should be discarded. Beethoven in a musical sense is objectively more advanced than a sub saharan African beating a drum regardless of what that nigger considers "the best". Opinions have no relevance on fact. Stop conflating the two. Reality is reality regardless of what your opinions are.
Stop moving the goal post. We were never talking about values. We were talking about Truth, which exists outside the realm of subjective values.
Jesus Christ, you're a dense motherfucker. If one group asserts to know the absolute truth in the form of gods and religion, then that absolute truth, by definition, cannot be "subjective" to that specific group, or else that "truth" is not a truth at all. Facts are never subjective. Reality is never subjective. Truth is never subjective. All of these things exist outside of humanity - all we do is discover them. There cannot be two equally valid absolute truths depending on which group you ask. Accepting such a thing would be the triumph of irrationality over reason. This would be the death of objectivity
get fucked.

ostarapublications.com/category/books-on-european-religions/

For all the anons who would like some non-kosher books on the h'white man's original religions.