Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The Fanatical Heathenism of the Saxons and the Return to our Saxon Identity

  1. #1
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Blod og Jord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Denmark Denmark
    Engaged parent
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    266 Posts

    The Fanatical Heathenism of the Saxons and the Return to our Saxon Identity

    The Saxon people were amongst the last of the Germanic peoples to be converted to xtianity. Unlike the Icelanders the Saxons fought to the death to preserve their heathen religion and overturn the advances of xtianity. Xtianity had to be imposed upon the Saxons by fire and by the sword. They did not meekly agree by voting to swap religions as happened in Iceland in about 1000 CE.

    Widukind (also known as Wittekind) led the Saxons in defence of their heathen religion against Charlemagne (Karl der Große) in the `Saxon Wars` from 777 to785 CE. The rebellion against Karl`s Franks was no doubt precipitated by the disgraceful destruction of the Irminsul sanctuary in 772. Unlike many of the other Saxon nobles he refused to appear at Karl`s court in Paderborn in 777. The Frankish Annals refer to him as a `traitor` and an `insurgent`-words still used by today to demonise the opponents of the Zionist-American NWO.

    The Saxons retaliated against the Franks (the NWO of the day) by destroying xtian churches, much like the Vikings did a little later. Karl desperately wanted to incorporate the Saxon lands into his empire, much like the NWO is doing today in eastern Europe. Widukind`s companion and fellow Germanic heathen was the Danish Sigfred who was possibly the famous Sigurd Hring. TheNibelungenlied records an alliance of the Saxons and Danes against the Franks led by Siegfried. Gudmund Schuette in his Our Forefathers the Gothonic Nations Volume II refers to:
    "Saxon-Danish political co-operation against the Franks from the sixth to the ninth century."

    Warfare between the Saxons and Franks intensified between the years 782-784 and this culminated in the Massacre of Verden, Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) in 782 when 4,500 Saxon rebels were captured and massacred for their refusal to capitulate to Karl and accept the alien religion of xtianity. National Socialist Germany honoured these heathen martyrs and a memorial known as the Sachsenhain (Saxon Grove) was erected in 1935 which still stands today. The memorial takes the form of 4,500 boulders to represent each of the martyrs beheaded by the butcher Karl.

    Widukind translates as `child of the woods`. We are reminded of the English Saxon Robin i` the Hood, who was also considered to be an `outlaw`, fighting against foreign Norman domination and is also considered to be a Woden archetype.

    So persistent was Saxon heathenism that in the 9th century a special baptismal vow, the Old Saxon Baptismal Vow had to be worded when converting the Saxons to xtianity:
    "End ec forsacho allum dioboles uuercum and uuordum, Thunaer ende Uuôden ende Saxnôte ende allum thêm unholdum thê hira genôtas sint."
    "'I renounce all the deeds and words of the devil, Thunaer, Wōden and Saxnōt, and all those fiends that are their companions".
    The Anglo-Saxons were likewise noted for their `fanatical heathenism`. Gudmund Schuette makes the interesting point that although the Angles were only a minority with the Jutes when compared to the more numerous Saxons yet it is their name rather than Saxon which was eventually adopted by the English nation.He speculates that this was because of the `bad reputation` that the Saxons had because of their `fanatical heathenism`. Today we should take this as a compliment!
    "The Christian Anglo-Saxons, already accustomed to the supremacy of Anglian priests, naturally felt and emphasised their difference from the continental Saxons who had fallen into ill repute because of their remaining heathen for centuries longer. The contrast between Anglians who were Christians, and Saxons who were heathen fanatics, which at one time was noted in Britain, was later insisted on as distinguishing the united Anglo-Saxons from their continental kinsmen. This circumstance certainly discouraged the British Saxons from emphasising their own national name, which had in international use fallen into disrepute because of its association with the abominable savagery of paganism. They were henceforth compelled to prefer the name of Angles as a safeguard against being confused with their former brethren.
    "First of all the Saxons excluded the use of their own name through their heathen fanaticism. The consequence was not to be wondered at. The strange thing is that there should have existed, here, as in German Saxony, such a degree of fanaticism as to prove a dead weight in the competition for a higher civilisation. Fortune had bestowed on the Saxons a port like London, and that part of the British coast most directly facing the Continent. But a century of obstinate paganism delayed the development of civilisation among the South Saxons so much that the Angles, though less favoured by natural conditions, got ahead of them and secured for the name `English` an inalienable supremacy."

    Schuette throughout his work emphasises the `fanatical heathenism` of the Saxons and this is something that we as Saxons or Anglo-Saxons today, who hear the call of the blood, which is none other than the call of the Gods should take heathen and racial pride in. Indeed I would go so far to say that as it is the Saxon element that predominately made up the Anglo-Saxons in England we as heathens should consider the abandoning of the name of `English` once and for all. I will here enumerate my reasons for this:

    1. The ethnic English are predominately Saxon in origin, not Anglian.

    2. The Saxons unlike the Angles clung tenaciously to their natural religion. There were of course honourable and notable exceptions such as King Penda of Mercia.

    3.English or Anglian is wrapped up in xtianity via Anglicanism. The two are almost synonymous.

    4.Non-English immigrants and their decendants are increasingly identifying themselves as being not just `British` (a civic nationality) but as `English`.

    5. One who is not Germanic can not possibly identify him or herself as Saxon and this helps to preserve both our ethnic and religious identity.

    6. The term `Saxon` alligns our racial and religious identity with that of our continental Germanic brethren and away from zionist `Britain`.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 18th, 2018 @ 10:27 AM
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    246 Posts
    This sentence from the first comment sums up my view, really:

    "It would be an odd thing for Angles, native Britons and Danish descendants to adopt the name of the Saxon, whose lands are as much their own as theirs are."

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member

    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Angles, Frisians, Saxons
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Hannover Hannover
    Between your ears
    Once More Unto the Breach
    ex-U.C. of England & Ireland
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    215 Posts
    The premise of the OP is bollocks.

    1. The ethnic English in Britain are predominantly Angle, compared with Saxons in Germany, Jutes in Denmark and Frisians in the Netherlands. All are Ingvaeonic, but whereas the Romans and Britons were concerned with Heathen Saxons, it was not due to a Papal conspiracy to rename the Folk to English after Angels, which is ahistorical and pretty ignorant, letting the Papal legend control our own self-designation. Angelfolc is the name held by those of Germanic heritage in Britain, not Saxons. Similarly, Welchmen call their land Cymru, not Wales. So what? The Saxons had most of the power and wealth, because of their locations near the capital and ruling the Holy Roman Empire alongside the Franks. That's hardly Heathen, Widukind notwithstanding. Penda was nothing compared with Offa and everybody knows this. I, of course, side with Northumbria and Deira in particular, against Mercian treacheries alongside Celts, who belong on the other side of the Dyke.

    2. The Saxons and Danes joined forces for a Wendish Crusade and crushed non-Christian religion. Hamburg-Bremen forced the Holy Roman Imperial Church onto Scandinavia, against the will of the native Germanic Heathens who preferred English priests for conversion, having been made familiar through the Danelaw in Angle kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia, at a time when only Wessex was resolutely Christian and resisted under Alfred the Great. The Church of England is based at Canterbury, a Jutish city, but it was meant at the time of conversion, to be based in London, aka Middlesex, a part of Essex at the time--a civil war of some sort prevented this plan from coming to fruition. York is the secondary capital of the Church of England, indeed an Anglian city.

    3. Anglicanism is tied to the Kingdom of England, regardless of who is in charge. Puritans, largely from the Danelaw, sought to overthrow the ancient Saxon Church, because of its Norman corruptions alienating them from conformity and uniformity. The most fervent believers in mere Christianity were politically incorrect opponents of the cafe Christian moral degeneracy of rakish aristocrats in charge of the Established Church. Before and after Norman rule, most of the government was in the hands of Saxon families, with Angle families mostly considered country bumpkins in "the provinces" outside London, a Saxon city above all. London is no more England than Paris is France, although, to suggest otherwise, certainly suggests a measure of Francophilia on the part of the Saxons who intermarried with the Franks more than Angles did before 1066.

    4. Do not Turks call themselves both Germans and Saxons on the Continent? How is this supposed to be any different, just because it's in the Isles? Besides, monarchs have come and gone from other countries and claimed to represent and speak for us English. Even Philip II of Spain was crowned King of England. Was he English? He wasn't even Spanish, so much as Austrian. Identity and loyalty ought to have no walls between them. What's wrong with loyalty to Englishness, or Britishness, no different than Saxony or Germany? Why forsake our identities, giving into usurpations? Ought Jutes of Denmark disavow themselves of their heritage, because of jihadists hunting down cartoonists? What of the Frisians in the Netherlands? Do they quit being Frisian and Dutch, because the murderers of Fortuyn and van Gogh threaten to take their country away from them? We'll be left with nothing and nowhere to run and hide.

    5. Why Saxons in particular? Why not Jutes or Frisians? After all, if we are supposed to choose another Ingvaeonic tribal affinity, more predominant in another country than Britain, why does it have to be German, as opposed to Danish or Dutch? Also, if you really want to pick a name that the muds couldn't identify with, it would be the Danes or Vikings in general, because they were the body of the "Great Heathen Army" whom opposed Alfred the Great's Christian Saxon army, leading to a stalemate that lasted until 1066. Supposedly, English and Frisian are the closest, rather than English and Saxon, or English and Jutish. It must be remembered that Yngvi-Freyr is the dual Heathen namesake of the Angles and Frisians--where did the supposed provenance of the Saxons' namesake get them? At least Jute has a common origin with Geat and Goth from Sweden, the last Germanic land to embrace Christ. Again, where was Saxony on the timeline of Germanic lands to convert? Certainly before Scandinavia. Saxons bullied the Danes in general as they did the Jutes in particular, forcing conversions as displays of homage and fealty, both in Germany and in Britain. Is this the fault of the Angles, exiled from their Danevirke home betwixt the modern countries hailing Berlin and Copenhagen? Angles didn't commit the Massacre of Verden.

    6. An Austrian-ruled Germany is the supposed model alternative to Britain, is that right? That means a Papist Germany in denial of Luther, opposed to Prussian rule. After all, the idea that Hitler and Zionism are diametrically opposed is what's at hand. Let's keep equating the Reformation with Jewry. How many more times will we witness John Calvin's name be dishonestly edited to be John Cohen, by Jesuit supremacists? What do we Germanics owe the Vatican? Send another Alaric to finish the job!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 133
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 18th, 2020, 11:40 PM
  2. Some Questions About Heathenism
    By Fredericus Rex in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Monday, June 20th, 2011, 11:42 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 12:43 AM
  4. 1 in 5 Moslem Teachers in Austria Are´Fanatical´
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, January 27th, 2009, 07:35 PM


Posting Permissions

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