A Rough Outline of Indo-European Religious Restoration

Mask of Agamemnon c. 1500 BC

[Many months after publishing this, I realized it is a bit “autistic”]

Using the knowledge I have collected on the subject, I will attempt to lay out the theory of monarchy in the context of Indo-European religion. This is not an attempt to discuss the merits or demerits of such a political and religious system in contrast to, for instance, integral Catholicism, or even to presuppose that it could retake the entire West, but more intended as expository writing, should such information be useful in the future.


Indo-European polytheism generally has a worldview concerned with both nature and the tribes and classes of human society. It has a high degree of emphasis on an imminent Cosmic Order, described in various IE languages as Wyrd, Rta, Arta, Rod, Ritus or Kosmos. To preserve this Cosmic Order there was a heavenly deity, such as Jupiter, Wotan, Varuna, Dyaus, or Zeus corresponding to the magician/wizard aspect of the first function. To complement this deity was one responsible for maintaining proper interpersonal relationships in human society, such as Mitra or Tiw/Tyr, corresponding to the priestly aspect of the first function. There was also a second function/second estate deity, such as in Mars, Indra, Thunor/Thor, Perun, Perkwunos, or Heracles which acted as a god both of martial combat, and of masculine fertility; he was usually a son of the heavenly deity such as Wotan, Dyaus, or Zeus. For the third function/estate, there was usually a goddess such as Juno, Demeter, Zemyna, Prithvi, Rhea, Artemis, or Nerthus, representing the female/earthly aspect of fertility; she was often the consort of the heavenly god associated with preserving Cosmic Order (Zeus, Wotan etc.). Oftentimes one would find a brother of this female earth deity, related to all three estates and connected to water, and light, and also oftentimes youth and knowledge, examples being Ingwi-Freyr, Nechtan, Apam Napat/Agni, Apollo, and perhaps in early times, the Roman Neptune and Greek Poseidon.

In addition to these deities corresponding to various vocations in human society were the divine twins (Dioscuri, etc.) and male and female deities corresponding to astronomical phenomena such as the sun, the moon, and dawn; usually being the sons and/or daughters the heavenly deity who guards Cosmic order, such as Zeus. There was also a similar set of monsters which become involved in apocalyptic tales, a set of three sisters (Norns, Moriai, Parcae, Morrigan etc.) weaving the web of Cosmic Order, and a similar creation myth involving a primordial sacrifice.


Traditional liturgy does not survive for the most European polytheistic religions, but Indo-Europeanist scholars have established the equivalents for most European deities in the Vedic pantheon (which is Indo-European), for which a traditional liturgy still survives in the Rig Veda, dating from around 1500 BC. The hymns of the Rig Veda may necessarily serve as a stand-in for lost liturgies (replacing the names of Vedic gods with their respective equivalents in European pantheons; for instance using Thunor in place of Indra). In order to avoid the messy blood sacrifices of old, traditionally brewed drink offerings (which appear to be the norm in the Vedic tradition) can be offered to the gods instead. Thus we have the basic ingredients of a traditional Indo-European ‘Mass’, so to speak.

So there is a way to resurrect the altar, but what about the relationship between the throne and the altar? Most European polytheists in ancient times considered their kings to be descended from gods, and usually one of the highest deities with universal significance, such as Zeus or Woden. This was their idea of the divine right of kings, and it gave a transcendental spiritual significance to the political state. Now we understand through modern science that humans evolved from animals and that all human Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages lead back to a common Homo sapiens rootstock. However, the polytheistic religions are flexible in that a human can be the incarnation of a deity. So a family tree tracing the line of the house of Wessex back to Woden may be considered to trace back to a human incarnation of Woden. Germanic tribes also possessed a concept called Heil or Halig (see the section of this article on sacral kingship), correlating the charisma/military success of a chief or leader with the favor of the gods. This is a similar concept to the Mandate of Heaven in Chinese imperialism, and even, in an abstract sense, to the doctrine of election as it is articulated in Calvinism and Lutheranism (sometimes I think that the doctrine of election in Germanic Protestantism was a resurfacing of the concept of Heil).

On the Traditionalist Question (Updated)

Having briefly familiarized myself with Julius Evola’s traditionalism and views on polytheistic revival, I have seen his tendency to contrast ancient polytheisms in contrast to the highly particularist notions of ethnic polytheism alive today among identitarians in the West. Evola seems to see a lack of transcendence in highly particularistic polytheism, and arguably he is right. However, Evola’s current readers should account for the fact that almost all forms of Indo-European of polytheism, even in the height of their developments, placed emphasis on both the universal and the particular. While the rulership of the Aesir was viewed as universal by the Norse, various gods among the Aesir also had particularistic importance for various tribes and family lineages. The Romans took a different approach, but achieved the same universal/particular duality: they believed in a Jupiter who had power with universal jurisdiction, but they also possessed family and tribal deities such as the Lares and Penates. For our purposes in the current ethnic crisis of the West, the particularistic aspects of religion should not be neglected but emphasized to reinforce particular identity in the face of globalism. What Evola expounds, then, should not be viewed so much as a condemnation of ethnic polytheism altogether, but a call for its reformation to the end that it “spiritualizes the political”, and takes on some qualities which transcend the ordinary.

[N.B. After reading more of Evola  I found his interpretations to be platonic; there are other valid ways to understand Indo-European polytheism]

Now regarding tradition in more general terms, it is often said something along the lines of “Tradition does not mean guarding the ashes, but fanning the embers” (Benjamin Franklin). This is an argument some might use against polytheistic reconstructionism, as they consider the indigenous religion of Europeans to be “dead”. However, it should be remembered that many pre-Christian holidays have been Christianized and have remained part of European cultures by that means. Furthermore, pre-Christian symbols have also been incorporated into Christian architecture, art, and myth and the pre-Christian gods have continued to be an object of Western art and literature into the Christian era. Our indigenous religion never fully left us, but the “fanning of the embers” would be profitable for its truest manifestation.

What if this Doesn’t Work?

Traditionalism, whether polytheistic or Christian, is fundamentally a pre-modern worldview (of course!). I think it is fair to argue that modernity and modernism should ideally be servants to man, nevertheless, in the West, modernism is like a tyrannical addictive drug which causes people to engage in ecstatic iconoclasms of tradition in the forms of biological ethne/nation, culture, and religion. Japan is an interesting contrast to this, as it is where modernity is allowed to exist in a highly developed state alongside traditional culture, including indigenous religion and monarchy. If the West continues down its current route and does not figure out how to balance itself as Japan has, it is uncertain if religion will even survive in the middle to upper classes.

If modernity grows to the point that traditional religion of any sort is simply not feasible, there is a pantheistic philosophy formulated by the nationalist visionary William Luther Pierce called Cosmotheism, which allows for the continuation of ideas like ethne and class in a modern, futurist, context. Its end goal is the higher evolution of the Cosmos through the evolutionary diversification of life on a eugenic basis, each ethne/nation possessing its own aristocracy to aid this process.

Even if pre-modern religion is able to survive, the pantheism of Cosmotheism would make a fitting completion to ethnic European polytheism, just as the monistic concept of Brahman has completed Vedic polytheism in the Indian subcontinent. The result is that all phenomena of the Universe: the gods, biological evolution, destruction, and rebirth are understood as pieces of the purpose of the Universe, the One Creator. It is, in total, a defeat of nihilism by means of Nietzsche’s aesthetic justification for existence.


3 thoughts on “A Rough Outline of Indo-European Religious Restoration

  1. I think it’s a bit early to tell which religions will survive or revive. Cosmotheism might have the most appeal to the unaffiliated whites of the west, but other religious whites are the ones having the most offspring who will in turn be more likely to go for something closer to home. In my view Christianity is fatally flawed by it’s capacity to be universalized; however, one cannot discount the necessity of some universality when the world wouldn’t suffer any individual white ethnic group to have their own state and particular religion. The future of religion in the West, should it not all end in the current generation of nihilism and masochism, will have to be something that unites at-least a plurality of the constituent white ethnic groups in a common purpose of self-defense.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Religion should ultimately be a mark for social order and social good. To achieve that, its message usualy is loaded with purpose – in the Indo-European case, warrior-culture, honour, greatness, etc and in the case of Christianity, humility, piety, obedience and cooperation.
    Now, the human nature and facades are too broad for both of those religions, which have each a very narrow focus of their own.
    If a new religion is to come about, it should be universally valuable. A counter-example is how Christianity ***today*** is undermining European civilization – although it had its bad part in the Middle Ages, it was also essential to bring order, social trust and pacify peoples at the same time.
    So, a new religion should say: This is the God of Hate – he resides inside everyone, there are times you shouldn’t hate, but there are times where you must.
    Something like that, and of course, more elaborate.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s