Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Do You Have to Be a Particular Religion to Use the Runes?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Ashera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, June 15th, 2009 @ 08:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Cherusci
    Ancestry
    Phalian
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Cherusci Fristat
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropologin
    Politics
    free and democratic
    Religion
    Shamanic
    Posts
    66
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    PendaMercia: The pattern of behavior that evolves the entire narrative. But we see the world through a modern lens, which means we see even the myths and sagas through a modern lens. The individuals lens must be perpetually re-crafted as he learns more and more of the ancient folkway. This learning its self undergoing a transformation, the craft improving. Impossible to conclude anything about values without adequate valuation.
    It is a generational process. It took very many generations to get us to where we are, it will take generations more to develop a system of valuation equal to the task of finding the true ancient folkway without going backwards in the process.

    Ashera: Even if I think you got the wind of some animal, I do not admit that we can simply mirror past processes into the future to grasp a time span for upcoming events. (remember for instance the to the vast majority unexpected fall of the wall).
    Sciences have the tendency to increase their knowledge exponentially after relatively slow kick offs.
    So it may well be that we much faster get to know what really happened than expected.
    And, I am not convinced that "the true ancient folkway" will be the direction we have to take. This would imply some kind of folklorism or revitalism, but never could be the way of an actualized and contemporary paradigm to take off.

    PendaMercia: I am talking specifically of a Germanic Studies Doctorate- a doctoral degree in Germanic linguistics. Germanic Languages include those that are no longer even spoken, these being the most important. When someone has mastered how the 'original' languages have evolved into the current languages he also is fluent in the evolution of the 'experience of reality' that language communicates and represents. The evolution of how that experience has changed from then till now. I cannot stress enough the importance of this to the desired goal. This is the best asset, the best tool, for sorting out what is 'original' and what is of a foreign influence. It is not the only tool, by its self it is not enough (I'll concede that ) but it is one of the most important tools in the toolbox.

    Ashera: Language is a pointer, and here we have to distinguish written and spoken language, "documented history" and "oral tradition". Anthropology mainly deals with nonliterate cultures, and often one wonders how far back reaching the memory of certain authochthon ethnicities is. Some theorists have argued that documents corrupt memory. I do not part this view totally, and to a degree they are right, but cannot deny that a myth is still perceivable as a such, no matter how reduced - or "compressed" - it is told.
    Then, what is an "original"? This is the old search of the brothers Grimm for the "ur-variant" of a fairy tale / narration. You can do so only statistically, by rating clusterings. But who says that the rare elements were irrelevant?
    Further, every group, if not isolated on some madmen*s Easter Island, had contacts with other groups. And, as we today know, most of these contacts between small groups probably were peacefully, because all humans are quite snoopy to hear new myths and stories, to exchange goods, to talk about weather and gods, to hear new music, to learn new dances etc.

    PendaMercia: The unknown is only knowable through the known. It becomes the transformation of the known.

    Ashera: A "bad" model to start with is better than none - as long as no fixation as ideology courses through.

    PendaMercia: Our back and forth is essentially an epistemological argument, and it has its crux with this point. Empirical Materialism (most contemporary science) is a tool that will aid in our discovery of some of 'knowing all that', but it is not enough on its own. As a system of valuation, it has to transform in order to keep up with what it is discovering. As a tool we use it to make more tools that are like it, but better suited to certain kinds of inquiry. That doesn't mean we throw away any of the generations of tools. We keep them all in the toolbox for when we need them.

    Ashera: No, "empirical materialism" today is not the first choice in any case any more. Just in the case of "culture" structural studies are most relevant to follow mythological traces and their transformations. In addition analysis of psychological deep structures and processual prototypes is a main field of investigation. Meanwhile it is well known that myths develop from dreams, and that the primordial "mental" state of humanity seems to have been some kind of "dreamtime".

    PendaMercia: What we can do is experiment with science within that paradigm and create something new that is founded truly on the old. In this way we 'reconstruct' without moving backwards.

    Ashera: Reconstruction already implies something new; but why not evolution?

    PendaMercia: This is aided by learned men, those who have sought and found, who can articulate the entire process. A small group that guides a larger group of those who have made themselves worthy through their own efforts.

    Ashera: If the process is based in "truliness" it must unfold and hierarchize itself. No self-appointed slyboots anymore.

    PendaMercia: Speaking of heathen values, I do not think christianity was forced onto the folk. I think they abandoned the folkway. Not all of them at once, but slowly and surely they did this over generations. Not because they were bad guys but because christianity served them better. We are not victims, we took hold of a mid-eastern hodge-podge of religious ideas, made it our own and used as a big stick to dominate the world.

    Ashera: There were many forms of christianity. The monotheistic variant originally was one among many. Only consider the Pistis Sophia.

    PendaMercia: Ancient Germania was an emergent network civilization and christianity served to extend this network in ways that the old religion could not have even touched.

    Ashera: How to prove that?

    PendaMercia: Now we have a fully developed and 'mature' network civilization and from this the folkway begins to dawn as an emergent phenomenon its self.

    Ashera: Do you know that there never had been a peace treaty between the Saxons and Holy Roman King Karl? In principle we are still at war...

    Ashera

  2. #22
    Account Inactive PendaMercia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 11th, 2009 @ 09:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    East Prussia, Saxon England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Western PA
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    hired gun
    Politics
    will to power
    Religion
    Odian
    Posts
    137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Ashera-

    That post is wonderful, as are you for originating and posting it. Instead of rushing a reaction when there is little time (now), I will digest what you have said and replace this place-holder with a (hopefully) worthy post of my own.

  3. #23
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 08:04 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,893
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,196
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,297
    Thanked in
    553 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia
    Ancient Germania was an emergent network civilization and christianity served to extend this network in ways that the old religion could not have even touched. Now we have a fully developed and 'mature' network civilization and from this the folkway begins to dawn as an emergent phenomenon its self.
    This is something I always wondered about. It is said that christianity built up a network and without this network of unity nothing of our (today) 'used-to' behaviors would have been possible, and mainly with that is meant large scale trade and trading relations.

    But: there has always been trade, people travelled to india, mongolia, greece and even northern africa to trade, long before christianity was even invented. So this unifying aspect wasnt really necessary. And in a very basic way, a common language would have served the purpose of 'unifying' and making trading easier as well as imposting a whole new culture and religion upon the people.

    It wasnt maybe forced upon the people in the first two hundred years of missionising in northern europe, starting around 1000 (Denmark), but from 1300 it became much more aggressive, and that missionising happens also with the sword is no secret, and this is brutal force. The politeness of the benedictines of the earlier years were replaced with aggressive soldiers, who didnt tolerate a no anymore. They tried to prohibite the old rituals and later they burned people or drowned them or bound them onto wheels if they refused to abandon their native rituals and culture.

    Even it is wasnt an imperative given in the original christian belief, the system of christianity wasnt to that time much more than a control instrument anymore. It was already degenerated to a power system, which was mainly created already with Konstantin in 380. And it was intentionally composed that way to secure the power of the leaders.

    I dont think that it 'served the people better' and that many of our ancestors chose christianity on their own, not least because it contradicts lots of the values that kept their communities together. Maybe it wasnt always with the sword, but when your suddenly appeared landowner blackmails you by denying everything to you (land, payment, whatever), you are forced nonetheless.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Hrodnand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 @ 07:06 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Ancestry
    Austria/GermanBohemia
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Project management consultant
    Politics
    Far Centre
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    How could 'we know it'?
    We can't and we will never know with absolute precision how heathen culture was 2000 years ago. What we know is what was/is being reconstructed. Also there are small elements found in several aspects of germanic folk culture nowadays that have not been influenced by foreign christian elements.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Their experience of reality was entirely different than the modern experience. It takes decades of study to even come close to that orientation.
    Take a few children entirely away from society and raise them up in the "wilderness" while teaching to them several aspects of heathen culture (at least as much as we know) throughout their education.
    The result would be individuals totally incapable to adapt to modern society but those individuals would be closer to the nature of the ancient germanics than any one of us.
    The greatest difference between ancient germanics and us was that they were closer to Nature and they had a close relation with the natural world around. This allowed them to perceive and to think the way they did which was totally different than ours. Such a simple difference was enough to let a culture evolve in a totally different way than the rest of the "civilized" world.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Indeed they are not. But what criteria are we using to determine who is true and who is not?
    The criteria should be not to mix foreign elements into heathenism and "stay on track". The track is germanic heathenism, as much as it is reconstructed from it. For ex I don't apply to eastern esoteric elements just because some aspects are apparently similar or because there is a gap in heathenism and I want to fill it with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Yes, the path. The pattern of behavior that evolves the entire narrative. But we see the world through a modern lens, which means we see even the myths and sagas through a modern lens.
    That's true but this isn't a general rule, and the fact we are all influenced more or less by modern society is not a barrier and doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility for one to understand the meanings found in our traditions, mythology and sagas.

    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    The individuals lens must be perpetually re-crafted as he learns more and more of the ancient folkway.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    It took very many generations to get us to where we are, it will take generations more to develop a system of valuation equal to the task of finding the true ancient folkway without going backwards in the process.
    I consider any strictly determined system as destructive towards heathenism. Laws are determined strictly but not the spiritual values. Spiritual values were unwritten and they were "built in" in the germanic common sense, but not because there was a system that determined these values, it was simple common sense that made germanics for ex to exclude the unworthy and praise the brave.

    Any strict system would undermine the free spirit of a heathen individual.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Which is why they are the best place to start. Mastery gives one a solid foundation of what is known. The unknown is only knowable through the known. It becomes the transformation of the known.
    To gain information and to learn about them yes, but to practice the craft is something that should come later. It's the same thing as not giving a sword to a boy until he's incapable to master his own emotions and thoughts.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Speaking of heathen values, I do not think christianity was forced onto the folk. I think they abandoned the folkway.
    Not all of them at once, but slowly and surely they did this over generations. Not because they were bad guys but because christianity served them better.
    It was forced, we have historical facts that when one leader converted all his followers followed him in the conversion. Most of the time they didn't follow him of free will but because the king commanded it that way to his people. Also there were good examples for spreading the "word of the savior" with fire and sword. I don't think they just simply abandoned their native beliefs for some semite fanatic religion which values were alien to them completely.
    Either they were converted by force either they were convinced by priests to convert for a certain amount of material profits, but I absolutely doubt that they took up christianity because they considered it "better" or more convincing than their own native beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    More than the ideas we took hold of and developed the institution, holding onto as many of the old ideas as we could.
    The reason for developing christianity into an institution was mostly for material profits and to take material advantage of people's faith. The church had no real holy goal or saving manking from sins but to turn people into good decent tax paying citizens under the authority of the church.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Ancient Germania was an emergent network civilization and christianity served to extend this network in ways that the old religion could not have even touched.
    What christianity served for was to lay down the foundations of capitalism.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Now we have a fully developed and 'mature' network civilization and from this the folkway begins to dawn as an emergent phenomenon its self.
    To be honest I'm quite sick and disappointed of this "fully developed and 'mature' network civilization" where the main pillars of the network are not more than unworthy materialistic pigs. What I support is the traditional rural setting. But of course this idea would be considered absurd under such circumstances in which the world is today. However, that doesn't change the fact that the cradle for a successful folk culture, let alone heathenism, would be in a world organized in rural settlements.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    The reason why most people are leaving christianity is because they don't need it. They do not need the church to give them an education, they do not depend on the church as a local center for the dissemination of information, and they do not need the church to make moral decisions for them. Ideological christianity drops off of them like a dead husk.
    They leave it because democracy allowed more liberalism and so the authority of the church is significantly lessened. Now that there is no master with a whip, people are realizing that they are "free" and after a 1000years of spiritual enslavement I don't wonder why people are confused when it comes to spirituality and turn to anything and consider it as "their religion", such would be anything material, fashion, sexuality continuing with sciences, buddhism, islam, etc. Most of the people fall out from the frying into the fire and I see a clear decadence in general about human spirituality nowadays.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    The social identity as 'christian' is what takes a bit longer to leave behind. It is the social blend of heathen and christian that was the way in and is the way out for many.
    I don't see why should people pretend that they are christians when they are not. However I partially understand what you mean, I've met christians who never talked to me again when they've found out that I'm heathen but I've also met other christians who were interested in my views and we could have a normal conversation where their curiosity was more important than putting labels on certain ideas.
    People should be more brave and wear their views proudly. I've never felt shame for a moment because I'm heathen. I'm proud of this ancient heritage, why should I hide it under popular beliefs just to be accepted by society?
    :Überschöpfung:



  5. #25
    Senior Member Anfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2009 @ 10:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Niedersachsen , gijon
    Subrace
    Nordic amd Ibero-Celtic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    New York USA
    Gender
    Family
    not happy to be divorced
    Occupation
    All ways working
    Politics
    Community Volkisch
    Religion
    Old Religion - European
    Posts
    869
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Ashera-

    That post is wonderful, as are you for originating and posting it. Instead of rushing a reaction when there is little time (now), I will digest what you have said and replace this place-holder with a (hopefully) worthy post of my own.
    "PendaMercia: This is aided by learned men, those who have sought and found, who can articulate the entire process. A small group that guides a larger group of those who have made themselves worthy through their own efforts. "

    And let us speak now also of Learned Women also, if you please.
    "Wenn vor uns ein feindliches Heer dann erscheint, Wird Vollgas gegeben Und ran an den Feind!
    Was gilt denn unser Leben
    Für unsres Reiches Heer? (Ja Reiches Heer)
    Für Deutschland zu sterben ist uns höchste Ehr!"

  6. #26
    Account Inactive PendaMercia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 11th, 2009 @ 09:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    East Prussia, Saxon England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Western PA
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    hired gun
    Politics
    will to power
    Religion
    Odian
    Posts
    137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashera View Post
    Ashera: Even if I think you got the wind of some animal, I do not admit that we can simply mirror past processes into the future to grasp a time span for upcoming events. (remember for instance the to the vast majority unexpected fall of the wall).
    Sciences have the tendency to increase their knowledge exponentially after relatively slow kick offs.
    So it may well be that we much faster get to know what really happened than expected.
    I agree it is pointless to simply imitate something. Science does move quickly after a slow-kickoff, but a single generation is not enough.

    And, I am not convinced that "the true ancient folkway" will be the direction we have to take. This would imply some kind of folklorism or revitalism, but never could be the way of an actualized and contemporary paradigm to take off.
    We say true. True to what? Not true to arbitrary criteria and subjective impulses and perceptions, but true to to something timeless, consistent, and logically valid. The 'true and ancient folkway' isn't a direction in this sense, it is a predicate. Only when we can say the predicate is right can we say that progress from that predicate is right.

    Ashera: Language is a pointer, and here we have to distinguish written and spoken language, "documented history" and "oral tradition". Anthropology mainly deals with nonliterate cultures, and often one wonders how far back reaching the memory of certain authochthon ethnicities is. Some theorists have argued that documents corrupt memory. I do not part this view totally, and to a degree they are right, but cannot deny that a myth is still perceivable as a such, no matter how reduced - or "compressed" - it is told.
    Then, what is an "original"? This is the old search of the brothers Grimm for the "ur-variant" of a fairy tale / narration. You can do so only statistically, by rating clusterings. But who says that the rare elements were irrelevant?
    Further, every group, if not isolated on some madmen*s Easter Island, had contacts with other groups. And, as we today know, most of these contacts between small groups probably were peacefully, because all humans are quite snoopy to hear new myths and stories, to exchange goods, to talk about weather and gods, to hear new music, to learn new dances etc.
    I don't disagree with this. Linguistics is central to this whole thing because it is ideas that we concern ourselves with in constructing a 'true' worldview.

    Ashera: A "bad" model to start with is better than none - as long as no fixation as ideology courses through.
    Between a bad model and a good one, the choice is the good one.

    Ashera: No, "empirical materialism" today is not the first choice in any case any more.
    Empirical Science is useful in assuring that the results of our inquiry are not arbitrary and subjective.

    Just in the case of "culture" structural studies are most relevant to follow mythological traces and their transformations. In addition analysis of psychological deep structures and processual prototypes is a main field of investigation.
    Following mythological traces, analysis of psychological deep structures- these are methods of inquiry? If as methods of inquiry they are not empirical, than from epistemology do they arise to spawn results that are not arbitrary and subjective?

    I do not crown empiricism as the only way, but as a method of inquiry resulting in consistent objective data, it is perhaps the best and most refined.
    I do not think it is wise to simply abandon empiricism. It should be mastered by the inquirer and from this mastery evolved to an improved state, yielding increasingly precise data and grounded in a deepened and more valid epistemology.

    Mythological patterns and transformations, analysis of psychological deep structures and processual prototypes are key to the effort, but in the end they must meet some kind of evolving empirically scientific standard.

    Meanwhile it is well known that myths develop from dreams, and that the primordial "mental" state of humanity seems to have been some kind of "dreamtime".
    Indeed. None the less we cannot wake up from a dream, write that dream down, and assume that what has been written down is necessarily logical and valid simply because we dreamed it. There is a trapdoor in this statement and I hope you exploit it.

    Ashera: Reconstruction already implies something new; but why not evolution?
    Reconstruction explicitly implies imitation, but in an empirical sense it is indeed something new. The point is, new to what ends. Yes, evolution along a logical, valid, and internally consistent paradigm.

    Ashera: If the process is based in "truliness" it must unfold and hierarchize itself. No self-appointed slyboots anymore.
    It unfolds and hierarchize's its self regardless of what any individual says or does, or appoints himself as.

    Ashera: There were many forms of christianity. The monotheistic variant originally was one among many. Only consider the Pistis Sophia.
    The most useful form won out. Like how an advantageous mutation will win out over dis-advantageous mutations through the sheer fact of natural selection.

    PendaMercia: Ancient Germania was an emergent network civilization and christianity served to extend this network in ways that the old religion could not have even touched.

    Ashera: How to prove that?
    A proper response would certainly derail this thread, and should be a thread in its self. So I will constrain myself a less proper response to save space and time.

    Ancient Germanic culture was a self-organizing complex system with emergent properties. Ancient Germanic culture lacked entirely the kinds of coerced hierarchy that unfolds as the social and legal classification of individuals in most other cultures. There was no internal effort to control the people and direct them to a specific ends. Instead, every element of society was emergent, from economy to law, to greater political structure. The political body being a loosely organized assembly of free men.

    As an emerging network-civilization, ancient Germania was Connectionist.

    In its (then) current (though rapidly evolving) state of organization, this paradigm began to assimilate some of the organizational features of foreign (Roman mainly) paradigms in a self-valuating way.

    As Christianity was assimilated it became organized in an institutional way after the connectionist paradigm of the Germans. From there, Germania and Christianity simply fractalized and exponentiated throughout the world. Germanic monotheism (aka institutional christianity) as a blend of the incredible vigor and main of cultural Germania, and the rather stable and strict organizing principles of Romanism was an indomitable force.

    This is not proof, but to what method of inquiry do you ask that I prove this point? Empirical Science being apparently rejected, what form is best?


    PendaMercia: Now we have a fully developed and 'mature' network civilization and from this the folkway begins to dawn as an emergent phenomenon its self.

    Ashera: Do you know that there never had been a peace treaty between the Saxons and Holy Roman King Karl? In principle we are still at war...

    Ashera
    There can be war between separate elements of a network civilization without breaking either the network or the civilization. In fact, to the ancient tribes, warfare was a central way that they connected to one another. Connections as a whole amounting to a network. Battle as the way people are made closer, not more distant, bonds forged in battle, the paradigmatic blade being sharpened with the entry of each new Brother to Valholl.

    Note: If I am slow to respond to any response to this post, please understand that I am now engaged in three or four such lengthy threads or sub-threads and wish to give each an interested attention instead of a rushed reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    This is something I always wondered about. It is said that christianity built up a network and without this network of unity nothing of our (today) 'used-to' behaviors would have been possible, and mainly with that is meant large scale trade and trading relations.

    But: there has always been trade, people travelled to india, mongolia, greece and even northern africa to trade, long before christianity was even invented. So this unifying aspect wasnt really necessary. And in a very basic way, a common language would have served the purpose of 'unifying' and making trading easier as well as imposting a whole new culture and religion upon the people.
    But how do you impose a common language? The old tribes did not have much in terms of organization other than the spontaneous order that emerges from complex systems. And in its self, that is beautiful beyond imagining. But it doesn't come close to touching on anything like accomplishing the imposition of common language. The ancient Germanic tribes were not motivated by conquest but by glory and greed. Interaction with Rome introduced this idea of conquest as limitless satisfaction of both greed and glory.

    Even so there was no common language other than that known to rulers and ranked members of the religious community. Information was not 'officially' disseminated in any Germanic tongue, it was disseminated in Latin. So an 'official' coerced hierarchical network was established; from and through this official network organically grew an 'unofficial' folkish network. So the former served to greatly increase and expand the latter. We don't see the official network begin to weaken too much until the era stumbled into by John Wycliffe. From that (and other sources) the seeds of the Enlightenment are sewn and begins to grow what we have now as a mature network civilization.

    It wasnt maybe forced upon the people in the first two hundred years of missionising in northern europe, starting around 1000 (Denmark), but from 1300 it became much more aggressive, and that missionising happens also with the sword is no secret, and this is brutal force. The politeness of the benedictines of the earlier years were replaced with aggressive soldiers, who didnt tolerate a no anymore. They tried to prohibite the old rituals and later they burned people or drowned them or bound them onto wheels if they refused to abandon their native rituals and culture.

    Even it is wasnt an imperative given in the original christian belief, the system of christianity wasnt to that time much more than a control instrument anymore. It was already degenerated to a power system, which was mainly created already with Konstantin in 380. And it was intentionally composed that way to secure the power of the leaders.
    It was accepted in as much as no People can be coerced into the system of Government they submit themselves to. Even given a program of genocide in certain cases. If, for example, the Saxons did not want to be christian, than why did Widukind eventually submit? Why did he not die in battle and be replaced by a dozen Widukinds?

    I dont think that it 'served the people better' and that many of our ancestors chose christianity on their own, not least because it contradicts lots of the values that kept their communities together. Maybe it wasnt always with the sword, but when your suddenly appeared landowner blackmails you by denying everything to you (land, payment, whatever), you are forced nonetheless.
    Political institutions are like biology in that what provides for the greatest likelihood of survival and propagation will win out against any competition. In this sense, Germanic Monotheism served the people of that time the best.

    Bear in mind that it was not an Arab or Jew who came riding from the south to awe the pale morons and cut them down to stumps. It was Germanics, speaking a Germanic tongue, and using hybrid Germanic ideas. Consider that: conquered by Germanics speaking Germanic language, administered by Germanics speaking a Germanized foreign tongue (late/medieval Latin).

    It is incredibly important to accept that Western Christianity is not a foreign thing imposed on us, but rather a Germanic reaction to a foreign thing, that we imposed upon ourselves.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Ashera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, June 15th, 2009 @ 08:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Cherusci
    Ancestry
    Phalian
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Cherusci Fristat
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropologin
    Politics
    free and democratic
    Religion
    Shamanic
    Posts
    66
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    PendaMercia: I agree it is pointless to simply imitate something. Science does move quickly after a slow-kickoff, but a single generation is not enough.

    Ashera: Mimesis and poeisis are the driving forces in cultural processes; and any mimetic interpretation already implies a new chapter of the story.
    If you say that "a single generation is not enough", such an assumption is pure extrapolation.

    PendaMercia: We say true. True to what? Not true to arbitrary criteria and subjective impulses and perceptions, but true to to something timeless, consistent, and logically valid. The 'true and ancient folkway' isn't a direction in this sense, it is a predicate. Only when we can say the predicate is right can we say that progress from that predicate is right.

    Ashera: I do not use a concept of "truth", but one of "truliness". "True values" are only possible within stringent mathematical formulations or mechanical systems. Applied on humans such systems are mortal.
    Why "subjective impulses and perceptions" are arbitrary? Only because the mechanist dogma of objectivity demands that? And then, what is "something timeless"?

    PendaMercia: Linguistics is central to this whole thing because it is ideas that we concern ourselves with in constructing a 'true' worldview.

    Ashera: I do not think so. Linguistics, same with mathematics, is a subdiscipline of what we could call "human sign behavior".
    Sure, a constructed worldview could be true, but only in mathematical sense, but not in the sense of emergent evolutive systems. Even if it could be possible to find an algorhythm for a new evolved capacity, this is only possible in retrospect. Consider the science of history: the prognostic capacities are more than meager.

    PendaMercia: Between a bad model and a good one, the choice is the good one.

    Ashera: In a pragmatic sense there is no choice, you simply have to use that what is on hand.

    PendaMercia: Empirical Science is useful in assuring that the results of our inquiry are not arbitrary and subjective.

    Ashera: Not everything under this sun is empirical.

    PendaMercia: Following mythological traces, analysis of psychological deep structures- these are methods of inquiry? If as methods of inquiry they are not empirical, than from epistemology do they arise to spawn results that are not arbitrary and subjective?

    Ashera: Sure these are methods of inquiry. Empiricity is a dogma, based in 19th century thinking. Meanwhile even mathematics knows very well about it*s limits and forces on structural studies. This turn has to do with new findings in physics as well as in neurology, psychology, anthropology etc.

    PendaMercia: I do not crown empiricism as the only way, but as a method of inquiry resulting in consistent objective data, it is perhaps the best and most refined.

    Ashera: Often "objective data" are not only a means of measurement but one of classification and suppression as well - this is the other side of the coin. A society submitted to objective data only tends to develop to homoeostasis.

    PendaMercia: I do not think it is wise to simply abandon empiricism. It should be mastered by the inquirer and from this mastery evolved to an improved state, yielding increasingly precise data and grounded in a deepened and more valid epistemology.

    Ashera: I do not abondon that, but we should limit it*s validity to dead systems, or subsystems like metabolism etc., but in a very cautious way. The use of "deductive logic" is very limited. Cooking or to drive a car for example are deductive capacities, but who could deduce the cook or the driver? And who could say that season to taste is an objective capacity?

    PendaMercia: Mythological patterns and transformations, analysis of psychological deep structures and processual prototypes are key to the effort, but in the end they must meet some kind of evolving empirically scientific standard.

    Ashera: All reality affecting actions are empirical, whether we have a theory for that or not. And if an action is based in some dream or vision, it is still effective.

    PendaMercia:...we cannot wake up from a dream, write that dream down, and assume that what has been written down is necessarily logical and valid simply because we dreamed it. There is a trapdoor in this statement and I hope you exploit it.

    Ashera: It appears to me that you reduce logic to deduction.

    PendaMercia: Reconstruction explicitly implies imitation, but in an empirical sense it is indeed something new. The point is, new to what ends. Yes, evolution along a logical, valid, and internally consistent paradigm.

    Ashera: You do so as if the paradigm would be something outside yourself. Evolution along an external paradigm is not possible, because evolution does not care top-down-constructions.

    PendaMercia: It unfolds and hierarchize's its self regardless of what any individual says or does, or appoints himself as.

    Ashera: Surely it is dependent on communication. We have no other means.

    PendaMercia: The most useful form won out. Like how an advantageous mutation will win out over dis-advantageous mutations through the sheer fact of natural selection.

    Ashera: What is natural selection in a complex society? What is nature?

    PendaMercia: Ancient Germanic culture was a self-organizing complex system with emergent properties. Ancient Germanic culture lacked entirely the kinds of coerced hierarchy that unfolds as the social and legal classification of individuals in most other cultures. There was no internal effort to control the people and direct them to a specific ends. Instead, every element of society was emergent, from economy to law, to greater political structure. The political body being a loosely organized assembly of free men.

    Ashera: This is pure assumption. You cannot extrapolate anything refering to a cutted down process of self-organization.

    Ashera

    PendaMercia: If, for example, the Saxons did not want to be christian, than why did Widukind eventually submit? Why did he not die in battle and be replaced by a dozen Widukinds?

    Ashera: Why he submitted? To prevent a mass slaughter near Verden. The lection of Vercingetorix was not forgotten.


    Ashera

  8. #28
    Account Inactive PendaMercia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 11th, 2009 @ 09:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    East Prussia, Saxon England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Western PA
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    hired gun
    Politics
    will to power
    Religion
    Odian
    Posts
    137
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrodnand View Post
    We can't and we will never know with absolute precision how heathen culture was 2000 years ago. What we know is what was/is being reconstructed. Also there are small elements found in several aspects of germanic folk culture nowadays that have not been influenced by foreign christian elements.
    Absolute precision is not a concern, knowing enough to form a strong predicate is. Maybe it is left to a matter of opinion, but I do not think that predicate is strong enough as it is.

    I will concede that through the three of you I am learning that we have to try and work with what we got. Good people and good ideas are an excellent start to any project. My fear is of the growth of an entity that is not what it says it is and is likely even detrimental to its own stated intent.

    Take a few children entirely away from society and raise them up in the "wilderness" while teaching to them several aspects of heathen culture (at least as much as we know) throughout their education.
    The result would be individuals totally incapable to adapt to modern society but those individuals would be closer to the nature of the ancient germanics than any one of us.
    Adaptability was a central orienting principle of ancient heathen culture. I think they would do better in our modern society than most of us do.

    The greatest difference between ancient germanics and us was that they were closer to Nature and they had a close relation with the natural world around. This allowed them to perceive and to think the way they did which was totally different than ours. Such a simple difference was enough to let a culture evolve in a totally different way than the rest of the "civilized" world.
    I will say now without equivocation that this is a Vanic viewpoint. Gullveig has been slain not three times but three thousand times. This is essentially the same argument Vanatruar have been having with me for the past twenty years. The movement seems stuck at this point.

    To address your point- tell me what this Nature is that you speak of. Is it that which we may coerce to our will without risk of disharmony, or is it something else? Being at peace with nature to the point where our will is defined by it, penetrated by it, strikes me as a kind of ergi, and I want nothing to do with that.

    I think the ancient Germans were close with nature to the extent of dominating it and having their will with it, sharpening their wits on it.

    The criteria should be not to mix foreign elements into heathenism and "stay on track". The track is germanic heathenism, as much as it is reconstructed from it. For ex I don't apply to eastern esoteric elements just because some aspects are apparently similar or because there is a gap in heathenism and I want to fill it with it.
    This seems to be a reaction to something that was not said. No one said to mix foreign elements into it. How can you distill what is foreign if you don't know what is not foreign? I asked you what the criteria for Germanic heathenism is, and you said the criteria for Germanic heathenism is Germanic heathenism. That is not good.

    That's true but this isn't a general rule, and the fact we are all influenced more or less by modern society is not a barrier and doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility for one to understand the meanings found in our traditions, mythology and sagas.
    I don't disagree with this.

    I consider any strictly determined system as destructive towards heathenism. Laws are determined strictly but not the spiritual values. Spiritual values were unwritten and they were "built in" in the germanic common sense, but not because there was a system that determined these values, it was simple common sense that made germanics for ex to exclude the unworthy and praise the brave.

    Any strict system would undermine the free spirit of a heathen individual.
    I agree with this as far as the rhetoric is concerned, but it really is a statement without much substance. *cringe*. It sounds like the start of a system of valuation, but isn't quite there. I understand what you mean by 'unwritten', 'built in', 'common sense' etc, but this particular paragraph is easily ripped apart by a determined critical analysis. I have no desire to do that.

    You have to define the difference between 'laws' and 'spiritual values' and how they interact with each other. What is a 'strictly determined system'? You mean a deterministic system? I call that kind of system naturalist and am with you in thinking that it is destructive to Heathenism.

    The system I advocate is progressive, not deterministic, it is organic in so much as it is emergent but even this organicism is a reaction to nature that is determined by Will, not a reaction to nature that is determined by nature.

    To gain information and to learn about them yes, but to practice the craft is something that should come later. It's the same thing as not giving a sword to a boy until he's incapable to master his own emotions and thoughts.
    MY boys will not touch runes or look too long at them until they have proven themselves committed Asatruar and more than that, sapling Odians. But I only have three boys, other peoples boys are their own concern.

    That path is an ordeal, the weaklings are sorted out quickly. Odhinn, more than anything else, quickens the process of people and things becoming what they are. I have no problem with mental and spiritual boys in man-suits shredding their psyche on 24 blades, if it means the ones that make it through quicken the process for us all. More business for the madhouse and less aptrgangr walking the streets is all

    It was forced, we have historical facts that when one leader converted all his followers followed him in the conversion. Most of the time they didn't follow him of free will but because the king commanded it that way to his people. Also there were good examples for spreading the "word of the savior" with fire and sword. I don't think they just simply abandoned their native beliefs for some semite fanatic religion which values were alien to them completely.
    Either they were converted by force either they were convinced by priests to convert for a certain amount of material profits, but I absolutely doubt that they took up christianity because they considered it "better" or more convincing than their own native beliefs.
    I addressed this at length in posts to Velvet and Ashera above. I will add though that it is a disgrace to be a victim, that any kind of victim-mentality is absolutely counter to any value you want to attribute to any notion of Germanicness.

    "They had no choice". Falling on your sword is a choice. But if that is what everyone did, I would not be alive today to think these 'heathen' thoughts. Their genes would not live today. Christianity served to propagate those genes and even the ancient ideas, else it would never have won out.

    The Germanics who pushed christianity were simply stronger than those who wanted to remain heathen. Germanic Monotheism- at the time- simply developed superior means of dominating its foes than Germanic Polytheism.

    The reason for developing christianity into an institution was mostly for material profits and to take material advantage of people's faith. The church had no real holy goal or saving manking from sins but to turn people into good decent tax paying citizens under the authority of the church.
    The church and the Germanic leaders that 'forced' them into christianity. Clovis and co. hardly had to have a cross shoved down their throats to grasp onto what any ambitious German would grasp onto at the time: the thing that would ultimately satisfy his lust for wealth and glory.

    What christianity served for was to lay down the foundations of capitalism.
    Those were laid down by the ancient tribal legal system, not christianity. Christianity just sped up the process. The ancient economic system is capitalism without the capital- a primitive free market economy.


    To be honest I'm quite sick and disappointed of this "fully developed and 'mature' network civilization" where the main pillars of the network are not more than unworthy materialistic pigs. What I support is the traditional rural setting. But of course this idea would be considered absurd under such circumstances in which the world is today. However, that doesn't change the fact that the cradle for a successful folk culture, let alone heathenism, would be in a world organized in rural settlements.
    Interesting, though I disagree. The main pillars of the mature network civilization are the macro version of the ancient tribal system. What erodes them are 'unworthy materialistic pigs'. Ramped materialism in general, an over emphasis on techne, a general self-loathing.

    A world organized in rural settlements may be the way to go. Though our conception of 'rural settlements' are probably different.


    They leave it because democracy allowed more liberalism and so the authority of the church is significantly lessened. Now that there is no master with a whip,
    Germanic masters with Germanic whips. The church never had an authority that was not given it by willing Germanic peoples.

    people are realizing that they are "free" and after a 1000years of spiritual enslavement I don't wonder why people are confused when it comes to spirituality and turn to anything and consider it as "their religion", such would be anything material, fashion, sexuality continuing with sciences, buddhism, islam, etc. Most of the people fall out from the frying into the fire and I see a clear decadence in general about human spirituality nowadays.
    The majority of people by definition are not the wisest. Most people are good honest people. They only need to be properly lead. I find fault in someone only on the rare occasion that it serves a productive end. I am always a little ashamed to simply fault someone pointlessly.


    I don't see why should people pretend that they are christians when they are not. However I partially understand what you mean, I've met christians who never talked to me again when they've found out that I'm heathen but I've also met other christians who were interested in my views and we could have a normal conversation where their curiosity was more important than putting labels on certain ideas.
    People should be more brave and wear their views proudly. I've never felt shame for a moment because I'm heathen. I'm proud of this ancient heritage, why should I hide it under popular beliefs just to be accepted by society?
    You shouldn't hide anything, but you also should not find fault in those that do. They are not as strong as you and probably take your attitude as exemplary, if only you allow them to and don't make them feel like trash for their relative weakness. Who wants to follow even an admirable man (or woman ) who posits the collapse of his ancient religion on their own generally accepted tradition, and thinks they are garbage? The problem of accountability aside (not being a victim), people usually do not want to hate the social institutions they grew up with and will not walk a path that requires such hatred, even if they agree (in terms of ideas) with that path.

    Note: If I am slow to respond to any response to this post, please understand that I am now engaged in three or four such lengthy threads or sub-threads and wish to give each an interested attention instead of a rushed reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anfang View Post
    "PendaMercia: This is aided by learned men, those who have sought and found, who can articulate the entire process. A small group that guides a larger group of those who have made themselves worthy through their own efforts. "

    And let us speak now also of Learned Women also, if you please.
    Indeed, both are meant by the term 'men'. It is not a gender bias so much as a
    rude convenience.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Hrodnand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 @ 07:06 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Ancestry
    Austria/GermanBohemia
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Project management consultant
    Politics
    Far Centre
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Adaptability was a central orienting principle of ancient heathen culture.
    Adaptability to the natural world around and to the circumstances within, which was not yet overly influenced by man such as it is today.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    I think they would do better in our modern society than most of us do.
    I think they would be really disappointed and they would degenerate over time as not being prepared for such a drastic change of life.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    I will say now without equivocation that this is a Vanic viewpoint. Gullveig has been slain not three times but three thousand times. This is essentially the same argument Vanatruar have been having with me for the past twenty years. The movement seems stuck at this point.
    Please don't put a label on it. I'm not a "vanatruar" nor do I define my ideas as such.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    To address your point- tell me what this Nature is that you speak of. Is it that which we may coerce to our will without risk of disharmony, or is it something else?
    That's the other side of the same coin.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Being at peace with nature to the point where our will is defined by it, penetrated by it, strikes me as a kind of ergi, and I want nothing to do with that.
    As man is not superior to Nature but only takes a part of it it would be wise to coexist under it's rules. The ancient heathen germanics did that, they coexisted with Nature under it's rules and adapted to it as much as a human being can do while avoiding regression.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    I think the ancient Germans were close with nature to the extent of dominating it and having their will with it, sharpening their wits on it.
    They didn't dominate it, they have coexisted in harmony with the natural world around. Living in harmony with something is not the same as dominating it. They've sharpened their wits on it until the point of domination.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    That is not good.
    That is good because I accept that the sources are limited and before we turn heathenism into a "progressive cult" we should first make ourselves "home" with it. Progress will come by it's own, you don't have to force it consciously like "I want to progress", you strive for the better and progress is made by it's own, that's how it goes in heathenism too, until people don't focus enough to "practice" heathenism at it's best, knowing as much as we know now, there won't be any progress, even if we desire progress because some might think that what we reconstructed so far is too "old-school".
    You can't force progress because there are gaps and gaps need time and serious consideration before they are filled with anything, if we rush to conclude and establish systems for the sake of progress we might fill the gaps with fatal errors that would eventually deconstruct the spirit of heathenism.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    I agree with this as far as the rhetoric is concerned, but it really is a statement without much substance.
    What substance is what you would require? That these would be written proofs? You won't find many of that.




    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    It sounds like the start of a system of valuation, but isn't quite there. I understand what you mean by 'unwritten', 'built in', 'common sense' etc, but this particular paragraph is easily ripped apart by a determined critical analysis. I have no desire to do that.
    And I have no desire to establish any system of valuation



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    You have to define the difference between 'laws' and 'spiritual values' and how they interact with each other.
    Established laws are exterior and they exist outside of individuals and they are usually written as rules to be accepted by the rest of the community while spiritual values exist inside individuals and they are not (and can not) be strictly established as laws. For ex you can't establish a written law that contains that it's obligatory for everyone to be brave or else because that is spiritual enslavement and would result a crash in the spiritual aspect of the community. However, you can establish written rules about material rights that a cheated woman has, because that offers certain rights to the community (which are already considered rightful by the community in such case as cheating), so it's beneficial for the community while the first one would be not if you take in consideration that people are not sheep and have feelings and thoughts on their own.
    Also spiritual values are more individual and personal traits than for ex. an act of outlaw.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    What is a 'strictly determined system'? You mean a deterministic system? I call that kind of system naturalist and am with you in thinking that it is destructive to Heathenism.
    My problem with a strict system is that it's like an operating mechanism that functions via previously established logic, where heathenism is not exclusively based on established logic but it has several essential spiritual aspects that one must experience by its own, that means that the system would automatically exclude those essential aspects and this would result in the collapse of heathenism.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    MY boys will not touch runes or look too long at them until they have proven themselves committed Asatruar and more than that, sapling Odians. But I only have three boys, other peoples boys are their own concern.
    I agree but that doesn't change it that there are more and more people who don't take the runes seriously. That is because more and more people, who would have nothing to do with runes start to use them, this is a common phenomena where quality is undermined by quantity, yet it must be reduced somehow, and the best way to reduce it is taking an opposition against it, not through means of violence of course.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    I addressed this at length in posts to Velvet and Ashera above. I will add though that it is a disgrace to be a victim, that any kind of victim-mentality is absolutely counter to any value you want to attribute to any notion of Germanicness.
    This is not about shifting viewpoints so that we can avoid to accept the fact that heathen germanics were victims to christians. I know it would be more comfortable to know that they weren't but the facts and history tells us other.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    "They had no choice". Falling on your sword is a choice.
    Indeed, but that goes if one has nothing to loose. The saxons fought vigorously as long as they could, but they've felt the loss they would get if they were to sacrifice every single warrior.
    It's an act of wisdom to know that there are times when you have to put your sword down and also to know when to put your sword down.

    But you're never happy or satisfied when you have to surrender and surrender doesn't mean at all that you embrace the new ideas with arms wide open such as christianity.
    There's a new system that is forced upon you that you will never accept as long as you live, if you are truly devoted to your own native beliefs, yet you accept it because you are forced into it.
    Your children are "born in" the new system but they will never know truly what the real costs of surrender are for their lack of experience.

    That's why the after coming germanic generations could never understand what they've lost and they've taken christianity as their own native belief.
    The only ones who realized the real loss were those heathen warriors who fell or survived while fighting the christians.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Christianity served to propagate those genes and even the ancient ideas, else it would never have won out.
    Genes are not enough in themselves and they mean almost nothing without the right ideas.

    I'm doubtful to think that christianity propagated ancient heathen ideas.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    The Germanics who pushed christianity were simply stronger than those who wanted to remain heathen.
    They were not stronger but superior in numbers and that's not the same. If there were as much heathen warriors than the christians had I'm quite sure that the direction of history would have been different than as we know it today.




    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Germanic Monotheism- at the time- simply developed superior means of dominating its foes than Germanic Polytheism.
    Germanic Monotheism as you call it developed itself into a cunning profit-based orientation with strict authority using superior force.

    I don't consider that superior in quality.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Those were laid down by the ancient tribal legal system, not christianity. Christianity just sped up the process. The ancient economic system is capitalism without the capital- a primitive free market economy.
    That doesn't change the fact that christianity contributed to capitalism in a largely significant way.




    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Interesting, though I disagree. The main pillars of the mature network civilization are the macro version of the ancient tribal system.
    You mean ancient germanic tribal system? I don't see much of that in this "mature network civilization" we have nowadays.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Germanic masters with Germanic whips. The church never had an authority that was not given it by willing Germanic peoples.
    Then I put it this way, germanic priests who were convinced by priests of Rome, a side that was formerly enemy to germanics, and these germanic "masters" who took material profit on their own people's spirituality and betrayed them by serving causes alien to their heathen communities.
    The fact that someone is germanic by blood is not a guarantee for an individual of honor and worthiness.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    You shouldn't hide anything, but you also should not find fault in those that do.
    In these times I think one should not take an excuse to be weak or ashamed of his/her own views.


    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    They are not as strong as you and probably take your attitude as exemplary, if only you allow them to and don't make them feel like trash for their relative weakness.
    First, I don't want people to take my attitude exemplary because that would probably undermine their own individual progress.

    Second, I never said that I make people feel like trash for their relative weakness. My objective is to motivate them for individual bravery and this is more important to me than to make them feel inferior.

    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    Who wants to follow even an admirable man (or woman ) who posits the collapse of his ancient religion on their own generally accepted tradition, and thinks they are garbage?

    Again, I didn't consider them garbage, but I have my opinion about such a behavior and I still consider it as weakness.
    Besides, a true person will always be motivated in a positive way by any sign of weakness, because of (and here comes) the ever going struggle for individual improvement.



    Quote Originally Posted by PendaMercia View Post
    The problem of accountability aside (not being a victim), people usually do not want to hate the social institutions they grew up with and will not walk a path that requires such hatred, even if they agree (in terms of ideas) with that path.
    That is because most people don't have the guts to admit how much error there is within our social institutions. Hatred has it's place in life, but to admit something erroneous in society and to act against it one doesn't have to feel constant hatred towards it. Constant hatred makes people blind and it's never constructive on long term actions.
    :Überschöpfung:



  10. #30
    Senior Member Anfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2009 @ 10:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Niedersachsen , gijon
    Subrace
    Nordic amd Ibero-Celtic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    New York USA
    Gender
    Family
    not happy to be divorced
    Occupation
    All ways working
    Politics
    Community Volkisch
    Religion
    Old Religion - European
    Posts
    869
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Sorry for all the typos- I am fxing them now.

    ]
    Adaptability to the natural world around and to the circumstances within, which was not yet overly influenced by man such as it is today.
    Yes




    I think they would be really disappointed and they would degenerate over time as not being prepared for such a drastic change of life.
    There was a time when the fullness of spirit was considered a great thing. now not. It kills a vibrant soul to live in an eternal shopping mall supplied by Chinese and owned by Jews.





    Please don't put a label on it. I'm not a "vanatruar" nor do I define my ideas as such.
    I thought you might rejoinder thus. Afixing labels only works when they fit really well. In your case that one did not. Now me, I hitch rides with vanir Girls driving lamborghinis through the highway of life



    As man is not superior to Nature but only takes a part of it it would be wise to coexist under it's rules. The ancient heathen germanics did that, they coexisted with Nature under it's rules and adapted to it as much as a human being can do while avoiding regression.
    I like that last part, "while avoiding regression"-



    They didn't dominate it, they have coexisted in harmony with the natural world around. Living in harmony with something is not the same as dominating it. They've sharpened their wits on it until the point of domination.
    Interestingly, until the advent of Southern infiltration, Jesusism, and capitalism, Germanics lived with the flora and fauna of our lands in harmony.
    Compare that with the africans who burn down their forests for charcoal or for crop rotation, or the chinese who over-populate. Interestingly in South american countries where they *do not* emigrate to the US and the population is amerindian, there is also no population explosion. the indians are good about living in balance with nature. In brazil, they are destroying the forests, the Imigrants invading the US are from Mexico (mixbloods) dominican republic (blacks) and colombians, not to mention african caribeans.

    Now, there are no bears left in Germany, or Wolves. sadly, only in zoos. Now instead of bears there are Ghanians.




    That is good because I accept that the sources are limited and before we turn heathenism into a "progressive cult" we should first make ourselves "home" with it. Progress will come by it's own, you don't have to force it consciously like "I want to progress", you strive for the better and progress is made by it's own, that's how it goes in heathenism too, until people don't focus enough to "practice" heathenism at it's best, knowing as much as we know now, there won't be any progress, even if we desire progress because some might think that what we reconstructed so far is too "old-school".
    You can't force progress because there are gaps and gaps need time and serious consideration before they are filled with anything, if we rush to conclude and establish systems for the sake of progress we might fill the gaps with fatal errors that would eventually deconstruct the spirit of heathenism.
    Maybe it's just me but in rural areas in West Sachsen and Schleswig-Holstein there seems to be a natural organic thing that is related to the old ways. I cannot really explain it in words. But then again, I am prejudiced.





    [





    My problem with a strict system is that it's like an operating mechanism that functions via previously established logic, where heathenism is not exclusively based on established logic but it has several essential spiritual aspects that one must experience by its own, that means that the system would automatically exclude those essential aspects and this would result in the collapse of heathenism.
    Like music. a symphony is made of many parts, melody and countermelody,
    rythm, and multiple instruments. for free people of a higher order, the conductor are the physical laws , time and the interconnectedness of a Volk
    in a society at once in tune with nature, yet going towards a haelig future,
    the composer is the self in a state of grace and awareness. That same awareness the allows for the harmonious living with nature without digressing.. (having to do nothing with the jesusist "state of grace).

    Having said that, I believe that germanic studies and the study of philosophy
    and philology are very very useful, but they are far from being central.


    I agree but that doesn't change it that there are more and more people who don't take the runes seriously. That is because more and more people, who would have nothing to do with runes start to use them, this is a common phenomena where quality is undermined by quantity, yet it must be reduced somehow, and the best way to reduce it is taking an opposition against it, not through means of violence of course.
    We cannot really stop them. We can do what the orthodox Jews do when neophyte jews or madona try to do Kabalah. ...Roll the eyes .



    This is not about shifting viewpoints so that we can avoid to accept the fact that heathen germanics were victims to christians. I know it would be more comfortable to know that they weren't but the facts and history tells us other.
    I did not know there was a question about this. Particularly old wise women were killed often by the Christians .



    Indeed, but that goes if one has nothing to loose. The saxons fought vigorously as long as they could, but they've felt the loss they would get if they were to sacrifice every single warrior.
    It's an act of wisdom to know that there are times when you have to put your sword down and also to know when to put your sword down.
    A big part of the story is that saxon nobles were bought off by the satraps of Pabst "Innocent" and yes of course, the ones that did fight were outnumbered.(Boy what i would not do to be able to go back in time with a few crates full of MG2s and give them to Widukind...)

    But you're never happy or satisfied when you have to surrender and surrender doesn't mean at all that you embrace the new ideas with arms wide open such as christianity.
    Even now people remember KDM not fondly.





    I'm doubtful to think that christianity propagated ancient heathen ideas.
    But some would have us think that jesusism is somehow "Germanic".



    They were not stronger but superior in numbers and that's not the same. If there were as much heathen warriors than the christians had I'm quite sure that the direction of history would have been different than as we know it today.
    Yes there were more of them but bribery of the saxon nobility on the part of KDM (pushed by Rome) played an important part.




    Germanic Monotheism as you call it developed itself into a cunning profit-based orientation with strict authority using superior force.

    I don't consider that superior in quality.
    "Germanic monotheism" ????? I would not call it that. I would call it
    "Pseudo-spiritual toyotas."




    That doesn't change the fact that christianity contributed to capitalism in a largely significant way.
    With jews the catbird seat.
    "Wenn vor uns ein feindliches Heer dann erscheint, Wird Vollgas gegeben Und ran an den Feind!
    Was gilt denn unser Leben
    Für unsres Reiches Heer? (Ja Reiches Heer)
    Für Deutschland zu sterben ist uns höchste Ehr!"

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Thursday, July 4th, 2019, 05:07 AM
  2. Runes of Greenland: Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent
    By Blutwölfin in forum Runes & Sinnbildkunde
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Thursday, May 23rd, 2019, 06:26 AM
  3. Writing With Runes - Using Consecutive Runes
    By Paradigm in forum Runes & Sinnbildkunde
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, August 19th, 2010, 05:40 AM
  4. Runes on the Bewcastle Cross (Mystery Runes)
    By Oswiu in forum Runes & Sinnbildkunde
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 10:06 PM
  5. The Nature of Folk-Religion / Earth-Religion
    By Siegfried in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 12:05 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •