Saturday, February 1, 2014

Have a Happy Valisblot!

Guest post by Sacred Poetry of Ancient Times

If People want to argue whether this blot is modern or whatnot, to me it is irrelevant, virtually all of our holidays have been renamed so that "modern" Christ followers of the past could overlap them, so why not name them back? A few hundred years from now the direction in which our communities evolve will be contingent on whether us heathens sit idly by, "not wanting to stoop to the level" of our oppressors, or whether you want to claim back the Old Ways and educate the sheep, Lets turn this hallmark holiday into a Heathen family day . Do we want generations to come to celebrate the martyrdom of these weakass "saints"...or to emulate bravery and valor of our ancestors, who refused to just 'lay down and die' like these tortured cult like role models do?

4 comments:

  1. Actually, it's really the Roman feast of the Lupercalia. Make sure to have a bunch of young studs get naked and run around whipping women with animal guts!

    Look, all the ancient folk had important feasts at around the same time because they were more connected to the agricultural (and also astronomical) cycles. Just like today - February 2nd is now "Groundhog Day," the last pathetic remembrance of a Protestant culture for Candlemas (or Purification), also known in Pagan Ireland as the feast of the goddess Brigit. They are all festivals having to do with the dispelling of Winter's light at the mid-point between the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox. Same with the Lupercalia/St. Valentine's/Valiblot - a feast anticipating the fertility of swift-approaching spring after crossing the halfway-point to the Vernal Equinox, with a focus on love and growth and family life. Christian feasts haven't "stolen" anything from Paganism, any more than Paganism stole things from nature and, probably, whatever other variation of Pagan belief preceded the Paganism that ceded to Christianity.

    Martyrdom is not weak; hiding in a rat hole until someone comes to get you because you're scared is weak, sure. Despising cowardice and effeminacy, and prizing truth more than your life - to the point where, in an oppressive culture, you would rather step forward and die to bear witness to your contempt for the Statist goons and your commitment to Truth and your convictions - that is strength. If the early Christian martyrs had picked up their swords and tried to conquer the Roman empire by force, they would have been a flash in the pan. They would have stood forth as being exactly the same as everyone else: hotheads fighting for their little piece of the worldly power pie. Instead, they rose above that, held worldliness in contempt, and converted the emperor himself, and his empire, in less than three centuries. This Christian culture then produced all the greatest art, music and science the world has ever known, while excelling and dominating all other world cultures and repeatedly holding off an aggressive Islam for about 1500 years. I'm proud of my Norse and Anglo-Saxon ancestry... but I don't kid myself; these people were roving packs of brigands until Christianity came - when they became great warriors, great poets, great scientists, great composers. So don't give me this crap about Christianity being weak and the martyrs being "tortured cult role models," as though the complete and total victory of Christianity and its martyrs over every other culture were a sign of its weakness! The spirit of the martyrs is the spirit of infinite, ascending strength that is so high above merely worldly power, that it considers it something laughable and beneath contempt.

    Anyway, just a pet peeve of mine, for people who think that Christianity is a victimhood cult. Modern, late Christianity is, insofar as it is sympathetic with the denoument of Western civilization. But in all Christian history before that, and still for traditional Catholics, Christ's death is a voluntary act of bravery and charity, and the martyrdom of the early martyrs is not an act of helpless victimhood, but a brave demonstration of contempt for the world system and the usurpatious State. And we don't just have martyr saints, once Christianity conquered everything. Then we got saints like Constantine and Charlemagne and Alfred and Canute and David of Scotland and Santiago Matamoros and St. Thomas More and St. Peter the Bear, etc., etc., who were men in public positions of power - kings, chancellors, generals, soldiers, dukes - who had no problem wielding the sword against humanist revolutionaries, crack-pot dissenters and heretics. If you want strong cultural identity that values principles over fads, you will see this in both the martyr-saints and the warrior saints. They are motivated by the same spirit of bravery; only their circumstances are different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This!^^
    You mean Charlemagne the political benefactor of massacre and genocide who only converted on his deathbed? Oh how great the Charles must have been laying siege to ax swinging barbarians in loincloths! Southern Roman papal armies marched against a people defending their land, culture, and children. The Saxons defeated legions and only when threatened with genocide did they surrender. And you call him "great"! What Christian charity! And Christianity, the eastern plague that happens to be identical (mostly, albeit, a little more obvious and with some added bowing and scraping) to previous narratives of Norse, Vedic, and Sumerian texts and oral histories which precede your Messiah by thousands of years? With the names changed (because of course). There are no less than fifteen "Jesus" histories all over the world, as well as the "Noah" (Zithusura in Sumeria) story and many others. Sumeria was occupied by non-Semitic races and only overtaken by Semites (who were earlier shepherd tribes) near the end of the civilization, food for thought. Ancient civilizations like the Sumerians/Egyptians/Minoans/Brithonic/Kelts/Rus all held a complex system of oral history which was recited from memory in metaphor, allegory, or kennings which took several decades to learn. The Bible is based from the Dead Sea Scrolls with many books added/omitted/edited as the El-ites wish, and when it suits their ends. Do the research yourself. Even the most casual observer can see the cracks in Christian/Judaic slave-thought, one really shouldn't even have to mention the logistics. You, proud of your Anglo-Norse heritage? The capacity for enlightenment your ancestors gifted you with has escaped you entirely. Either you are confused or not worthy of the blood you carry. Go peddle Jaysus somewhere else because many don't want it anymore.
    Oh yeah....Heil Tiwaz!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seldom do I see such idiocy and proud ignorance. Well done!

      Charlemagne did battle with Moors and Lombards (no paltry foes), and also with Saxons to the East (who were somewhat easier to fight, I'm sure, but still, it's not like arms disparities were as great then as they have been at some times and places in the last few centuries). So, I don't know why you feel the need to minimize his martial accomplishments.

      Then, when you speak of "Southern Papal Armies" marching on people defending their "land, culture and children," I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean Charlemagne's assisting the Pope with the conquest of the Lombards? Those people were not defending "their" land, but were squatting on land that had long belonged to other people. Then, they started causing trouble for all of Italy, and they deserved what they got. As to his war with the Saxons, once they started making raids on peaceful communities that had converted at the preaching of missionaries like the Anglo-Saxon St. Lebwin, then of course Charlemagne was going to defend innocent people whom the Saxons were molesting unprovoked. They also deserved what they got.

      You demonstrate also your complete ignorance of religion... the only thing you seem to "know" about it, are the half-baked theories and stunning revelations of the obvious, which only seem interesting to people who can't rub two thoughts together. In the first place, Charlemagne did not "convert" on his deathbed; he was baptized on his deathbed, which was a common practice back in the day. People, especially in positions that involved tough moral quandaries, tended to defer baptism until late in life, so that they did not defile the Sacrament.

      As to the rest of it - it's just pathetic. First off, you are irrational and blinded by emotional loyalties, just like a woman. If the "Christian plague" is so identical to your precious Norse heroes, what does that say about them? And nobody knows how old the Vedics, etc. really are... which brings us to the most important point: of course there have always been parallels between religious legends and the Christian Gospel. Anyone who understands Christianity, and the way it understands the term "preparatio evangelica," knows why Christians welcome the similarities you mention between itself and other legends. You're like my lesbian Greek professor, who seems to think that because Mithraism used bread and wine in their rite, this proves that Christianity is just microwaved Mithraism. Stunning stupidity! But here's the key point: whereas stories about Odin and Osiris and Dionysius and Mithras are all just stories, and so their legends make no reference to historical events or people (and are thus of indeterminate age), Judaism and Christianity are founded in historical events, recorded by literate people. And that makes all the difference in the world: unlike the myths of other people, that were shadows of the Truth for all men, Judaism and Christianity is the place where myth became fact, and legend became history. Also important: twelve apostles spread Christianity everywhere between India, Spain, Ethiopia and Gaul. Whatever became of the Greek, Roman and Norse gods? Right.

      God help you. Tiwaz was ground into the mud years ago, and if it took feminism to degrade our society to the point where some people were willing to call upon him again, I'm not interested in having anything to do with him. I suppose we Christians will just have to civilize everybody again... if Christ doesn't decide it's time to come and roast the place, that is.

      Delete
  3. I'd've never imagined that the most important (and perhaps most intelligent) religious discussions would have arisen between Christianity and Nordic Neopaganism on a libertarian nationalist blog. I've always been a Christian and always will be but I perfectly understand the appeal of neopaganism, at least in Europe. I will concede that martyrs for a Jewish messiah would probably not be the most effective cultural defense against Third World invasion. But we must remember that it is the job of liberals to operate in realities they find useful rather than realities that exist.

    ReplyDelete