The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

This is just something I want to throw out there....

I don't buy the "All vampires are soulless and evil ...demons in human boies" stuff.

I dont buy the stuff on Twilight or Vampire diaries either (I actually have derogatory names for the vampires and lycans which I will not repeat as this is a question of something other than thoughts on a t.v/movie series)

The restrictions placed on vampires seem well kind of forced ..like they were put in place by a race upset that they are no longer the top of the food chain!!

What are your thoughts??

Well the legends of vampiric creatures have been around since the beginning of human civilization different names but usually feared so if it was evolution one could assume they evolved at the same time. If that was the case I would say they have lost their place on the food chain especially if you look at the current generation. I have seen many claiming that if your vampire you have to be peaceful and nice, these are normally from people claiming to be vampire and that it is a separate species. Doesn't sound like they are anywhere near the top.

One find evidences worldwide of monsters who drink blood and/or eat flesh, yes. After all, in nightmarish visions few things frighten us more than monsters who want to easy us alive. Thus, this is understandably a common theme in mythology. However, only since the beginning of the 18th Century has this trait been transferred to Vampires. Prior to this time, there are no accounts of the Vampire drinking blood...not once in the 700+ years since the term "Vampire" ("Upir") was first mentioned.

And, thus, to address this forum topic, specifically...

The current definition of the Vampire is the result of centuries of a very well-orchestrated campaign of vilification and demonization. The historical Vampire and his true characteristics remain the same a they have for millennia...and have nothing at all to do with the traits currently regarded as "vampiric" here in the West.

"The historical Vampire and his true characteristics remain the same a they have for millennia...and have nothing at all to do with the traits currently regarded as "vampiric" here in the West."

Well, if this is true-then exactly what is the historical Vampire and what are his true characteristics?

Just because one is of Vampyric nature does not mean they are all subject to ONE personality. No it is called diversity, all have different feelings and thoughts and do different things accordingly, to classify them all into one box is ignorant. It is like saying al dogs are rabid, or al humans are racist symply because you read or watched the documentary.

There are many different stories about the existance of Vampires, and how they came into being. It is simply which ever you decide to believe, just like any other religion catholic,jewish,mormon exc. Obviosuly no one walking this earth now can give us the answer as to what really happened, so it will always remain a mystery until someone can create a time machine and can go back to the specific point in time when Vamps were created. Which i really doubt is ever going to happen.

Upir-I'll post in your journal to discuss this due to the amount of materials. What drew my attention was the use of the phrase "true characteristics." It struck me as problematic & the failing of almost all world religions.

Of course, I tend to shy away from any single definition of a vampire, or what has eventually become the western vampire.

I believe that Vampires have been part of a Spiritual/Soul evolution process. Thus, yes a different race.

Like other races attainment of what is of the higher realms, personal disposition, sought Earthly attainment, would vary from Vampire to Vampire. In like manner as it is the case with humans, for example.

Victorya

"True characteristics" as in the actual, originally reported historical characteristics of the Vampire... as opposed to the untrue (i.e., fictional) characteristics recounted in folk tales and in novels and movies many centuries, thereafter. No religious context intended.

...and those who can not say no to a warm glass of fresh Blood, say...I. The evolution of Vampires through the centuries have been enormous. For some, is Just a legend, for others, a way of social gathering and for some, a way of survival. The myth that some people try to infiltrate into the imagination of the readers are chaotic. But, if you encounter a Vampire, and your belief until then is that they did not exist, how will you react? panic or surprise. believe me, some of the most Psycho unit in major hospital, are those who their mind were not prepared for the outcome of such encounter.

In my opinion we are evolution.

To humans vampyres and lycans are all things of night mare because it is unfathomable to their heads. For me to go into public and just start to drink blood would be shocking because to humans it ISN'T normal. As opposed to a situation where I might be surrounded by others like myself. Though we are not like that from "Twilight" or something I think the entire view of a values is exaggerated because of a fear that they are not on top. Looking through history power is one thing the humans are always after which is why we are not to make ourselves public specticals. But really just stop and think for a moment about what it would be like for a human to be told that everything they though lurked in the shadows might exsist. Just Food For Thought!

Well, evil does not really exist according to the scholars. God is God, Evil and Satan were human interpretations of the great Test and were mainly developed by the Church to help recruit do gooders.
They agree, God does test and gave Lucif, Deamons, Satan, Angels, the Ginn, "the best of the best" a licence to "Test" man and his woeful ways.

They are not Evil they are just teasing the mice and OMG the mice really do love that Cheese.
One of the best ways to test a mouse is to make him a Supermouse and see how he behaves.

However, some Mice are waking up and smelling the coffee, I mean cheese...go figure.

Sammantha, vampires are parasites, they require host, they are not "above" human, get over that!

Are they, dabbler? We know they have been vilified as such, of course. Well, at least since the early 18th Century. However, we know that vampires have been around since at least 700 years prior to that during which they were not at all accused of being such.

According to the Russian Primary Chronicle, vampires (Upyri), were, in fact, worshiped in ancient times in Slavic lands. And our earliest written mention...as you know...of the term "Vampire" (Upir) occurs in 1047 CE and refers to a highly educated Eastern Orthodox Christian Priest, then in the employ of Prince Vladimir of Novgorod, the son of the Russian Czar, Vladimir the Great.

Lest we forget, it is most often to the victims of violence founded upon prejudice and bigotry that we most often find such accusations. Vampires are always depicted in the legends as being slaughtered...and such always justified after the fact. So also were the Jews during the Holocaust...and for shockingly similar depictions of being parasites. After all, if the targets of one's bigotry and hatred are extinct, who is left to correct the lies told of them?


- Upir'

I was commenting on a broader use of the word. It seems all we have at the heart of this question is a smirk "We are better then humans, and "They" being "vampires" by their own acclaim, It seems they want to thrust themselves up as being higher in the food chain, and this is not very rational considering there very nature depends on .. "Lowly cattle I am just saying they need to climb off their high horse.

it was not my intent to converse on what your definition of a vampire includes Upir, it is evident that those posting are not in league with your academic vampire.

Well since you say the Vampires very existance depends on the lives of humans and that they would be considered parasites what then would humans be considered?
Do humans not raise cattle and other animals for there own food? Vampires feed from human blood for the most part, yet humans feed off everything they can! There is no species safe from the hands of humans that includes plant life.
If you take into consideration that most Vamps can feed without killing there host while Humans kill there food. To the point where some species have become extinct.

So let me get this right Royalty before you read the rest are you talking about the myth or the variant most claim on this site? If you are referring to the variant of vampire most claim to be on this site, it seems like your saying human blood is the only substance you need to live? Nothing else?

dabbler: point taken ;)

8thHunterScar: And there's the question no one wishes to confront: which Vampire are we talking about? Because either way, MLVs and other self-forbiddend "vampires" run smack dab into an irreconcilable paradox. If they attempt to emulate the Vampire of history, they find such had nothing to do with the Western portrayals of such in Pop Culture as fanged, blood-drinking and/or psy, Goth clothing-wearing, super-cool superior humanoids. And if they do attempt to try for the fictional vampire depicted in movies and in fiction, them they have to contend with the inconvenient fact that the first requirement to being such a vampire is that you first must be literally...dead! And there aren't too many of those claiming to be vampires that can produce a legit death certificate to validate such a claim...much less subsist on nothing but blood, which is the second absolutely required criterium for being such a vampire.

And that's it; there are no other vampire types found out there except as invented out of thin air by modern vampire wannabees.

(Sorry for the fragment that follows...I'm on my cellphone and it won't let me scroll down to erase it)

- Upir'



And...that's it. There are no other tours of vampires

No, vampyres do not only feed from blood, but it seems that 99% of the populace believes this is the only source of nutrition for a vamp.

My main point is that aparently vamps are parasites because we feed from humans yet humans feed from everything aswell, as do animals and so on and so forth so if it is this way every living organisim is parasitic.

Valid point and you are right to an extent all life is parasitical however it would have been best to say just that. The rest misrepresented that point at least what I gathered from your post was not the intent that your main point wanted me to gather from the post.

r0yalty... No, vampyres do not only feed from blood, but it seems that 99% of the populace believes this is the only source of nutrition for a vamp.

Then, what else do they feed on... and according to what/whom (i.e., where are you getting your information)?

Vampires are not soulless as the Hollywood archtype suggests, nor are we royalty as The roleplay "larp" game Vampire: The Masquarade suggests.

We are normal every day people with jobs, spouses and struggles in life.

I wouldn't pay much attention to what people content as "Dark" or that type of ambiance when it comes to the parameter of what the perceptive eyes believe through manipulation.

Aside from that, the term, "Evil", is literally in the eye of the beholder (beer holder for some).

Upir

I gain my imformation from myself and the many that i know.
Vampyres feed not only from blood but energy. Energy is the main reason why Vamps feed from blood being that it is much more concentrated and hits alot faster. Kind of like mundanes taking energy drinks. But as i said blood is not the only way to feed, some Vamps do not feed in such a way at all.

Wait so your saying water, and physical food as in meat, fish, etc. are obsolete in your case? Meaning that you do not need such substances to survive?

~Royalsfin3st~ Where oh, where did you gain your knowledge from? Blood and energy? Give this audience something that it hasn't read before. Something that hasn't been trust upon us since the 90's!

r0yalty... That was my point, exactly. There are no other vampire types beyond the two I listed except...as I stated thereafter... as invented by modern vampire wannabees trying to justify calling themselves "vampires."

Soulshroude: Exactly...well stated.

The whole blood thing.Im sorry,but if blood were to be witheld,a vampire isnt going to kick the bucket.And as for the energy? Every human on this planet gains from energies around us.But it isnt what keeps us alive.
In my book,the energy/blood aspect of the vampire NEEDING them to survive is pretty much unfounded.
I also believe that any human who would choose to drink blood,is going to get some kind of rush simply because of what it might take to obtain it,and for what it represents. jmho

Oceanne, what are your book's sources that vampires don't need blood/energy to survive? Are such sources from the accounts of Eastern/Central Europe (post-early 18th Century, of course)...or from modern Humans claiming to be vampires?

My guess is the latter.

And, absolutely, the "thrill" felt in drinking a little blood knowing such is considered "taboo" while also enabling the feeling that doing so makes one able to call oneself a vampire is the true explanation for the "energy" that is claimed experienced in blood drinking. This "rush" is what truly feeds the self delusion.

As always,you got my point perfectly Upir.:) And yes,it is the latter coupled with what I know about humans in general.Plus the fact that, Im fairly certain that if one was locked up for any length of time without a blood source,they wouldnt die from any lack of nutrition,providing they were fed normally.

We all "feed" off one another's energies to various degrees.
However, if we consider your research etc,and take a closer look history and at what you consider to be a vampire,then perhaps we can begin understand the few subtle differences and characteristics of what vampires could in fact be.But again,those differences do not make a vampire the hunter ,or put them on top of the food chain as so many proclaim.

Gotta love the vampire, always a human one step higher on teh evolutionary scale. I mean, think about it. When someone is naturally in tune with the energies around them, can transmutate those energies into something graceful and "feed" from it, I call that severe evolution and according to some believes, the perfect scenerio for a vampire. The control and manipulation of energy and its frequencies and vibrations.

I call it normal.")

i dont think we are evolutionarily higher...just different. on an ethics note, i dont think we are inherently evil (as in i just want to push a lil ol lady into traffic), i think some believe the propaganda of those that dont like us very much....
but technically using anothers body/blood/life to survive and grow would be evil...unless it is ones nature.

is the wolf evil because it eats deer?

~W~

Well it depends if your asking a vegetarian to the deer eating question. However I have yet to meet a vampire that has not needed the food that every "mundane" needs to survive.

Thats just it SS.I know humans who are like that,and they arent vampires.

Oceanne, you should know me by now after all these years. I always place my perspective... but I don't really state what is human and what is vampire. I state things in the perspective of the vampire that I AM.

Of course people have either active or dormant capabilities that they are either aware of or are in denial of for some specific reason.

This doesn't discount the ideology that society has for them, be it religion (evil) or biological (evolution). I can stereotype myself until kingdom come, but that doesn't change the fact for what exists within me on a "higher level" or "higher frequency" if you will.

i say it is what you believe it to be, but in my personal opinion a vampire is a being of amazing power that does not have to be evil in anyway shape or form.

My opinion - vampires are beings that have evolved throughout history, mutating to fit the circumstances, conditions, and exposures that they were subjected to at any specific moment in time, until they are so unique that there are classifications without labels.

Is it evolution...or changes as conceived by fiction writers and wannabee Humans?

For example, are Stephanie Meyer's "sparkling" vampires an example of evolution...or simply a change invented out of thin air, without evidence or precedent, simply as was expedient to her at the time?

ViktorianaBlue according to your definition I am pretty sure pandas are vampires, along with well anything I want vampires to be.

Upir, fiction writers have not helped much in the true realm of vampire......

8th, that's a little further into evolving than I meant. :)

Yes its a tool called exaggeration and judging from your response supported my point quite well as all it needs is time to be so. I'm sure that thinking is not exclusive to vampires so I am pretty sure the next evolution of werewolves will be giants groundhogs. As you can see that train of thought leads to a rather mindless territory.

My final comment -

All humans do not fit into the singular classification or label of "human" - although most have two legs, walk upright, and overall meet the requirements of being a human.

That is all I was saying.

Well the vampires should be very easy to define, although I must ask are you saying vampires are a completely separate species and if so shouldn't there be physiological evidence to back it up? As in some differences in genetic code or an organ or two isn't quite the same Bone structure that kind of thing?

An arrogant and pompous response:

And why let the "human's" test us for experiments? Just gives them more fuel for any type of fire they have in mind for our... extinction.

Now that the roleplay is out of the way, if the vampire were tested and actually has physical flaw that is caught and diagnosed, then I am quite sure that half the community even the old school crowd would have to think twice about their "claims" if proven wrong on all accounts.

I am sure the community would have a massive splitting if there were a way to prove their "vampirism" all in all in the physiological sense.

I found nothing arrogant or pompous in the response. Frankly, it makes sense that Vampires would have discernible, quantifiable, measurable differences. Were this not so, there would be nothing to distinguish Vampires from anyone else, which would rather make entirely irrelevant the term, itself. Wouldn't it?

Or are we all just expected to take the "Vampire's" word that he/she is one?

And that has been shown to be true in your case hasnt it Upir.(Not a question)
So why arent others,who are so interested in Vampires really looking at your research...Its odd to me really that more do not.

Thanks, Oceanne, though I was speaking generally. If something, anything, cannot be defined by specific characteristics, then how can it be defined at all? Thus, same goes for Vampires, as well.

Youre welcome. And I do agree.But when someone has tangible evidence and history to back up what they say,why wont people look at it and consider it? Because sometimes,the evidence tells a very different story than the one they want to hear..

Anyway,I need to jump back on this subject.We know you arent evil,but in your version of a vampire Upir,do you feel there has been evolution?

Thank you, Oceanne; as always your observations and inquiries are as well considered and appreciated as is your kindness, tact and courtesy to all.

I responded as I did to your thoughtful response so as to not run the risk of having others either discount or discredit the point made (that Vampires, if they exist, must have distinctly definable characteristics) by responding specifically in regard to my own research or views on the Vampire.

However, as you have pointedly asked, the answer is a definite and uncompromising... no.

Vampires are who they are because of who they truly are: descendants of a celestial Bloodline introduced among Humankind from the most Ancient of times and from that time forward throughout history to assist males, specifically, in developing emotionally and spiritually so as to finally rise to equality with females, thus ultimately making possible... finally... the true Union between Male and Female on all levels and for the true fulfillment of all potentials laying dormant and unknown within all Humankind.

This was also Yeshua's (Jesus) true mission (as unabashedly declared in the Gospels of Thomas and Philip) before he was murdered for this very reason and his message was forcibly replaced with a quickly invented and implemented Romanized version within only decades of his crucifixion so as to quash its becoming publicized and overthrowing the "Powers that Truly Be" in the world. And thus, so came into being the "Christianity" we know today.

(This might be far too heavy a topic for most here... but I do tire sometimes of offering only occasional sips of milk rather than meat. Anyone here can easily find and read both Gospels [best translations here: www.metalog.org] and find the original versions of Jesus' message [Gospel of Thomas predates the earliest Biblical Gospel of Mark]. It's... right there.)

To those who don't appreciate the foregoing... I apologize; I happily return you back to this forum topic as it was prior to this entry.


- Upir'

That and, ~Upir~, the kids would contend with that meaning (Gospels) with what they have inside their minds for what they claim to be their "vampiric" history, because they had been taught differently on what the archtype represents.

Or, they would take your definition and use it for their own gain, and incorporate it into their own philosophy and use it to their advantage. "We must adapt in order to survive", an excellent analogy for the evolutionary process of the "vampi/yre" that is part of this generations society.

Kids are kids, Vampires are Vampires...and historical facts and evidences are what they are, as well.

And should others accept as factual the definition provided as revealed by history, so much the better for us all. After all, the definition as I have revealed cannot be used to anyone's advantage unless they can replicate the very "Dark Gift" upon which the actual definition depends. And as that is not possible for Human males, they cannot successfully deceive.

Eastern Europe is filled with newspaper accounts of men in just the past 100 years who have tried and failed to mimic being a Vampire...claiming as their own the "Dark Gift" of actual multiorgasmic capacity. And each time they tried, women discovered their deception and, with the help of local law enforcement and/or their families captured and punished (sometimes quite severely) the wannabee impostors.

Where true Vampires are concerned, you either are One...or you're not.

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic religion labeled vampires as evil because we were not like them.
We didn't all believe in the same system as they did. Vampires are just like everyone else, except with special powers and what not.
We're not evil. We're different. And there's nothing wrong with that.

What "special powers" pray tell?

I would say multiorgasmic capacity in the male,Hunter.
Upir,I have some catching up to do,but in the meantime and for our benefit,would you mind telling us about female vampires please?Are all females vampires?

I ask because I am thinking if so,then this might account for the prejudice we see in history and even today in some middle eastern countries against women etc...?

Uh, oh... uncharted territory, I don't think this question has ever been asked for as long as I have bee a member under my different pseudonyms on this site.

Oceanne, great question... and you kinda hit the nail on the head re: the answer.

As most here know, the term "Vampire" originates from the 11th-Century East Slavic word "Upir," which means "one who feasts." (The South Slavic variant of this word is the more recognizable "Vampir"). And the verb, where this term is concerned ("pir"= to feast), is actually a euphemism for sexual feasting... or, more accurately, multiorgasmic communion of both body and soul, together. And whereas females have always been known to be sexually capable of continuous multiple orgasms, even in ancient times, yet men have just as equally been known to be incapable of such... and have made sure to make women pay dearly for this sexual inequality.

... And then, along come (no pun) tales from ancient times to today of a few select men who were inexplicably just as sexually capable as women... capable of "feasting" together with them, communing together, as one, on all levels at the same time: sexually, emotionally and... ultimately... spiritually. In Sumer, this was termed "Sacred Marriage" (known to anthropogists as Hieros Gamos) and in original Christianity as the "Sacrament of the Bridal Chamber" (literally, "The Chamber with the Bed").

Thus, as females have always naturally possessed at least the potential capacity for unlimited orgasmic fulfillment, it would make little sense to call them all by the term sexual "feasters" (Upyri / Vampyri) given that this is their natural state and always has been.

However... given the extreme rarity of this capacity in a male, a capacity that to this day is viewed by "modern" sexology as "physiologically impossible"... it would be expected if not a foregone conclusion that a term would be developed to describe such rare males that distinguishes them from all the rest.

Hence the reason why Vampires, as described in almost all Central/Eastern European and Slavic accounts, have always been male... and their lovers, always female: their natural equals.


Should anyone be interested, one of my journal entries (August 2010) discusses this specific topic in greater depth and can be found here: https://www.vampirerave.com/journal/journal_section.php?section=personal&journal=UpirLikhyj&page=August 2010


- Upir'

Thank you Upir.
This could account for some of the legends,about Vampires and their sexuality then.Why women find them so irresistable etc..

And in light of all this,it would most likely mean also mean that blood,and the drinking of it really has no significance in determining whether one is a vampire .As suspected,it is simply a fetish,and the rush ot provides.
That "floaty feeling" that so many describe.
LOL Quite the wake up call Id say!

The whole "turning" thing.Any ideas as to where that myth might have come into play Upir?

Speaking from a hunch. When the demonizing campaign started an infection monster would make the populace more scared than one that could not spread and infect anyone it chose.

In and of itself, this explanation I've provided does not reveal as false the belief in Vampires as blood drinkers. However, the other historical evidences most certainly do. Anyone interested in such need only read the top few paragraphs of my profile to find them...and they are quite compelling and undeniable, and all from doctorate-level vampirologists and Slavisists.

As Dr. Bruce McClelland states in his book "Slayers and Their Vampires: A Cultural History of Killing the Dead", the concept of Vampires as blood-drinkers did not begin to enter into history until as recently as the early 17th Century, whereas the term "Vampire" and accounts of them (and their true characteristic of "insatiable sexuality") had been around for at least 500 years earlier and right up to modern times.

Great questions/observations, Oceanne and 8th...both of which I've addressed at length in my profile and journal articles. The answers to both are kinda one and the same and perfectly link everything together..

To briefly state it for now: Vampires awaken in women their full sexual/emotional/spiritual potentials. That is the true "Turning" that occurs, causing such "victims" to become...in the eyes of the Church...carnal and"devilish."

The disease component is how local populaces misinterpreted seeing a woman "exhausted and emaciated" following sometimes days and nights of non-stop multiorgasmic communion with a Vampire. Such women appeared to suffer from tuberculosis, hence the reason for what appears to be one of the vampires later names: Nosferatu (plague carrier).

Indeed it does link everything together Upir.I just hope others begin to take a closer look at all this and understand whats going on here.

To actually recognize our human abilities for what they are,and understand what could very possible be the TRUE nature of the Vampire.Instead of the ongoing rediculous fantasy garbage.

So Upir, I'm guessing based on your definition then, there cannot be any such things as a homosexual vampire then?

There is nothing in the historical definition that precludes that possibility. Such could exist, as well. Of course, if such do exist, they would really have a difficult time finding another male like themselves (homosexual AND possessing the "Dark Gift" of natural multiorgasmic capacity).

Multiorgasmic lesbians (technically, female homosexual "vampires") would have a far easier time finding and fully communing with one another. In fact, in the book that surveyed 1000s of women in the 1980s, called "The Hire Report," there were a few accounts where women reported preferring other female lovers specifically BECAUSE with them they finally had a lover who could...keep up, who could fully participate and accompany them throughout their multiorgasmic journey together. Thus, for them at least, finding their sexual equal matters far more than that equal's gender.

Should have been "The HITE Report" (damn Android auto correct!). ;)

I Think Its Evolution That Has Tought Us To Consume And Survive Mostly ON Energy