Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us?

[size=117]Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us?[/size]

My name is Arminius. This name has a certain meaning, but it refers also and especially to a man who lived from about 17 B.C. to about 21, and this man stands especially for b[/b] freedom and b[/b] heathendom, pagandom. Arminius saved freedom and heathendom (pagandom); if he had not done this, Europe would have developed in a different way. We don’t know, whether it would have been better or not, we merely know, that it would have been different.

b[/b] Arminius is a well choosed name for freedom because Arminius fighted slavery. He and many German tribes fighted the civilised barbarism, the Greek-Roman civilisation, at that time represented by the Roman Empire.

Caesar and Arminius lived nearly at the same time - Caesar died 1½ decades before Arminius was born -, Caesar was the embodiment of getting powerful by money, and Arminius was the embodiment of getting powerful by virtues (e.g. of his tribe). Arminius defeated the ancient Romans because the virtues defeated the money. Rome at this time was merely a decadent civilisation and ruled merely by money. If Caesar had not defeated the Gauls, he would have lost all his power and probably committed suicide. Today the Dollar Empire has very similar problems as the ancient Roman Empire had at Ceasar’s time.

In the year 9 Arminus defeated the ancient Romans by annihilating three legions of Augustus’ army - Augustus was the first „Ceasar“ after Ceasar (himself!) -, and Augustus despaired of that fact.

At that time the ancient Romans had reached their maximum of power, but had similar birthrates as we have today because they were just as decadent as we are today. They tried to replace the lack of children by slaves who were captured by war and brought into colonies. But at last the decadence had been stronger, so the Romans became less and less, the Germans became more and more in the Imperium Romanum, and at last the Germans conquered the Imperium Romanum also by military actions.

b[/b] Heathendom (pagandom) is what the civilised barbarians and the so called „barbarians“ have in common - so it was, so it is, and so it will be (except if all culture, history will end [=> #]).

A culture with civilisation produces very much more entropy than a culture without civilisation. In the meantime the whole globe and nearly all human beings are civilised. So the problems are so huge that we have to ask ourselves whether we really can continue this way of life; and if we don’t really can continue this way of life, we should ask ourselves whether we are able to change this way of life and how we should do it; and if we are able to do it, it could be better to do it as heathens (pagans) again?

Should we become heathens (pagans) again? Or not? Or is it indifferent?

([size=94]This OP is dedicated to Dan~, the new moderator of this subforum. Congratulations, Dan~!)[/size]

“He who reigns in darkness rules the world.”
Does blindness bring more freedom or less?

But of course, he often must establish darkness first.
People are made stupid so that they cannot mentally see very well, so that someone can reign in their darkness.
If society became completely heathen - no organization, no clear understanding of what is going on anywhere (“dark age”), he who brought it about is most likely to be the one reigning in such darkness (having prepared for it). Would that king of darkness cause more freedom or less? He thrives on blindness (chaos), thus cannot abandon it. Does blindness bring more freedom or less?

How do you really define “freedom” in such a case?

We live in an age of international capitalism. This has bad points, but it seems we have to choose either the poo or the crap, when it comes to empires and systems of government. Instead of the capitalists trying to conquer governments and enslave people overtly, they bribe governers and set up shops in each country. I think it would be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and at that point it could kinda be like some of the barbarians style of life. But there is no mass drive in that direction.

I’ve already become a Heathen (Pagan). There really is no choice, if we are to reclaim the world from the foul evil of monotheism.


As slavery!

We live in an age of globalism which is a system of both capitalism and socialism. Please don’t underestimate the socialism!

Perhaps it would really be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and perhaps it could really be like some of the barbarian’s style of life, but I am afraid that the civilised barbarians would not want us to do that because they want us to be consumers, social welfare beneficiaries, but no farmers or other freelancers, self-employed persons.

Why is there “really no choice, if we are to reclaim the world from the foul evil of monotheism”? Would you mind going into detail, Maia?

Socialism getting popular requires promotion which requires money which requires capitalism, right now. That is why I underestimate it.

If the majority of the human beings is not heathen - and currently the majority of the human beings is not heathen -, then it would be a disadvantage to be heathen, wouldn’t it?

Since most of the population of India, and a pretty high proportion of the population of China, plus Japan, other parts of Asia, large areas of Africa etc. are Pagans of one sort or another (e.g. Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, Animists and so on), I think it’s probably fair to say that the majority of humans are Pagans.

I don’t think that the question, whether there is a majority of humans or not, doesn’t depend on fairness, but on knowledge. However, it is probably difficult to say because of the lack of certain knowledge in this case. The non-heathen religions are known in the whole world, and so the heathen religions are influenced by them. Nevertheless, I would say that the heathendom is coming back, but I don’t know whether it represents a majority again.

Maia, do you remember what I firstly asked you?

I would appreciate a response.

I wouldn’t call Hindua pagans, though some of them would be. They may be pagan in the sense of NOT christian, but beyond that they are quite different from most paganisms.

Are nowadays pagans really still pagans? I mean: they are so much influenced by non-pagan issues, so that they are no more able to behave, to speak, to think, and especially to believe like pagans, aren’t they?

There was a timewatch special on the bbc, in which archeologists showed that stonehenge was built for healing purposes, and was not a satanic temple et al! Indeed, I dont see the need to demonise our spirituality at all, we pagans dont have the devil nor demons, all our deities are like us, having many sides ~ but are not in a black and white dichotomy.

for that reason It seams that Abrahamic religions made the world a worse place to be in spiritually.

they also made it better in some ways, or people wouldn’t have gone for it in the first place. However I do feel there is a need for reconciliation, to learn from one another.
Most people here in britain are not religious because both have let them down perhaps?

Anyways, lies and hypocrisy don’t achieve much imho [e.g. all pagans are the baddies], so its time people took a second look at their ancestral spiritual birthrights.

And why?

Lies and hypocrisy are what power is made of.

Because there are spiritual connections to objects which are then called demonic, e.g. in films on such subjects we are led to believe that there are demonic forces at work, when in fact there are simply unresolved issues ~ to entities/souls which have long since past yet left a ‘presence’ respectively. Hence things are made worse by attributing a demonic element as with poltergeists, where the reality of such things is far more benign.

Sure, power is composed of lies and hypocrisy, hence the need to front them up with the reality.

What are non-pagan issues? Pretty much any system of belief is under assault, all the time. Hell, distraction and stress are creating signal to noise problems for any beliefs. Beyond that humans are now bombarded by a mixed, internally-contradictory mish mash of beliefs and paradigms. Anyone has to work to hold this off, unless one is a kind of cork on the waves, which a lot of people choose or are. But there is no reason, that I can think of why pagans are worse off in this mess.

Religion is certainly both a collective and a personal issue, but the collective side is more powerful and retroacts to each person, so that one doesn’t really know, whether one is religious because of personal or because of collective decisions, interests, motives and so on. I think most people don’t believe what they want to believe personally, but some do. Most people believe what the rulers want them to believe, and merely some people believe what they want themselves to believe.

So for the most part religion is political. De jure and de facto religious freedom is merely those people guaranteed who live in states with a judical and collective guarantee of religious freedom, protection of minorities. So if you want to be a heathen (again), you have to know whether your state, if you have one, does guarantee you your heathendom, your heathenish life. If you live in a Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is guaranteed. If you live in a Non-Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is not guaranteed.

Is there still (or again?) any heathenish state in the world like it was in ancient times, for example in the polities of the ancient Greece, the ancient Rome, the ancient Carthage and so on?

the only current ‘pagan’ state I can think of is the hindus of india. …but they wont use that term even though it simply refers to a belief in many gods, which they clearly have. on the other hand, it depends on what we classify as a state, there are over 80,000 druids worldwide [at least, ~ that’s just those who are part of an order]]. its a small state but I don’t see the difference, a state is pretty meaningless as culture transcends race and vice-versa.

India is also an example for the fact that the whole globe is influenced by the Western culture.

It struck me that this term ‘Western Culture’ has a real hodgedpodge of stuff stuffed into it.

Today the biggest impact is corporate culture. Corporations as they are today did come mainly out of the West. But it is hardly culture.

There are a lots of other things spreading from the West. VArious media products and services - which then you could argue are affecting the ids of the world.

Then there are the wonderful products of culture - which do occasionally crop up in those media. Great novels, music and so on. No need for these to replace other cultures’ arts/etc.

The word „culture“ has different meanings, and unfortunately the history of the English language elimintated some of this different meanings. Nowadays the word „culture“ merely means „education“ and the state allocation of „literature“ „music“, „theatre“, „science“ and so on, but not „literature“, „music“, „theatre“, „science“ on their own (by themselves!), and also not religion. In the German language the word „Kultur“ is used in both ways, so when I used the word „culture“ in my last post, I meant both (a) „education“ and the state allocation of „literature“ „music“, „theatre“, „science“ a.s.o., and (b) „literature“, „music“, „theatre“, „science“ on their own (by themselves!) and religion.