Friday, October 21, 2016

Jotun-worshiping neopagan king out-fundraises the Troth

Apologies for the dearth of posts lately, but I've just started a new job, and our annual Halloween party is tomorrow, so time is precious. But I couldn't resist point out a certain disparity that came to light tonight.

Last year, a group calling itself the "Alliance for Inclusive Heathenry," which was basically a bunch of Troth leaders with a logo evidently designed in MS Paint, tried to raise funds to send some of their representatives to the Parliament of World Religions, so their chosen bigwigs could hobnob with other self-important luminaries and discuss the importance of climate change.

They raised $1,550 over the course of two months.

Starting this morning, Raven Kaldera and Joshua Tenpenny, who worship jotuns, practice BDSM ordeal rituals, one of whom (Raven) styles himself a king, and who generally have a rather... dim reputation within the universalist Asatru community (because the unis seem to really feel entitled to judge what other people practice and believe), started raising funds to buy a car, as their old one died. As described, it was needed mainly so they can continue their rounds of teaching and appearances at neopagan events.

They have raised $2,645 as of this writing, in just over 8 hours, and it's still on a roll.

Now, I'm not saying this to dogpile on Raven. Far from it; I actually have no little amount of respect for him, as he doesn't shy away from what he is or what he does, and doesn't try to couch either in euphemisms or false declarations of inclusiveness like some do. I've got a lot of his books, and he definitely knows what he's talking about, even if it's not a path I choose to follow, for a variety of reasons.

I'm just pointing out the difference in enthusiasm between folks wanting to send some Troth bigwigs off to puff themselves up under some made-up group name, as opposed to supporting someone who wants to teach. I made the same point last year, in comparison with the AFA's fundraising efforts, but it seemed worth pointing out that the AFA isn't the only group who can paste the Troth in terms of fundraising. Even jotun-worshiping, trans, polyamorous tribal kings are beating you at the popular support game.

Seriously, Trothers. You're embarrassing yourselves. First the AFA, and now the King of Asphodel is stomping you in terms of support. I'd recommend a deep, soul-searching self-inquiry as to why that might be, but I'm very sure you're too certain that you're right to ever even do so. It must be everyone else's fault, right?

Friday, October 14, 2016

Off to Winternights!

Just an administrative note: I will be attending AFA Winternights in the Poconos this weekend, so there won't be any new posts, nor will any comments get approved until I return on Sunday evening, or possibly later.

(Although this is a good time to give a reminder that anonymous comments won't be approved, no matter their content.)

Later all!

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Does the AFA claim to speak for everyone?

There's quite an interesting (and by interesting I mean effing idiotic) trend in some of the recent commentary about the AFA lately. Specifically, folks seem to keep saying that the AFA "doesn't speak for me!".

But princess, the AFA never claimed it was speaking for you, so I'm not sure why you're saying that.

This is the statement in question:
Today we are bombarded with confusion and messages contrary to the values of our ancestors and our folk. The AFA would like to make it clear that we believe gender is not a social construct, it is a beautiful gift from the holy powers and from our ancestors. The AFA celebrates our feminine ladies, our masculine gentlemen and, above all, our beautiful white children. The children of the folk are our shining future and the legacy of all those men and women of our people back to the beginning. Hail the AFA families, now and always!
Matt Flavel
Alsherjargothi, AFA 
I want to post that again, with some phrases and words highlighted for ease of comprehension, for the Pakleds out there:
Today we are bombarded with confusion and messages contrary to the values of our ancestors and our folk. The AFA would like to make it clear that we believe gender is not a social construct, it is a beautiful gift from the holy powers and from our ancestors. The AFA celebrates our feminine ladies, our masculine gentlemen and, above all, our beautiful white children. The children of the folk are our shining future and the legacy of all those men and women of our people back to the beginning. Hail the AFA families, now and always!
Matt Flavel
Alsherjargothi, AFA 
I've re-read that about a dozen times, now, and I'm still trying to figure out where various morons are getting the idea that the AFA ever claimed to be speaking for anyone other than the AFA. They're not claiming they're speaking for all Heathens, they're not claiming they're speaking for all Asatruar, they're not claiming they're speaking for the gods, and they're sure as fuck not claiming they're speaking for all neopagans.

Which leads me to wonder just what planet these morons live on. Maybe there's something on the AFA website that claims to define Asatru for everyone?
In the AFA, we don’t have to dress up like Vikings to live true to the Gods, nor do we turn our backs on the age in which we live. 
Therefore, the survival and welfare of the Northern European peoples as a cultural and biological group is a religious imperative for the AFA.
The AFA supports the efforts of all cultural and biological groups to maintain their identity and opposes the plans of the world-managers to reduce all of humanity to a lowest common denominator. 
Nope. Just over and over a very clear identifier that what the AFA says applies to the AFA, and doesn't even imply that the AFA is trying to tell anyone else what to do, how to worship, or what to think. But that doesn't seem to sink in for some idjits:
...they are also implying that certain demographics just aren’t good enough — not normal enough — to be heathen, or rather Asatru... (Heathentalk)
How dare they usurp the place of our holy gods, and arrogant to themselves the right to decide who may and may not raise a horn to them, who may or may not feel the call to join with their folk in community and worship. (John Mainer, Troth Redesman)
So the AFA didn't, and doesn't claim to speak for all Heathens, all Asatruar, or the gods.

But you know who is claiming to speak for all Heathens, all Asatruar, and the gods? The people who are jumping all up and down protesting the fact that the AFA as an organization laid out what it as an organization believes and celebrates. They're the ones making sweeping statements defining what Heathenry is, and wouldn't you know, they just happen to be definitions that exclude folkish Heathens and the AFA. Go figure.
Heathenry is a life affirming, diverse, and nuanced set of religious beliefs that has practitioners of strong moral character all over the world. It is a religion practised [sic] in many places and many ways, and there is nothing in its core that lends itself to hate and bigotry. We believe in making our communities, and our world, better for future generations. We work and play with and among people of all types, regardless of race, gender, creed or religion, because we believe that your deeds make you, not some arbitrary set of genetic markers or beliefs. We are Americans, Canadians, Brazilians, Australians, and so many many more nationalities, and we care for those around us because without our neighbors the world is naught but chaos. (Heathentalk)
The AFA have chosen their way.  It is their right, but it is not, in my opinion, a Heathen one. (John Mainer, Troth Redesman)
... nor should European paganisms be closed off from people of non-European heritage. (A Sense of Natural Wonder)
"Heathenry is..." "X is not Heathen..." "European paganisms shouldn't be..."

Those are the people trying to speak for everyone. Not the AFA. Although in fairness, there is one thing on the AFA website that informs us what the gods want:
The Gods do not want us to be submissive, meek, and mild. Rather, they want us to evolve towards ever greater freedom, exercised in wisdom and awareness. Similarly, we will never bow before human tyrants. Totalitarianism, the ant hill, and the mass-mind are the antitheses of the Northern European ideal.
And that's what these totalitarian jackasses can't stand. These regressive leftists have an all-encompassing need to control everything and everyone around them, and lash out in the most vicious manner against those who refuse to fall in line under their Marxist, Anarchist, Universalist utopias. With them at the top defining what everyone is supposed to think and do, naturally.

So enough of these yahoos whining that the AFA is trying to speak for the gods, or define what Asatru is for everyone, or any of that nonsense. The AFA speaks for the AFA. The ones complaining the loudest are, in fact, the ones trying to tell everyone else how they should and should not practice their religion.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Racism and Power

One of the great truisms of SJWs and the Left in general is that racism requires power. In other words, those without power, as a group, are incapable of being racist because they lack the power, again as a group, to impose racist policies on other groups. Take, for example, this paper by Caleb Rosado, a professor at the Department of Urban Studies, Eastern University. Philadelphia:
Racism--and sexism--are not about color or gender; they are about Power! They can thus afflict anyone of any gender, color, community, culture, or country, who craves power above the need to respect the Other. At the heart of racism (as well as sexism) lies the concept of group competition--the quest for power.
What is power? Power in its essence is the capacity to act.
And therein lies the great contradiction of leftist conceptions of racism (and sexism, etc.). They claim it applies on a group level, because it is institutionalized, but it is by definition expressed at an individual level, at least in modern America.

But this is patently false, precisely because races don't hold or utilize power; individuals do. And that power is both situational and relative.

In a land where the laws specifically prohibit the denial of civil rights on the basis of race or gender (i.e., everyone has the right to vote, there are no legal limits imposed on property ownership, salary, speech, etc.), then the only space in which racism, etc. can exist is on the individual level, and that's where contemporary attempts to categorize racism fail.

It's one thing to say that the government cannot engage in a behavior, and when it comes to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or gender, I'm all for it.

But it is a completely different thing to say that a particular "race" (or gender, or sexual preference) is capable of a behavior (or, even worse, defined by it), and then using the coercive power of government to prevent individuals who happen to belong to that group from engaging in some behavior strictly on that basis. Such condemnation-by-group-membership is quite literally no different than the racism of years past. It's only being done to the former perceived oppressors.

That is, of course, because all members of a given race are not homogeneous units, nor do the members of a particular race necessarily bear the burden (or inherit the benefit) of what other members of their race may have done. One wonders, for instance, at the difference between "all whites are racist" and "blacks bear the Mark of Cain." Functionally, they would seem to be the same. Guilt is not transmitted by race, or gender, or any other group identifier. Nor is guilt generational; although the Christians' desert mountain god may disagree:
The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.'
If power dynamics are then not on a group level (because there are demonstrably blacks who are well off, and whites who are not), they must by definition be individual. And that, indeed, is where the whole "racism requires group power" equation breaks down.

Are whites in Appalachia, who suffer from grievous, grinding poverty, somehow the beneficiaries of "white privilege"? They can't afford homes in affluent neighborhoods, can't send their children to private schools, and suffer the same sort of drug, education, unemployment, and other problems that their black neighbors do.

White farmer in Zimbabwe watches armed invaders
on the other side of an electrified gate
What about whites in Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia? Their farms, long the backbone of agriculture and the very economy of the nation, were seized based on racial preference, and out of a sense of vengeance, back in 2000. And now the country is a shambles. In Zimbabwe, it was the black government that had the power, and the white farmers that were powerless to resist. The blacks had the power then, and still do. Do events in the United States fifty years before mean that black crimes against whites in Zimbabwe cannot be motivated by racism?

Let's bring it to a very personal, individual level. What about a white family trying to get gas a few years ago in Baton Rouge? All they needed were a few gallons of gasoline, but they were brutally beaten by a group of blacks, for being in the "wrong neighborhood." Who had the power there? The innocent family, who just wanted to be on their way? Or the black thugs, who beat them into the hospital? The blacks had the power there, not the whites. Whatever some white cop might have done in Memphis forty years earlier had no impact on that power dynamic.

And on and on and on the story goes. There are literally thousands of similar examples.

Power is not applied at a racial level. Power is applied at an individual level. Races do not exercise power, individuals do.

Who had the power in this dynamic? 

And institutions? Again, they're made up of individuals. When one is talking about civil rights in this country, there are no rights that white people have that blacks (or hispanics, or asians) do not. Indeed, thanks to the concept of affirmative action, there are rights and privileges that non-whites have that are not open to whites. When the coercive authority of the Federal government is on your side, backed ultimately by the threat of violence, how can you possibly say that you don't hold the power in that particular dynamic? And doesn't that mean that, by your own definition, you're the only one who is capable of being a racist?

I define racism at the only rational level available; that of the individual. You think one race is superior to another? You're a racist. You hold people to different standards because of their race? You're a racist. But a particular race has individuals who hold racist views? That does not make the entire race, racist. It makes those individuals racist, usually because they believe in one set of standards for one race, and a different set of standards for other races.

And in the vast majority of cases, it's not the people who call themselves folkish who do so. It's our critics. One set of standards for whites, and another for everyone else. But "whites" don't have power. Individuals do, and they can exercise that power on anything from a micro level at a Baton Rouge gas station to a macro level to seize farms from whites in Zimbabwe. It's still racism.

Friday, October 7, 2016

The cold, inexorable logic of genocide

Picture the following scenario:

A white supremacist terrorist organization has taken advantage of advances in biotechnology to home-grow a virus that causes sterility in blacks. Anyone without particular genetic markers unique to people of sub-Saharan African descent will be unaffected (say, genes that produce less than a given amount of melanin in the skin), but those whom the virus targets will suffer sterility in 99% of cases. In a generation, there won't be any more black people, for all intents and purposes.

Sounds like the plot of a techno-thriller novel, doesn't it? Most people would think that's a completely horrific thing, and cheer when the plot was disrupted by the hero at the last minute. And rightly so.

But is it materially different than promoting the idea that white people should be systematically bred out of existence by encouraging white people to intermarry with people of different racial and ethnic origins?

Because that's a thing that's actually happening. Here's one example:

starting at 33:08:
Renee: It's a kind of utopia. Just the fact that the whole world will mix up with each otherin, I don't know, seventy, eighty years, there will be no white people at all, and only chocochino-colored people.
Bourdain: That's the only way... This is the only solution...
Renee: Yeah! Yeah. 
Bourdain: It's our only hope, our only way out of this. It's going to take some time, but it's really the only way, this sort of "Singaporean Model" where everybody's so mixed up that you really don't know who to hate, because everybody's so hopelessly intertwined, but we're a long way from that.
Now, Anthony Bourdain is just a third-rate food show host, and obviously he's not some sort of policy-maker or even opinion-maker. And I am absolutely not some wild-eyed conspiracy-monger. I don't think there's some shadowy cabal of Illuminati plotting the downfall of the white race through interbreeding, nor do I think that individuals who want to marry and/or have kids with someone of a different ethnic background should be prevented from doing so by force of law. 

You don't need a wide-ranging conspiracy; I think the truth is much more mundane, and much more insidious.

It is, in fact, the logical outcome of the Leftist lie that only white people can be racist. By redefining "racism" in such a way that the definition precludes anyone but white people from being racist, and in addition pressing the idea that all white people are inherently racist, the inescapable logic of genocide becomes plain:

All whites are racist
Only whites can be racist
Racism is the worst thing ever
If we get rid of whites, we'll get rid of racism
We should get rid of whites to end racism

This is a real thing, and sold by students at
a publicly-funded university
When you break it down to it's essential formula, that's the inexorable logic of the people who say that only white people can be racist, and concomitantly all white people are racist (even babies), are getting at. And some, such as Renee and Anthony Bourdain in the clip above, aren't shy about saying so.

Perhaps they feel that genocide (defined by the U.N. as "a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups") is okay if it doesn't involve camps and gas chambers.

And lest we think that this horrendous line of thought is limited to third-rate cable television hosts, we're seeing this attitude being stated openly, and unchallenged, on American college campuses. From students selling hoodies saying "All White People Are Racist" to speakers at official college events saying outright that white people having kids with non-whites is a way to check "white privilege," because the resulting children aren't white. Thus, they don't have privilege. Problem solved!

You don't need to kill the present generation to commit genocide; you just need to prevent the next generation from being born.

Monday, October 3, 2016

New book!

Just got this wonderful book in the mail yesterday:

This oughta be good for a post or two.