8611
A place for Aryan (European) Folkish Pagans
Religion and politics
Some say "Stop bringing politics into religion!". This is nonsense. Historically the two were never separated. Religion dictated the tradition politics tried to preserve. Politics supported the religion so that it would never crumble under the inner or outer threat.
The idea of separating politics and religion is a modern one. Even today there is no truly secular countries. We still end up having sacred texts (e.g. Constitution), laws based on moral tradition, a separate class of those who defy said laws and traditions etc. It is religious.
Politics without religion are baseless. Religion without politics is weak.
So, how did you like Rowsell’s video on Scythians?
Читать полностью…
Wotan and his brothers slaying Ymir
Читать полностью…
Good points raised by Aryan Paganism on the status of modern Gothi. In a time of broken initiation by authority, we as modern priests need to look to other means. Wisdom is foundational in this, and it will take a lifetime to become truly wise, to then initiate others.
If you know a Gothi, one who is truly dedicating their life to service to the Gods; support them. For every ten shills, one may be a true custodian of the faith.
Only time will tell - it is the arbiter of all things.
Top part of an iron sword-scabbard decorated in La Tène style with what appear to be gazelles; 3rd century B.C. Discovered among the votive deposits at the ancient Gallic ritual site of La Tène; Neuchâtel, Switzerland.🇨🇭
Celtic Europe - channel link (please share!): /channel/CelticEurope
Above all we should beware of a taste for the exotic.
Why seek elsewhere for what exists at home? Pilgrims to Katmandu and others like them have the trump card of responding that there is no longer a Western tradition and the sole means of emerging from their dilemma is by entering the Eastern tradition. It should be said that no great efforts have been expended by these types of people to seek out such a Western tradition, a tradition, moreover, that great pains have been taken to mask and conceal for the sole benefit of Judeo-Roman Christianity. Yet this tradition exists within our reach and requires only a little effort to be rendered visible.
J.Markale
Norwegian fairy tales illustrated by O.Shtanko
Читать полностью…
To complain about the use of the word "Aryan" because of the belief that it's not what they called themselves, or that it's a term misplaced because of modernity, is to ignore the fact that the Indo-Europeans certainly did not call themselves "Indo-Europeans", either. That's most definitively a modern term (and one that doesn't even make sense). The PIIs didn't call themselves "Aryans", either, that's an English word. They called themselves by words related to that word, but existing in different forms in their own language. Even if "Aryan" comes only from Indo-Iranian, to use it for "Indo-European" cuts to the heart of what's implied and even being communicated when we discuss things such as the Aryan Invasion: that the invaders did not spring up out of the ground like mushrooms, that they weren't self-contained. It casts the Aryan Invasion in a very specific light, and tethers them directly to their ancestors from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, connected by blood and language to other Indo-Europeans. It does more good to present them as they were: descendants of their fathers, and kin to whom they are, then it does to have something self-contained. The term has always been, rightly, the "Aryan Invasion", not the "Indo-European Invasion", which would be necessary to achieve the same effect, because "IE Invasion" would be self-referential and itself very confusing. The Indo-Iranians, coming as Aryans, distinguished from the Dravidians, and speakers of other languages in the region, did not exist on their own, but sourced their culture from their IE fathers. As such, I think it's useful to take their ethnonym and see it as stemming, whether in fact or in spirit, from their fathers. They get who they are; they get their Aryan-ness, from their fathers, and if they do, I say we do too.
Critiques about it being as if we were to call the English "Americans", or the Beakers "Romans", also fail: those names are ridiculous because they're tied to geography; to specific places. "Aryan" is not like that, and never was.
The way to de-stigmatize the term is just to use it exactly how it's normally used when scholars of Indo-Iranic do their little song-and-dance when introducing the term, or to not even bother. Desensitize people to the term through proper use, in contexts where the Indo-Europeans are discussed, with no mention made of Hitler or National Socialism. Just plough ahead that way, and the term will be redeemed in the eyes of the general public. "Aryan" is so much more versatile than the clunky, and hardly accurate, "Indo-European". It gets around all sorts of other problems, such as terminological disputes about "Eastern Europe" versus "Eurasia", or "Indo-Hittite" versus "Indo-European". Being a self-contained, self-referential term makes it impervious to those sorts of goofy games.
Imagine a conversation between two people:
"So, Indo-European languages are spoken in the range between India & Europe?"
"Well, no, the range is broken up by Mongolic, Turkic, Semitic, Kartvelian and other types of languages."
"Oh, well, it's spoken in all of India, then?"
"No."
"All of Europe, surely?"
"No."
"Just Europe and India, though, right?"
"No... they're also spoken across the Americas, Oceania, Southern Africa, and other colonial locales, too. They're also spoken in West Asia and the Caucasus. Historically, they were also spoken in Anatolia, the Altai, Tibet, and other places outside the geographic belt running from Europe to India"
"Why do you call the languages 'Indo-European', then?"
"I don't know. The Nazis, I guess"
I don't think the reasoning given for opposing the use of the term "Aryan" in place of "Indo-European" makes sense. First, it actually represents a departure from the norms of how things are normally grandfathered in as terms for use. I assume, therefore, to be consistent, we would also have to embrace "Syro-Arabian" over "Semitic", as the Bible, the source for the name of Shem, also lists the Canaanites (a Semitic-speaking people) as being descendants of Ham, and unrelated to Shem? Likewise, we'd have to abandon "Iberomaurusian", "Hittite", "Germanic", "Tocharian", "Paleoindian", and others, even though people don't get confused by those terms?
"Aryan" is an English term. It's an English word, learned from Indo-Iranian, but not borrowed straight out of it. It's also reconstructed (and lacks a Nuristani cognate, as it so happens) from the available evidence, but as many academics & independent researchers alike have pointed out, the word likely does go back to PIE. Saying that we can't take the word "Aryan" because of its specific presence in Indo-Iranian/PII reminds me of Muslims who say that we can't spell the word for their holy book as "Koran". Any complaints by them are irrelevant: the word in Arabic is "اَلْقُرْآنُ"; therefore, it's never a misspelling to present it, Romanized, as "Koran" anymore than it is "Quran" or "Qur'an". Similarly, the word in Sanskrit is "आर्य" (to give one example from the II languages), but "Aryan" in English is not even a transliteration, so it makes less sense than it does for the Muslims to quibble about the representation of the word for their holy book, because "Aryan" is a derived term, intended to be functional, useful, and descriptive in English: the word may be what it is in a given II language, but we Anglophones have decided to take it and present it how we have for our own purposes, something untethered to them, their uses, and their feelings on the matter. It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope I've made my point. We're not bound by their linguistic rules or what they understand certain words to mean or imply. Oftentimes nowadays, the people are simply called "Indic" or "Vedic" for that branch, and it works out just fine. The Iranics/Iranians are called as such, and it works out just fine. Those terms are robust and useful in English, and don't need "Aryan" to clear them up. Indeed, to call them "Indo-Iranic" is to actually conform to how the sub-branches are usually/more-often-than-not termed: Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Hellenic. It's true that some branches, like Anatolian, don't employ that nomenclature format, but "Indo-Iranic" does conform to it, and I think it works just fine.
There is no good reason to insist on "Aryan" for the PIIs or IIs, over "Indo-Iranic" to begin with, because "Aryan" already has baggage, and those other terms have utility. It already comes with disclaimers about how "silly" Hitler was to use the term, yada yada, and because the word is still retains an outside use, or even sees the bulk of its use, amongst NS people/racialists today, every time they hear that word, people are going to feel the "bite", and a portion of the audience will always be thinking about the Nazis. If that's the case, and scholars muscle through with its use anyway, then I don't see the purpose in needing to avoid it for the whole groups, especially since the whole song-and-dance with the Nazis will be done anyway, Nazis will remain on people's minds anyway, and the term will see its use retained among modern-day NS folks anyway. If we're going to bother, we should go all the way.
Scythian woman from 2-3 AD by V.Plenkov
Читать полностью…
Gai Gudilin was one of prominent folkish Pagans in russia who promoted physical health (he worked as an instructor) and moral conduct.
Sadly, was eventually prosecuted and imprisoned by the regime after the torture and murder of Maxim Tesak who was Gai’s friend.
Folklore hates priests and chuch.
Read more fairy tales to get the tradition perspective.
...the term druidism was already used by the medieval Irish to designate, in a very vague fashion, anything connected with the druids, and that this term, for our contemporaries, covers everything concerning the Celtic religious domain, intellectual speculations, cultural or magical practices, various beliefs, and the so-called profane sciences that have come down from the Celtic priesthood. But it is accurate to say that the word druidism remains very murky to the extent that it designates not only a religious system but a vast intellectual, technical, and spiritual tradition, common to all Celtic peoples and characteristic of Celtic societies, that was lost, not through the fault of Romanization—which Ireland never knew—but because of Christianity.
J.Markale
Westerners today, panicked by the conviction they have lost their spirit's deepest roots and have been deceived by a form of Christianity that no longer responds to their aspirations, have a tendency to seek refuge in the philosophies of nonbeing that play such a large role in Eastern religions. As honorable as it may be, this course will resolve nothing; the Orient has its own logic and system of values that are not necessarily the same as those of the West. On the contrary, it seems that the Eastern mentality is in fundamental opposition with the Western state of mind.
J.Markale
Air-maiden (povitrulya)
by B.Jirov
How christian was Europe? Adam of Bremen, being a priest, was biased, but still had to admit the facts:
all its inhabitants still blunder about in pagan rites. Otherwise, so far as morals and hospitality are concerned, a more honorable or kindlier folk cannot be found.
Slavs and the Swedes still appear to observe in their pagan rites
everyone who now believed would quickly relapse into paganism
Kindly received by the Slavs, contrary to his expectations, because they were pagans
Finland 🇫🇮
#TTN_Nature
❄️ @thetruenortherner
The Snoldelev Stone is a 9th-century runestone that was originally located at Snoldelev, Ramsø, Denmark.
It is 1.25 meters in height and is decorated with painted scratches depicting a design of three drinking horns as well as a swastika.
The inscription on the Snoldelev Stone shows an early version of the Younger Futhark. Like the late Elder Futhark Björketorp Runestone, it uses an a-rune, which has the same form as the h-rune has in the long-branch version of the younger futhark. The Snoldelev runestone also retains the elder futhark hagalaz rune
for the h-phoneme. Another feature from the elder futhark is the use of the ansuz rune, which is here specifically used to symbolize a long nasal a, often transcribed as "á" which is similar but not identical to its Scandinavian descendant "å". The last character in the runic text is damaged, but is clearly a maðr rune and represents the first use of this rune for an 'm' in Denmark.
[1/2]
A Sámi offering.
Illustration from Lapponia (1673) by Johannes Schefferus (1621 – 1679).
I don't care about the recent dalai lama scandal. buddhism was always a universalistic cult just like christianity which is why it became one of major world religions. Ultimately they all serve the same masters.
Real religions are ethnically exclusive. Everything else is subversion.
Norwegian fairy tales illustrated by O.Shtanko
Читать полностью…
^ It’s not as long as it may seem and I highly recommend you give it a thorough read. The topic is important and the knowledge are worth it.
Читать полностью…
To come down hard in favor of "Aryan" solely for the IIs is to implicitly or explicitly make a claim about the status of its reconstructability in Indo-European, which I think is misplaced. I do believe the PIEs had such a term: I think the evidence holds up under assault. To call the ancestors of the Vedic people (funny how that term just works, and works because it's narrow) "Aryans", as well as to call the Iranics "Aryans" (which I've heard done before); i.e., with the same term, implies to a reasonable person that they are part of the same narrow subgroup, and they're not. There's a cleft, and it's wrong to conflate them. So, if "Aryan" is to be used for the ancestral group, it should not be used for descendant groups, in English. Obviously in II languages themselves, the reconstructed root, *Áryas, will pass through the sound change laws present in each respective tongue, so there won't be any confusion, but in English, it can certainly give the wrong impression. If one attempts to justify this by pleading the reconstructed ethnonym, one has to realize this is special pleading, because one is making an unjustified statement about the reality of the word in PIE itself. If it's okay to call all peoples in the II linguistic horizon as "Aryans" in English because of the reconstructed name of their ancestors, bearing in mind that this would make it okay to call the Nuristanis (whose branch sustains no descendant) and other modern II peoples who don't use a descendant term to refer to themselves (such as Kurds, Marathis, Jats, Pashtuns, etc.) as such, then it stands to reason that anybody who comes from such a descendant population should be fit to be called "Aryans", or "the descendants of Aryans", whether or not they currently refer to themselves in such a manner. In other words, if it's okay to call all the Indo-Iranics "Aryans" because of reconstruction, one is inherently implying that the reconstruction for PIE is a false one, which I don't believe it to be. In any case, it can't be definitively proved that it's not, and the term has come to have connotations in English, which I'll reference again later.
We already use synonyms & cognates to describe the speakers of II languages which I think can continue; if people know "Iranian" comes from a word which means "Aryan", descending from a root in that language, I think they can understand that a similar term, contrived in English, can mean the same thing. That solves the problem right there while salvaging the history of the word in English, and the meaning it's acquired in the minds of so many; a meaning I hardly think is unjustified. The use of words is the heart and essence of descriptivism. Anyway, to my point here: There's no reason we couldn't come up with a term like "Ahryan" (capitalizing on the pronunciation some people prefer), Ariosic, Aryasic, Irasic, Arisic, Aryamanic, Vedo-Iranic, Asian Aryan, Classical Aryan, etc. I think Indo-Iranian works fine itself for English speakers, and I use it myself precisely because I don't want to conflate different subgroups of that category. I use "Aryan" in the sense that it connotes "Indo-European" only; "Aryan" should be used to connote a specifically Indo-European sense, or cast things in that specific comparative or ur light.
A lot of you have probably read or are in process of reading Tom Rowsell’s (Survive the Jive) recent post on the supposed illegitimacy of Aryan being as a racial term. Me and Tom have a mutual friend who has written a great response, one I agree with entirely. Here it is:
Читать полностью…
Spirit of the forest by Olena Kulchytska
Читать полностью…
Only Pagans don’t have a good God who forgives sins. All actions are to be answered for. If you did something wrong—fix it. And never give up. Know that if you want something put your heart and effort and anything will be achieved.
Gai (Alexei) Gudilin
Bronze belt found in a Gallic woman’s grave in Steinheim am Albuch, Baden-Würtemberg, Germany; 7th century B.C. 🇩🇪
Celtic Europe - channel link (please share!): /channel/CelticEurope
One of the most disgusting practices in christianity is deathbed conversion. It was and still is popular. christcucks are so obsessed with converting that they have the gull to approach a dying men and use his moment of weakness. To them there’s nothing morally wrong with it.
Читать полностью…
Considering that @survivethejive will soon release his video on Scythians I think it's a good time to revisit some of the stuff I wrote/translated/shared. Just type Scythian in the search and enjoy.
Читать полностью…
Valkyrie by A.Klimenko
Читать полностью…