Templism: A New European Paganism

[TannenLG]

Are you the author? The line you draw is very indistinct. What significant difference is there between "our Indo-European peoples" and "ethnic Europeans"? The second quotation is very clearly aspirational, what "should" be. Specificity or not tribally, the general European tribe seems to be prescribed towards these qualities in the second passage, towards the chagrin of the first.

If I strain to ignore these objections: How do you distinguish between what can be freely stated: just the inherent nature of the European, and what shouldn't be disclosed to avoid unduly influencing European individuals? I'm unsure what the second passage specifically leaves unstated to avoid this kind of influence.

[Guest]

Are you the author? 

No. 

The line you draw is very indistinct. What significant difference is there between "our Indo-European peoples" and "ethnic Europeans"?

I can’t believe you are asking this. @The_Author explain this one.

The second quotation is very clearly aspirational, what "should" be. Specificity or not tribally, the general European tribe seems to be prescribed towards these qualities in the second passage, towards the chagrin of the first.

But the second doesn’t conflict with the first. Basic literacy will allow you to acquise that fact. Trying to bend the words and say “general European tribe” misquotes the passage and willfully misinterprets it. There was a distinction made. “every aspect of every tribe.“ is used in the quote you used. Not only that but the title of the quote says “The Tribe of Ethnic Europeans.” It literally states that you are to interpret tribe as ethnicity in this passage.

If I strain to ignore these objections: How do you distinguish between what can be freely stated: just the inherent nature of the European, and what shouldn't be disclosed to avoid unduly influencing European individuals? I'm unsure what the second passage specifically leaves unstated to avoid this kind of influence.

The thing about “unduly influencing” certain Europeans refers to specific ethnic and not general racial traits. It can be concluded that the author felt the greater universalizing identity of “Indo-Europeans” was much more desirable than the specific ethnic identity, which he stated, was prone to flux(ethnic identity). All of your complaints are based on your inability to accept that the author spent more than five minuets on his work and didn’t use the same phrase in both passages because he meant for it to be understood as distinct categories.

[The_Author]

@The_Author explain this one.

I am glad we are getting into doctrinal disputes. It can only be a good sign. 

Actually neither of you are quite right here. The reason there is no contradiction, is that if you look in the context of each passage, you will see that the first passage is about "the European folk" and their folk-characteristics, while the second passage is about traditional Indo-European culture. In the second passage I am not describing the internal folk-traits of the European tribe. I am describing a cultural tradition that is natural to us, that was distorted by Christianity. None of the things listed are tribal characteristics. All of them are ideological characteristics: "tribal, virtue-concerned, intellectually concrete, philosophically substantial, internally honorable yet externally treacherous, dharmic, elitist, willful, striving, enterprising, immortal glory seeking, hero-revering, world-loving, conquering, pantheon worshiping ways"

Maybe "internally honorable yet externally treacherous, willful, striving, enterprising" can also be construed as non-ideological traits, but it is no matter. I am not, in this passage, telling anyone how they are. I am in fact telling them that they are not presently this way, and they must return to being that way.

[The_Author]

Real and true... If you come, fun is guaranteed!

Indeed, and we have our little band assembled here in preparation. Literatus, MA Zoomer, Wolf, local Dutch fellow, and I. I believe Svevlad will come soon.

https://x.com/IqGroyper/status/1720521277893476834?s=20

[Guest]

A meeting of the finest pajeet minds

[Guest]

I see that you finally stopped being autistic and made a marketable book cover.

[The Green Groyper]

Reading the Nietzche post on the substack. Brilliant work. I have not seen a critique of Nietzche so clearly and eloquently expressed.

Its my contention, that Nietzche and Nietzcheanism is ultimately hazardous if we say we are concerned with the survival of the European race. And this article does a wonderful job of demonstrating why.

[Guest]

I have read the whole Canon. Given the way the Author treats "commenters", I wanted to read the whole thing first. The first interesting thing is that it seems like its written with the long view in mind. It talks about how its supposed to be interpreted, how temples have to be set up, things like that. It is clear that The Author envisions it as something far in the future.

The second thing is that he calls it "volkisch", but it isn't volkisch at all. It is folkish, yeah, but it doesn't call on any influences from the actual volkisch movement. It is influenced by analytic philosophy and satanism. I'm not making that up, he says it in Q&A. I kind of regard it as like "Anglophone volkisch", maybe it's the first text like that ever, we could call it "folkish". Same basic conclusions but it starts from a very different place.