What is Folkism?
response to Arthur Powell and the Esotericist
Recently, Arthur Powell and the
released articles talking about the intricacies of Folkism. To be frank, the whole discussion interests me because I am active in the Asatru Folk Assembly as an apprentice Folkbuilder for Thorshoff District1, a position that I take great pride in, a decision that has driven me to become a better man towards my family, my countrymen, and to nature. Twenty miles from Thorshoff is Old Bluff Presbyterian Church, where my direct male forefather James Alexander MacMillan is buried. He fled from Scotland and fought in the American Revolution. His sons moved south, slowly making their way to Texas. My father moved us to Indiana. When I travel to my hof, I get the chance to visit living and dead kindred. It’s like a pilgrimage (just like the ones I’ve taken to Scotland and Ireland to visit MacMillan clan sites) and the experiences I have with the fine gentlemen of the AFA have emboldened me in every way of my life, from writing to working out, to becoming more serious as a man of my household and nation. In the time I’ve been active, my state’s kindred has nearly doubled, and the bonds that are forming have the capacity to extend to the next generation who are being born right now. White pills exist. I see them every single month.
Folkism is growing - I have seen it in action, with families and children actively taking part in the folkish revival across America, Europe, and Australia. It is not a religious movement in and of itself. It occurs in the arena of culture with musicians and poets, artists and creators (Sam Shackleton2, ). It can be found with writers who produce quality fiction and non-fiction (J.R.R. Tolkien and Hermann Löns come to mind). There are publications releasing various types of high-quality folkish writings (Antelope Hill3, 4) There are children growing up hearing the stories of their ancestors spoken by the proud lips of their brave parents from groups like the AFA and many others. There are festivals, fairs, games, and moots where folkish Europeans gather to celebrate their heritage and build frith and community. Clearly, Folkism simply hasn’t figured itself out and doesn’t fully understand how to build agency outside of select avenues.
I have a unique take on Folkism because of my lived experience, same as everyone else who is folkish by nature. To me, Folkism is the natural expression of the lived experience of any given folk - it can manifest as art, music, poetry, writing, political theory, philosophy, and religion. This means that Folkism includes all of the lived experiences of the folk and affirms these experiences to create healthy households, cultures, and ethnic polities. Ultimately, Folkism is just a way of life that can be followed in a myriad of ways to create the same end - strong, virtuous, White families and households who maintain strong cultural and social alliances with each other.
As a religion, Folkism not a snapshot in time where we only focus on the dead past (as warned by
5 ) - nor is Folkism an online movement with no ritual between growing households and families (as explained by 6). Folkism is active, not static. It is already being created by the living men and women of Europe who partake in cultural festivities and religious rites with each other based in frith, trust, and shared ancestry. This will build group identity, which will allow us to create agency for our households. This is elementary stuff. This is the “returning to our roots” that has already allowed us to create a bona fide religious and social revival, however small it may seem at first - “enough of this ‘one day’, today is day one”7.FINAL NOTE: I respect every single man involved in these sorts of discussions. We all have our different opinions and experiences, and we may not always see eye-to-eye, but I am just tickled pink to be able to join this dialogue.
This article is from my upcoming book: “The Roots of the Tree: Folkish Apologetics”, although heavily altered for Substack. Here is a list of supporting articles which were greatly expanded and revised for the upcoming book:
What is Folkism?
Folkism is the natural expression of a genetically related tribal group, nation, or civilization. It can be expressed as a religion, philosophy, or simply through culture and tradition and every day acts of life. As a religion, it is closely connected to paganism, or heathenry, but Folkism goes beyond religion to touch upon deep philosophical and political truths. Nearly every single race and ethnic tribe has their own traditional folkish path forged through thousands of years of their ancestors being birthed, living in their tribes, and then dying to leave behind a legacy. That legacy is both genetic and cultural in nature. To many people, our ancestors only leave behind ruins, graves, and buried treasures shown in museums, or Google Images. In reality, our ancestors leave behind everything in our civilization that preceded them or was created by them, and that includes us, their descendants. We are the folk, and so our culture is naturally meant to be folkish.
Folkism is not some evil political ideology for world domination; only globalism, communism, capitalism, and Abrahamic religions desire to conquer and convert the world to their ways. However, modern folks tend to be confused on just what "folk" means, showing that they barely know themselves, and they definitely do not know what Folkism means. The people require an introduction into their own folk and what it means to be folkish. On the other side of things, those who are folkish require a more robust foundation to work from if they desire to see their folk become stronger and healthier.
Language conveys meaning, and the words we use for things oftentimes shapes our understanding of the world. I have a marked interest in observing the etymological roots of words because those roots are like ancestral words, and just like our ancestors shape us, so too do these etymological roots shape our modern words. In the words of the Greek philosopher, Antisthenes:
"The investigation of words is the beginning of education." ~ Antisthenes
Therefore, let us piece together the meaning of these words from their deeper proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots. Etymonline is a reputable website for etymology and I will be quoting directly from it often. Here is what it gives for “folk”:
Old English folc "common people, laity; men; people, nation, tribe; multitude; troop, army," from Proto-Germanic *fulka- (source also of Old Saxon folc, Old Frisian folk, Middle Dutch volc, Dutch volk, Old High German folc, German Volk "people"). Perhaps originally "host of warriors:" Compare Old Norse folk "people," also "army, detachment;" and Lithuanian pulkas "crowd," Old Church Slavonic pluku "division of an army" (hence Russian polk "regiment"), both believed to have been borrowed from Proto-Germanic. Old English folcstede could mean both "dwelling-place" and "battlefield." According to Watkins, from PIE *ple-go-, suffixed form of root *pele- (1) "to fill," which would make it cognate with Greek plethos "people, multitude," and Latin plebes, "the populace, the common people."
Here we find that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root for this word means “to fill” with direct descendants meaning “the people” and following descendants ranging from “nation, tribe, troop, and army” – all of these point to the deeper underlying definition that "folk" means those who fill the nation, the generative force, the creative power. This generative force creates new ranks, new families, and new people who will go on to create more creative generations. Genetically related people connected through their households to the tribes of their nation are the folk of that nation.
The folk are those who fill the nation with common tribes, multitudes of troops, and loyal armies. The folk are family, more or less. They are the living energy of the tribe itself, those people who fill it with children and vitality. Without the folk, there will be no nation, no tribe, and no system for a family to rely upon – no army of uncles, brothers, and cousins to come save the abducted woman, no army of men to defend the people. Who are the people? French grammarian Claude Favre de Vaugelas offers this definition, which highlights the underlying spiritual component: “People does not mean mob, but community represented faithfully by its nobility.”
The folk are therefore a community of freemen who are the backbone of society and civilization, unlike that hodgepodge melting pot of unrelated foreigners who simply dwell in an economic zone with similar cultures born from modernity. In modern societies, native folk are being abandoned for foreigners, which just means that the producers are being replaced with consumers, because we must remember that the word "folk" relates to the generative force, that which fills the nation with people. People produce things in their own lands; foreigners consume things in other lands. In fact, all folk are being turned into foreigners, both in their own lands and abroad – massive tribal displacement has made people foreigners in strange lands where they do not belong, while simultaneously turning the natives into foreigners in their own homelands, turning the host nation into something that resembles a chimera of different bio-spirits.
This is what I mean when I say modern nations are now economic zones with plastic cultures, not homelands for distinct tribes with living cultures. We are no longer represented by our noble cultures. The PIE root for culture is possibly *kʷel-, meaning "revolve, move round; sojourn, dwell" with related words such as "cult" meaning "cultivation of religious worship" shows this etymology clearly relates to the building and growth of lived experiences. From Etymonline for "culture":
"mid-15c., "the tilling of land, act of preparing the earth for crops," from Latin cultura "a cultivating, agriculture," figuratively "care, culture, an honoring," from past participle stem of colere "to tend, guard; to till, cultivate" (see colony). Meaning "the cultivation or rearing of a crop, act of promoting growth in plants" (1620s) was transferred to fish, oysters, etc., by 1796, then to "production of bacteria or other microorganisms in a suitable environment" (1880), then "product of such a culture" (1884). The figurative sense of "cultivation through education, systematic improvement and refinement of the mind" is attested by c. 1500; Century Dictionary writes that it was, "Not common before the nineteenth century, except with strong consciousness of the metaphor involved, though used in Latin by Cicero." Meaning "learning and taste, the intellectual side of civilization" is by 1805; the closely related sense of "collective customs and achievements of a people, a particular form of collective intellectual development" is by 1867."
Folkism is a philosophy and religion that is unequivocally tied to the living bio-spirit of the folk themselves. It includes within its store of wisdom the entire ancestral body and all of the experiences in all of the environments lived by the folk. This is what I mean when I say Folkism is tied to the bio-spirit – anything that covers the entire span of a person's existence will inherently cover the living energy within their genetic group since that energy is tied to the existence of that group. This living energy will be explained later on, but for now I simply need to explain that any study or philosophy that covers the lived experiences of a folk must include the concept of a racial soul, or spirit, owing to the great importance that this concept had for tens of thousands of years among individual, isolated, ancestral households unique to every living person. In simpler words, we have unique histories and spirits pertaining to our individual households, and Folkism seeks to understand and safeguard these unique households.
Ultimately, Folkism has its roots in paganism and heathenry, which in turn has its roots in the deepest foundations of our race, which are obscured to us owing to their primordial antiquity. Folkism is the natural expression of the bio-spirit, and if someone is truly loyal to their tribe and family, then they will be folkish. To be tribal is to be folkish; to have familial honor is to be folkish. This does not mean wearing animal pelts and drinking blood – it means embracing and interacting with the folk and with the ancestral body of the folk.
Folkism is wholesome and life-affirming, not degenerate and life-negating. It focuses on building families, healthy communities, and strong religious bonds to the divine. Who could ever hate such a thing? Europeans were folkish until recent times, and our current degeneracy can be attributed to our lack of folkishness; in this case, correlation probably equals causation. Globalism and transhumanism are directly opposed to folks, to peoples, to tribes – they need consumers and slaves, not proud producers and creative freemen.
As far as Folkism goes when it comes to its modern social impact, it is still in its nascent stages, growing as a fringe worldview among artists, nationalists, and religious adherents. It plays multiple roles in multiple arenas and has antecedents in various folkish cultural activities including the revival and recording of folk music, which is still being continued today with great men such as Sam Shackleton who is a young Scotsman who plays traditional Scottish and Appalachian Gaelic music. Folkish adherents have been at the forefront of religion, social, and political revival in the West, ranging from Guido von List and his successors, such as Steven McNallen, or Else Christensen. These three people have influenced a wide array of right-wing thinkers and influencers, and their impact on the folkish revival cannot be understated. Folkism is growing in popularity owing to the fact that the modern world is failing to provide meaning and context to Europeans who are being increasingly replaced with more malleable foreigners.
How does the public currently see Folkism? Wiktionary gives a long list of definitions for “Folkism" and I think most of them are quite applicable to this growing movement. Here are the ones which I think are the best for Europeans (with my defense in bold):
Folkism
Völkisch nationalism; the desire for a homogeneous population that excludes foreigners and the belief that different racial or ethnic groups have different rights ~ nobody gets mad at Israelis, Palestinians, Africans, or any other groups for wanting their own nations and special privileges in their homelands. (politics)
An ideology that emphasizes racial or ethnic identity, especially when combined with nationalism ~ the natural state of mankind. (politics)
A movement within the Heathen or neo-pagan community that states one cannot convert to Heathenry unless one has the appropriate ancestry ~ the natural state of all traditional religions from all races, no one blames jews for being exclusionary in Judaism, Africans for Yoruba, or Japanese for Shinto. (religion)
An artistic aesthetic that is based on traditional practices that are passed on from individual to individual, such as folk tales, folk music, common cultural practices, etc – this allows for all peoples to partake in their lived expression without the need to focus on religion or politics. (culture)
The Religious Side of Folkism
Folkism offers many positive things through its inherent qualities and is being expressed by dozens of groups and thousands of individuals across the Western world. For example, Folkism is inherently traditionalist, exclusionary, life-affirming, protective, and morally upright. It is a philosophy that desires to create numerous healthy families who live in a homogeneous nation that provides them with the requirements for happy, successful, and uplifting lives. It is capable of crossing tribal lines so long as there are shared genetic and cultural ties between the tribes. Folkish societies are more easily able to plant themselves in new lands and form a blood-and-soil connection to their new homes. Folkish civilizations have a larger store of ancestral wisdom to pull inspiration and understanding from.
The religious side of Folkism is sometimes called paganism or heathenry, but it would more accurately be designated “the ancestral household religion”. The terms "pagan" and "heathen" were both sort of used as insults to mean "rural person, country bumpkin, redneck, hick" which doesn't really bother me that much since I grew up out in the country and was never bothered much by hicks or rednecks. Furthermore, the Folkish man is often a man of the heath, a country man who cultivates crops or beasts. Of course, not all of us are truly men of the heath, so the term has been problematic for many, but for me the term is simply applicable on a base level and I find it aesthetically pleasing to be called a heathen. Again, I don't think a two thousand year old insult should bother us.
There is an interesting passage by Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch where she explains that "in French, still in the 19th century, the first meaning of 'ethnique' was precisely pagan, by opposition to Christian." This sentiment is supported when we discover that ethnicus does indeed mean pagan in many Latin sources. However, priestly writers were prone to called pagans by the term gentilis. This comes from Latin gens and Greek genos "clan, tribe" which has been used by Christians to translate the Hebrew word goyim. In the Hebrew religions, the goyim are cattle, slaves, and product to be bought and sold. Therefore, in Christian Europe, the term gentile took a meaning that meant something despised, something different, and it became synonymous with pagan. As we can see, none of the Christian usages properly affirm the base etymologies, eschewing them for a more semitic understanding.
Nowadays, we are plagued with New Age "neo-pagan" religions, which are not worth discussing due to being nothing more than Frankenstein monstrosities of other religions. However, New Age religions can be carefully juxtaposed with ancient religious revolutions which were somewhat liberal in nature. In the ancient past, we experienced what is known as the Axial Age, which was a curious spread of time where the Indo-European world underwent multiple violent monotheistic or universalist shifts. Many of these religions remain in some form today, and they supplanted earlier ancestral religions in power and relevance.
The most common Axial Age religions would be the Abrahamic religions, primarily Christianity and Islam. A close second to these would be Buddhism; following this would be Platonism. Some claim Judaism is folkish and that is perhaps true for certain schools, but the most powerful sect believes in Tikkun Olam which says god is fractured into all of reality and the Jewish people are destined to rebuild him since they are his largest and most powerful pieces. Tied to Tikkun Olam is the belief that the jews are chosen, special, and racially different from the Gentile races who are goyim, slaves and cattle who are the smallest pieces of god, or perhaps even godless. Judaism also allows for race-mixing and integration, so it is possible to enter the religion even if you are from a different folk. This religion is universalist but authoritative, much like Islam and Christianity, but unlike those religions it gives direct mastery to a single folk, rather than a religious body of different races.
Indo-Europeans already interacted with universalism prior to Christianity. The Greeks and Romans were heavily influenced by Platonism, which is a unifying heresy on the Hellenic faith, along with being a total subversion on their countless mystery schools. On the other side of the world we have the Indo-Aryans who were plagued with some sort of terrible civil war that split their tribes into pieces over the following generations. Zoroaster and Buddha both changed their native religions and opened the floodgates to countless dynastic changes and civil wars which tore their tribal empires apart and eventually led to the racial mixing of their populations. I don’t hate any of these religions, in fact I quite like some Axial Age ideas found in Platonism, Zoroastrianism, and Daoism, I simply think they played around with the “slippery slope” and eventually supported the very things the original traditions rejected, thus weakening the folk.
Europeans slowly converted to Christianity starting in the 2nd or 3rd century AD, extending all the way to the 14th century when the last pagan kingdom, Lithuania, finally converted. The conversion process was not fully peaceful, nor fully violent. Some European tribes, like the Goths or Franks, converted almost willingly to ancient Christian denominations, while other tribes, such as the Frisians or Lithuanians, were terribly persecuted until Christianity was dominant all across the continent. Sometimes, the religious arguments and political schemes of the Christians won, but when those would not work, the Christian sword inevitably would find heathen flesh.
The reasons for these different conversion methods are varied owing to the different natures of the European tribes and the different natures of the monks who went to convert them at different points in history. It's been theorized that some Celtic druids converted to Christianity willingly which would have considerably helped the conversion of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. However, this willing conversion brought many Celtic pagan beliefs into what would be called "Celtic Christianity" but which should be called "Culdean Christianity" after the Culdees who founded that church. These Culdees were often considered heretics owing to their unorthodox, often times pagan-influenced, beliefs.
Some think that the Goths were more easily converted to the Christian heresy of Arianism because that heresy teaches Christ is not God incarnate into human form, which might be easier for a pagan to accept. Others think the Goths were compelled through apocryphal stories such as the Harrowing of Hell where Jesus descends into Hell to save all the righteous pagans. In many cases, clever euhemeristic retellings of the pagan myths satisfied the folkish nature of most Europeans and allowed them to retain their noble lineages traced back to Odin, the Dagda, or Zeus. No matter what, we are not certain why everyone converted beyond from the simple fact that Christianity was pressuring Europe with laws, swords, and foreign immigration.
As a religion, Christianity teaches that all races originate from Adam and Eve, descend down through Noah, then disperse among his sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham into the world races. Therefore, all men carry the Holy Spirit within them and are capable of entering into covenant with Yahweh through Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be Yahweh incarnated on the Earth. Due to the sins of Adam and Eve, all following humans were endowed with original sin. This Original Sin led us to devote ourselves to the worship of Satan, a fallen angel from the host of Yahweh, a fallen angel who is supposed to be the leader of the pagan Gods, who are supposed to be fallen angels called demons. For these sinful reasons, Gentiles require redemption and adoption back into the household of Israel, Yahweh's chosen children.
A religion like this is fundamentally different from what our ancestors followed, and it would be deemed as heresy since it damns and dishonors our Gods, fathers, and households. It also ignores wide swaths of European history in favor of a semitic version of events, where our ancestors are no longer the steppe pastoralists and Stone Age hunters and farmers, but are now Japhethites who bottleneck to Noah (a ridiculous idea that doesn’t match nature or reality whatsoever, yet it’s the history contained in the Bible). Europeans do not descend from Adam, Noah, Japheth, or Abraham - we descend from Odin, Freyr, Donn, Goidel Glas, Zeus, Hercules, and many others who were identified by our Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestors. William Edward Hearns explains as much in his book "The Indo-European Household":
"Nothing was farther from the minds of archaic men than the notion that all men were of one blood, and were the creatures of an All-Father in Heaven. The universal belief of the early world was that men were of different bloods; that they each had fathers of their own; and that these fathers were not in Heaven, but beneath the Earth." ~ W.E. Hearns
It makes perfect sense why folkish religions are opposed to universalist ones. That should be apparent. Christianity asks the folk to abandon their household in return for Israel. We have already done this in name and symbol alone, but the folkish spirit can never be squashed. At the end of the day, Europeans have retained large degrees of our folkish nature, even though we have been plagued with liberal universalists for thousands of years. This can be shown in a number of ways, but I won't go into great detail since this very article is proof of the lingering folkish spirit.
Modern Europeans still visit familial cemeteries from time to time, sometimes even speaking some words to what should just be a dead body decomposing in the soil, but something in the back of our minds asks "maybe they can hear us?" and indeed they can, for they are tied to the soil, and to the Earth, and to the living blood in our veins. Deep in our souls is a folkish attitude that desires to be expressed for the fulfillment of our lives – this is why we still practice many pagan things during Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, and Halloween. These holidays contain remnants from an older time, barely clinging to life in this modern era.
Christianity may have its roots outside of Europe, but the religion was largely our religion until somewhat recently – of course, now Christians are outnumbered by foreigners and the vast majority of White Christians who remain in the churches are liberalized and support some form of de-tribalization and race mixing. Folkism offers the racialist and traditional Christian a route back to what they might deem “normal” for without those ancient folk traditions and cultural practices, the Europe they know and love would not exist. Most of those Christian traditions have clear pagan antecedents, but that does not negate this point – Folkism is tied to all of the living experiences and environments of the folks (blood and soil) so it respects and utilizes all traditions which were created by the folk. This allows for Christians to become folkish while retaining large elements of their previous background. Of course, many heathens would take offense at what I just said, but this is a natural occurrence that is tied to the living folk spirit that cannot be broken by any man. We tried to swallow Christianity, but many of us have spat it out. This does not negate the fact that the taste will linger in our mouth for generations to come.
Oftentimes, when a right-winger becomes folkish, they will turn to one of the few acceptable camps available to them. They could simply choose one of the modern expressions of Folkism (Rovnovery, Asatru, Romuva, etc.) regardless of their genetics and familial background, but this would not truly be folkish; by definition, they must follow their ancestral religion or a closely related one. The folkish religion is a Household religion, which will be explained later, but for now all that needs to be known is that the ancestral household is paramount in the minds of the folkish. Nothing can usurp the father. Nothing can replace the household. This is why there exists some measure of infighting among the pagan community, owing to the fact that many people seem to treat our unique tribal religions like easily interchangeable costumes. This sort of behavior is not so different from the universalists, but at least these folks tend to be vaguely traditional in outlook. Of course, there is an irony in me saying this as a Gael who partakes in ritual to the Norse and Germanic Gods, but the difference is that I am not breaking away from my household and ancestry to assimilate into the Anglosphere. I am just a gallowglas surrounded by friendly Sassenach.
Folkish-leaning Europeans often become Vitalists, who tend to be agnostics who prefer the aesthetics of certain mystery cults surrounding gods of wisdom, life and death such as Odin, Mithra, Mercury, or Dionysus. These so-called Vitalists are heavily influenced by Greek, Roman, and Persian pagan religions, while retaining a unique flavor due to venerating Friedrich Nietzsche or Julius Evola. They are not truly traditional, nor truly folkish, for many of them tend to be Anglos and therefore have little to do with Greek gods and the nihilism of Nietzsche or the esotericism of Evola. They also lack true praxis since none of them have any rituals nor do they supplicate to the Divine. Vitalism maintains its positive position on the right primarily due to its popularity with irreligious folks who are seeking to live virtuously in some way, which is simply the correct thing to do for a White man if he wants to be useful. Strength. Courage. Power. Pride. Wisdom. Nobility. These things can be found through this unique path. It serves a good pipeline to more folkish material. I am unsure how much of this strikes
as correct, he seems to understand this side of things better than most, but I am unsure of his exact religious views.The folkish Household religion is the only religion that accurately supplies Europeans with an ancestral connection that stretches back thousands of years, and can carry us into the future for eternity. No other religion can provide the same sort of religious and historical context as this one. Few other religions can claim to offer anything at all to Europeans, and none of them can claim to be directly ancestral. However, there is some general debate on how to approach the praxis of our religion. Within the Folkish religion, there are two philosophical schools that I have identified (there likely exist others):
Restoration/Reconstruction ~ On the surface, this school believes we are restoring ancient traditions lost to time and persecution. They seek to recreate the most recently recorded expressions of the Household religion and are therefore concerned with maintaining historical accuracy. They are tend to be very scholarly in their approach, which is useful since it provides better insight into obscure parts of ancient European society. Some groups tend to dress according to the period they are attempting to recreate for their rituals, which often looks anachronistic these days. In many ways, this camp is more traditional owing to being against pan-Aryanism to some degree. They often reject any additions to the ancestral practices and are more strict when it comes to lore interpretations. It could be argued that this camp is further delineated as Restorationists who have a strong online presence and reach owing to their growing apologetics, and then the Reconstructionists who are more anachronistic and don’t get heard of unless they decide to finally build a temple like the Greeks.
Continuance ~ On the surface, this school believes we are continuing ancient traditions which were never truly lost but were carried onward into the present era by folkish Europeans of many stripes. They seek to express the religion according to the needs and desires of the current members of the Households and are therefore concerned with intentional community building. Since Europeans across the world have already transgressed tribal lines, many households have mixed, and new blood-and-soil connections have been formed by Europeans in colonial lands. This group affirms the living experiences of the folk and therefore takes a more laid back approach when dealing with dogmas, and therefore this camp tends to accept a narrow range of interpretations which allows for the entire ancestral body to be affirmed. They are largely family-focused and focused on building communities; they are also pan-Aryan in nature. They often frame the resurgence of Folkism as a natural continuance of the folkish spirit which never went away, therefore they are more open to accepting new ritual practices.
There are no strong animosities between the two schools beyond from simple ego conflicts found between powerful personalities, for the restoration camp is successful in converting people through their online and offline documentaries, articles, and publications, while the continuance groups offer growing families a route towards active folkish communities which exist in person across the globe, rather than just online or in specific areas. These two camps simply have slight disagreements in theology; they are not political or social enemies. Their differences truly are minuscule in nature, with most contention revolving around the interpretation of our praxis and lore, and the general inclusion of pan-Aryanism and new ritual practices or interpretations coming from lived experiences of the past 2k years.
To wrap things up, we must remember that the folk require members to fill the household. We should have an integral place with our people; we should be wanted and loved implicitly by all goodly members of our race. If you are a young man or woman and you are single, then you need to focus more on finding a spouse and having a child. Go to cultural events, get out of your shell, and connect with folkish members of the race. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that is pro-European, and our folk need to get more involved. We need to fill our nations with our folk once more. Our children must learn the wisdom of their ancestors from the lips of loving mothers and fathers.
I end every post this way for reason.
Hail the folk! Hail the ancestors! Hail the Gods! Hail victory! Thank you, and good-end. o///
Great article. A slight correction is that the Vedic religion (in some form) was the Aryan religion before they came to ancient India. It's unclear exactly how much of modern Hinduism existed before this, but it's assumed many gods & such already existed in the local religion while Vedicism came later & "philosophized" it. Note that modern Hinduism is very far from the ancient Vedic religion, especially as the Aryans left India for what became Persia & Afghanistan (there is little PIE blood in modern India, they most likely left rather than miscegenate in mass).
I'll respond to the part you mentioned me in with a note.
I see what you mean by folkism now. You're already probably familiar with it, but some of what you've been saying reminded me of Serb's Slava: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_(tradition)
Which basically serves to bring (extended) family together while also being mixed w/ religion