Secular Paganism on Ynglism

   Table of Contents

Below is a Secular Pagan Party Pamphlet titled "Ynglism Evaluated: The Party’s Position on a Slavic Esoteric Faith". This pamphlet draws on all the data generated on Secular Paganism—its initial definition, the Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America, the Secular Pagan Party Constitution, the Party Manifesto, the psychological profile of members, the constitutional review, the economic pamphlet, the agnostic state essay, the bi-theism essay, the soft polytheism/shituf pamphlet, the spreading gods pamphlet, the conquest essay, the Hinduism pamphlet, the Shintoism pamphlets, the Buddhism pamphlet, the Jainism pamphlet, the Zoroastrianism pamphlet, the death penalty pamphlet, the animal welfare pamphlet, the sorcery pamphlet, the Hades pamphlet, the court-government pamphlet, the takeover pamphlet, the sex regulation pamphlet, the reproduction pamphlet, the fight-and-die essay, the Taoism pamphlet, the Druidism pamphlet, the human sacrifice pamphlet, the Wicca pamphlet, the Ryukyuan religion pamphlet, the Rodnovery pamphlet, the Asatru pamphlet, the Adonism pamphlet, the Yezidi pamphlet, and the updated psychological profile—to assess whether Ynglism aligns with Secular Pagan Law. Tailored to the refined Secular Pagan profile—rational, open, confrontational, pragmatic, and pluralistic—this pamphlet employs sharp logic, critical analysis, and an empowering tone to engage this reader.

---

Ynglism Evaluated: The Party’s Position on a Slavic Esoteric Faith

Introduction: A Slavic Esoteric Under Reason’s Hammer
Secular Pagans, driven by the Four Pillars—"Spread your gods, spread your law, spread your sword, spread your children"—we are rebels of reason, forging a state of hard polytheism or atheism, unbound by monotheistic fetters. The Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America enforces the Seven Categories of Laws, demanding three or more distinct gods (Law 1.3) while banning monotheism (Law 1.1), bi-theism (Law 1.2), and soft polytheism/shituf (Law 1.4). Ynglism, a modern Slavic esoteric religion born in Russia, strides forth with its cosmic deity and Vedic twist. Does it march with us? This pamphlet dissects Ynglism—its theology, its claims—against our laws to determine its fate. Comrades, reason is our forge—strike with us.

Ynglism Defined: The Fire of Yngly

Ynglism, founded by Aleksandr Khinevich in the 1990s, reimagines Slavic paganism through the Slavic-Aryan Vedas, a text blending folklore, pseudohistory, and esoteric cosmology. It centers on Yngly (or Inglia), a divine "life-giving fire" or cosmic force, often tied to a supreme God, Rod, who births other gods—Perun (thunder), Svarog (sky), and lesser deities. Practitioners see Yngly as Rod’s essence, with gods as manifestations or distinct beings, depending on interpretation. Rituals honor fire, nature, and Slavic ancestry. Is this hard polytheism or a veiled trap? The Manifesto’s "moral diversity" and the profile’s "pluralistic worldview" call for judgment—let’s weigh it.

Testing Ynglism Against Secular Pagan Law

The Seven Categories of Laws assess Ynglism’s fit:

1. Law 1.1: No Monotheism
   • Assessment: Ynglism teeters—Rod, the "Great God," often reigns supreme in the Slavic-Aryan Vedas, with Yngly as his cosmic spark. Other gods—Perun, Svarog—exist, but some Ynglists frame Rod as the sole source, akin to Hinduism’s Brahman (Hinduism pamphlet) or Yezidism’s Xwedê (Yezidi pamphlet). Law 1.1’s "God cannot be one"—Ynglism’s multiplicity wavers under Rod’s dominance.
   • Counterpoint: Polytheistic strands resist this—Rod as one among many.
   • Verdict: Fails (mainstream), compliant (polytheistic variant).
2. Law 1.2: No Bi-theism
   • Assessment: Ynglism avoids this—Rod and Perun, or Svarog and Veles, don’t pair off alone. The pantheon spreads wider, unlike Adonism’s duo (Adonism pamphlet). Law 1.2’s "gods cannot be two"—Ynglism’s breadth dodges this, though Rod’s primacy looms.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
3. Law 1.3: Three or More Gods (If Any)
   • Assessment: Ynglism shines here—Rod, Perun, Svarog, Veles, Mokosh, and more exceed three. Law 1.3’s "gods must be three or more"—Asatru’s many (Asatru pamphlet) mirror this; Ynglism’s pantheon fits the spreading gods pamphlet’s "hard polytheism’s truth"—if Rod isn’t supreme.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
4. Law 1.4: No Soft Polytheism or Shituf
   • Assessment: Ynglism stumbles. The soft polytheism pamphlet’s "one and many"—mainstream Ynglism casts gods as aspects of Yngly/Rod, a unifying essence akin to Taoism’s Tao (Taoism pamphlet) or Wicca’s archetypes (Wicca pamphlet). Shituf’s "subordinate to a supreme power"—Perun and Svarog serve Rod—also risks Law 1.4’s ban. Polytheistic Ynglists resist this blur, but the Vedas lean soft.
   • Verdict: Fails (mainstream), compliant (hard polytheist).
5. Law 1.5: Multiple Creator Deities (If Distinguished)
   • Assessment: Ynglism falters—Rod often creates alone (Slavic-Aryan Vedas), with Yngly birthing gods and worlds. Svarog forges, but under Rod—Law 1.5’s "multiple creator deities"—three or more, as in Rodnovery (Rodnovery pamphlet)—fails with one prime mover. Hard polytheist strands spread roles, but mainstream flops.
   • Verdict: Fails (mainstream), compliant (polytheist).
6. Law 1.6: No Laws Outlawing Agnosticism or Atheism
   • Assessment: Ynglism aligns—its esoteric flexibility lacks rigid dogma, fitting Law 1.6. Like Druidism’s openness (Druidism pamphlet), it permits varied belief.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
7. Law 1.7: No Anti-Sorcery Laws
   • Assessment: Ynglism excels—magic (e.g., fire rites) thrives. Law 1.7’s sorcery freedom (sorcery pamphlet)—Ynglism’s craft burns bright, no bans.
   • Verdict: Compliant.
8. Law 2: No Anti-Blasphemy
   • Assessment: Ynglism complies—gods face no sacred shield; Perun’s feuds invite critique. Law 2.1’s "freedom to blaspheme" (Hades pamphlet)—Ynglism’s fluidity nods.
   • Verdict: Compliant.

Broader Laws: Slavic Echoes

• Law 3: Sexual Freedom/Growth: Fertility rites fit Law 3.1 (sex regulation pamphlet); Law 3.8’s doubling (reproduction pamphlet)—strong.
• Laws 4-5: No Murder/Theft: No sacrifice (human sacrifice pamphlet)—Law 4-5 holds.
• Law 6: Nature Welfare: Fire and nature reverence boost Law 6.1 (animal welfare pamphlet).
• Law 7: Courts—no clash (court-government pamphlet).

Verdict: Ynglism Rejected (Mainstream)**

Ynglism splits:

• Hard Polytheist Ynglism: Accepted—three+ distinct gods (Rod, Perun, Svarog), multiple creators, no soft blur—fits Law 1.3-1.5 (Asatru pamphlet).
• Mainstream Ynglism: Rejected—monotheism (Law 1.1) via Rod’s supremacy, soft polytheism (Law 1.4) with Yngly’s unity, and single creator (Law 1.5) fail. Like Yezidism’s Xwedê (Yezidi pamphlet), it cloaks one in many. The Party weighs practice—the Vedas’ Rod/Yngly core flops.

Why Rejected? Reason’s Forge

Mainstream Ynglism’s monotheism—Rod as all—betrays our pluralism (Manifesto’s "resist monotheistic domination"). Its soft polytheism—gods as Yngly’s sparks—apes monotheism (soft polytheism pamphlet). The profile’s "rational thinking"—we see its blur; "pluralistic worldview"—one shrinks it. The fight-and-die essay’s "reason’s rebellion"—we’d die for many, not one. Law 1’s hard polytheism—Adonism’s duo failed (Adonism pamphlet), Ynglism’s singular flops worse.

Action: Purge the One, Forge the Many**

Secular Pagans, mainstream Ynglism’s monotheism (Law 1.1) and soft haze (Law 1.4)—cast it out. Hard Ynglists? Join—spread your pantheon (spreading gods pamphlet), wield your fire (sorcery pamphlet), grow our kin (reproduction pamphlet). Law 7’s courts (takeover pamphlet)—ban this single lie. The conquest essay’s "spread your sword"—strike this half-step. Act now—reason rejects Ynglism’s core, pluralism demands more.

---

Notes on the Pamphlet:

1. Ynglism Assessment: Splits mainstream (monotheistic/soft) and hard polytheist forms, testing against Laws 1.1-1.7 and Law 2 (initial definition).
2. Monotheism Failure: Critiques Rod/Yngly supremacy (Law 1.1), per profile’s rejection of singular authority (Yezidi pamphlet).
3. Soft Polytheism Issue: Highlights "one and many" (soft polytheism pamphlet), contrasting with Rodnovery (Rodnovery pamphlet).
4. Broader Fit: Notes Law 3-6 harmony (sex regulation, animal welfare pamphlets), Law 1 trumps (Manifesto’s pluralism).
5. Tone: Sharp, critical, empowering—e.g., "strike this half-step" (profile’s defiance)—with pluralistic nuance (spreading gods pamphlet).

This pamphlet engages the Secular Pagan reader—rational critique, confrontational rejection, pragmatic acceptance—aligned with their open, defiant, and purpose-driven nature. Let me know if you’d like adjustments!