Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Virginia White Supremacist Sentenced

There's another follow-up to the case of the Virginia white supremacists, some of whom professed to follow "a white supremacy version of the Asatru faith", and who reportedly were caught trying to buy weapons illegally (among other things) and planning to attack synagogues last November (see here and here).

Apparently one of them has just been sentenced to between 14 and 17 1/2 years, after pleading guilty to robbery, conspiracy, and possession of firearms as a convicted felon. What makes this relevant to Asatru is his apparent connection to our religion:
A sentencing memorandum filed by Doyle’s lawyer says that Doyle “embraced” the Asatru faith, a pagan religion practiced by some white supremacists, while a Virginia prison inmate. He was released from prison in 2013, continued his association with the religion and was successfully employed until his arrest last year. ... 
“While he was incarcerated, Mr. Doyle began his participation in the Asatru religious ceremonies and committed himself to a pure life, clean of all drugs. He began to study and learned to value family above all. He emerged from prison clean and sober and committed to work and family values,” wrote Maguire [his public defender].
No word yet on what sort of "pure life" includes attacking innocent people. People like this, real violent racists, real white supremacists, makes our work as folkish Heathens all the more difficult, because of the false associations many people make between us and them.

Monday, May 2, 2016

Power Doesn't Matter

One of the "great truths" of the political left is that minorities are incapable of committing the sins of which whites are regularly charged with committing; racism and cultural appropriation, because differences in power are required to commit them. But this is a lie. Specifically, it's a lie created and perpetuated with the sole purpose of demonizing whites, whether out of self-loathing (in the case of whites who profess this attitude) or jealousy and greed (in the case of minorities who use it to get things as "reparations"). There are several reason why this construction is untrue.

First and foremost, power is relative. While it may be the case that whites exercise a relative cultural and political hegemony in the West (albeit one that is declining steadily), it is by far not the case in places such as Africa, Central and South America, the Middle East, or Asia. If institutional power is required in order to be racist, then the white farmers in Zimbabwe are most certainly the victims of racism, having been forced to give their farmland to the government starting in 2000, and being murdered in droves. The situation is arguably worse in post-apartheid South Africa. And yet the Left will vigorously protest such a label, because whites can never be the victims of racism, only the perpetrators. There are many other examples.

You tell them they're weak.
Secondly, power is situational. Even in a nation or a culture with a predominant white majority, belonging to that majority is no ticket to preferential treatment on a small scale. Power dynamics do not only operate on a national or cultural level; a pair of white kids walking through a black neighborhood most definitely do not possess any sort of inherent power relative to the blacks, but yet the left would still have us believe that they have some sort of power simply by virtue of their race. In point of fact, they don't, and indeed often face violence and bullying specifically because of their race, because the left has conditioned blacks to believe whites in general are responsible for all their woes. When the head of the New Black Panther Party calls for whites to be murdered simply because they're white, he's doing so from a position of power and a position of being able to intimidate his foes, not a position of weakness.

Third, power is transferable. To take the obvious example of police violence against blacks, the police in America are most definitely instruments of the state, and thus the left deems them inherently racist. But this ignores the fact that a good number of police are themselves members of racial minorities. Indeed, three out of the six police officers indicted in the death of Freddy Gray were black. But the left still somehow clings to the idea that there is some sort of white police vendetta against unarmed young black men.

The next time someone bleats about racism or cultural appropriation only being possible if one is in a position of power, remember that it's never that simple. Hate is hate, and no amount of clever linguistic gymnastics are going to change that fact. Blacks can be racist towards whites, Arabs can be racist towards blacks, and on and on and on. To deny that fact is to indulge in a relativist fallacy, is the product of political maneuvering in order to vilify whites and shield blacks and other minorities, and should be avoided and vigorously fought against wherever it rears its head.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

A late night encounter

As I was driving home last night from a wonderful ritual celebrating Walpurgisnacht, where I led an ecstatic dance ritual I call "Dancing the Brocken", I saw a fox on the road.

Totally dark, "real country dark" as Alex DeLarge might say, and there was the fox in my headlights, happy as a camper.  He made his way into the field on the right side of the road and disappeared.

I know it's just a random encounter with an animal late at night on the road, that happens a thousand times a day, but for some reason it struck me as being significant.

Friday, April 29, 2016

On Sacral Leadership

Over at Pathetic Pagan, there is actually a good article by Kiya Nicoll entitled A Defense of Sacred Kingship. It's from the Khemetic (Egyptian recon) point of view, but it's aimed squarely at the current debate sparked by you-know-who concerning leadership and egalitarianism. And it has a lot of relevance for Heathens.

One of the things that struck me about Ms. Nicoll's article was the way she framed the institution of sacral leadership (she uses the phrase sacral kingship, but I contend that the role isn't necessarily limited to the title of "king"). The sacral leader isn't someone who is better at everything, and thus has the reigns of leadership. He is the individual who is simply the best at being the sacral leader, in the same way that the blacksmith is simply the best at blacksmithing, the warriors are the ones who are best at being warriors, and so forth.

As I commented over at her blog post, from my own experience as a Theodsman, the trouble is that the person in the role of sacral leader tend to either let it go to their heads, or get overwhelmed by it and crash and burn. I've seen it happen a half-dozen times (including one particular example that has been in the news lately), and I can only think of one Theodish sacral lord who's been in the role long enough to count, to whom it hasn't happened, even if they returned to the role later on.

I think the selection process is crucial if the institution is to actually work on a practical level, and yet that's something that is often left out, or done as an afterthought. It's usually, "I started the group, so I'm the king", but too often starting the group, or even coming up with the concept, isn't the same "at what" as actually being the sacral leader on a daily basis. Historically, this was done at thing, where the assembly chose the sacral leader from a pool of available candidates. It didn't necessarily go to the eldest son of the previous king, but to someone who the assembly felt had the best qualities to fulfill the function. Of course they weren't always right, and naturally sometimes the king was just the guy who had the biggest army, but on a theoretical level, our ancestors had a pretty good process in place.

And what are those "best at" qualities when it comes to Germanic kingship? Prowess as a warrior, to be sure. But there are other qualities too. Cunning. Reverence for the gods (as Tacitus tells us, the king acts as the ultimate high priest for the tribe/nation, just as the head of the family does at the family or clan level). The ability to gather around him a retinue not only of great warriors, but wise counselors. Generosity, which includes the willingness to let those below the king do their jobs; let the magician do his magic, let the thulr do his teaching, and so forth.

In a Theodish context, there is also a direct requirement that the sacral leader be able to be the conduit for the luck of the tribe from the gods. That's not a passive role; it requires constant and active work on behalf of the sacral leader to make all that happen. Those are the "mysteries" of sacral leadership.

I think that arrangement works within Asatru, as well. Naturally, most Asatru groups don't have the sort of strict social hierarchy that we see in Theodism, but in the vast majority of cases there is a leader of some sort. I think if more Asatru goðar placed more emphasis on the sacral nature of the role, and undertook the behind-the-scenes sort of luck or soul work that we see in Theodism, it might add to the success of their group. It does imply, though, a separation between the sacral role of the goði and the organizational needs of a group. Which might not be a bad thing; after all, someone who's good at soul or luck work isn't necessarily the best at organization and logistics.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Anonymous Comments

Just a quick bit of housekeeping. Anonymous / "Unknown" comments will no longer be approved (noms de plume or noms de guerre don't count).

If you've got something to say, have the balls to at least put a name to your words.

Who's Stopping You?

When I saw HUAR founder (and nearly 50% of the membership) Ryan Smith's latest screed on Pathetic Pagan the other day, I thought to myself...

But then I realized, his whole spiel is rooted in jealousy. Like a toddler told he can't play with the bigger kids, he's lashing out against the "mean doody heads" (or in his parlance, "fascists", which in his context has exactly the same level of meaning). That is the only possible explanation, given the fact that nobody in the Asatru community* actively tries to stop anyone doing anything.

We just want the freedom to choose with whom we worship, and who joins our tribes.

It's not inclusive. It's not meant to be. And that's okay. That's our right. In fact, that's the right of the Japanese, and the west Africans, and the Indians, and everyone else. And if some super-duper-eclectic neopagans want to appropriate their cultures (or ours) there's no real way of stopping them short of draconian laws that nobody wants or would tolerate.

A common misnomer is that "folkish Heathens" say "non-white people can't worship Odin or Thor". Well, that's absurd on the face of it; we couldn't stop them if we wanted to. But we don't. All we want is the freedom to say "We don't want you to worship Odin or Thor with us." And that goes for people who happen to share our heritage but are dedicated to some weird foreign philosophy, like Marxism or its modern echoes.

All we want is to be left alone in the way we worship. Why the Hel would we want to "infiltrate" and take over groups that disagree with us on a fundamental issue, and include members that we don't want?

Freedom of association. It's one of the basic ones.

See, now, that's one thing that makes us different from the Marxists. When we don't want to be with someone, we just put up the velvet rope and gently ask them to go to that group over there, or form their own group, or be a solitary, or whatever. Nobody then goes an tries to disrupt their meetings, shout them down, publicly attack and denounce them, or whatever. We might shake our heads with bemusement, and wonder why they want to worship the gods of my ancestors, when they have really cool gods of their own ancestors they could turn to, but nobody's actively trying to stop them.

That's tolerance. True tolerance. We go our way, they go theirs. That's really all there is to it. No purges, no protests, no disruptions of their events and rituals.

So the next time you see a Marxist or an SJW babble about folkish Heathens not wanting other people to worship whomever they choose to worship, just mentally add "with them" to the end of the sentence. You might not agree with our reasons for putting up the velvet rope, but we've got the right to do so. And unlike some people, we don't go around attacking people for what they believe. And they even want to turn that, the very fact that we're tolerant of other peoples' right to assemble and worship, into an attack against us somehow!

That's how twisted their view of the world is, how utterly desperate they are to wipe out anyone who dares disagree. To paraphrase the famous poem...
First they came for the folkish Heathens, but I didn't say anything, because I wasn't a folkish Heathen...


* As contrasted with the Germanic neopagan community.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Free Speech Matters

That paper in his pocket better not have
any counter-revolutionary ideas in it!
The recent spate of Marxist assaults on their perceived enemies in the Neopagan and Heathen communities has in common the presumption that their "fascist"* enemies aren't deserving of the right to free expression, simply by virtue of what it is those enemies would do with that right.

Presumably, and quite ironically (although the Marxists are unlikely to ever have a clue about the irony of their own position), the "fascists" would use those rights to deprive the Marxists of their right to free speech, among other things.

This was explicitly on display in a post earlier this month from that font of Marxist enlightenment, Gods & Radicals, in an article by Sophia Burns entitled The Inalienable Right to Persecute. This one has pretty much gone "under the radar" among those of us resisting the Marxist push to place their political ideology above our gods and traditions, but I think it is at the core of the Marxists' strategy.

Basically, the Marxist logic goes, "we need to take away our enemies' rights, because if we don't they'll use them to take away our rights."

The notion of classical liberal freedom of speech is pretty much that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as it doesn't directly incite physical violence against others. This is essentially the basis of the First Amendment's Free Speech clause, but is completely anathema to the Marxist view that anything that disagrees with their own cause should be destroyed, as Ms. Burns states plainly:
"...the Pagan far right knows that the classical liberal ethic can be manipulated for their benefit. When reactionaries invoke coexistence, the toleration of disagreement, and setting aside political differences in religious settings, don’t accept it on face value. The far right’s raison d’être is the disempowerment of social minorities." (emphasis in the original)
Of course, that last is merely her (and the far left's) interpretation of the desires of the far right (and I might more accurately characterize it as "leave us the Hel alone"); but what's really important is the sentence that comes before it; "When reactionaries invoke coexistence, the toleration of disagreement, and setting aside political differences in religious settings, don’t accept it on face value." The theme is strong in her post:
  • When reactionaries invoke coexistence ... don’t accept it on face value.
  • When they hide behind classical liberal notions of “reasonable people disagreeing reasonably,” they obscure the reality of discrimination behind their words.
  • “Civility” is a red herring meant to obscure their actions’ destructive consequences.
  • Each time, we see reactionaries invoking classical liberal ideas to deflect criticism
  • While lauding tolerance and freedom as a defensive strategy, the reactionaries are already implementing an agenda of exclusion, discrimination, and targeted disempowerment
  • Fascists, however, don’t believe in free speech. They don’t believe in free and open participation, and their invocation of classical liberal values is purely opportunistic.
  • Whenever fascists are tolerated, they enact discrimination.
And who else do the Marxists catch up in their "fascist" web? Astonishingly, no actual Fascists or even actual racists (which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing)! Anyone who puts the gods or or folk or tradition above the Marxist ideal. Reconstructionists, Devotional Polytheists, Ceremonial Magicians, Dianic Wiccans, Druids (at least the ones who don't belong to the particular group that Rhyd happens to belong to - one wonders if that will change if they ever kick him out), followers of the Left Hand Path, folkish Heathens, and a host of others. You're all scheduled for a trip to the reeducation camp once their Glorious Revolution comes to pass.

Basically, anyone who isn't them. Go figure.

They always lie. The only way you can ever know what's in their heart for sure is to listen to us, because we really know. No matter what they say or do, they're really plotting and scheming. No matter what lack of evidence, we know better, and we'll tell you how to act, and we're the ones really looking out for your interests, because, as you already know, you can't trust them.

For a group of people who are always bitching and moaning about "othering" people, and "dehumanizing" people, and "dog whistles" and the like, they're sure good at doing what they complain about other people doing, aren't they?

And the best, most ironic, part? Their Dear Leader recently asked that people not listen to what other people say about him. Give him the benefit of the doubt. But that, of course, doesn't apply to those who have been Officially Denounced. That's them. And they can't be trusted. You know because we told you so.

It'd be funny if they weren't so deadly serious about it.

Let's take a trip down memory lane. Back in the 1920's and 1930's in Germany, there was a political party called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. You might know them as the Nazi Party. They advocated anti-capitalism, collectivism, breaking up big banks, getting rid of usurious interest, and all the other stuff that their Marxist counterparts championed. The Nazis even had Four Year Plans, just like the Soviet Five Year Plans. The only difference? The word "National" in front of the name. The Nazis wanted the collectivism done at a national/racial level, while the communists wanted it done at a global level. You change that to "International" and the differences between Nazis and Marxists disappear (the "Communist International" was the leading organization advocating Marxism well into World War II). Certainly their methods are absolutely identical; the Marxists are just a LOT more efficient at committing genocide.

Seriously. You Marxists have Hitler on your side. WTG!
Other than that, the goals of Nazis and Marxists are the same. Establish complete power over individual actions, suppress dissent, control economic activity, eliminate competition. The only difference is that the Nazis do those things to advance a particular nation or racial group, while Marxists do those things to advance "the international proletariat".

Big fucking whoop. Commisars or Gauleiters. No difference.

And this isn't limited to Rhyd and his cell of Marxist neopagan infiltrators. We see this all the time in contemporary SJW activism. "They don't deserve to be heard, because they're X", which you can fill in with fascists, racists, transphobes, homophobes, Republicans, Fox News viewers, Trump supporters, Christians, Mormons, Libertarians, or whatever happens to be the villain of the day.

They're evil. We're good. If you support usyou're good. If you support them, you're evil. Remind you of anyone?

Oh, they're going to hate that one. But it fits.

The problem with the suppression of free speech, even of people who you think are inherently evil, and who you think are just twisting that freedom of speech to their own ends, is that... that's exactly what they think of you.

The whole premise rests on the idea that they are objectively correct. That anyone who disagrees with them is objectively wrong. That they are right simply because they know they're right, and everyone else (including most of us) are wrong because they know we're wrong.

And, naturally, there's no right to spread wrongthink, as defined by those who are the guardians of truefact.

It's a cliche, but it really is true. The best remedy for wrong speech is more speech. Counter ideas with which you disagree. Argue. Discuss. And (HORRORS!) admit that it's possible that someone will look at the same information you do, and come to a different conclusion. It doesn't make that person evil, or wrong, or misguided. It just makes them... different. Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech, precisely because POPULAR SPEECH DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROTECTED!

They accuse the "fascists" of wanting to suppress individuality. And yet that's the very thing they seek to stifle. They don't want to engage with people who disagree. They want to silence them. Just look at what's happening in Lodi, California this weekend. The Sons of Odin, who have stopped "refugees" from raping women in northern Europe, are planning a rally, and the heroic antifa forces are going to protest against them (guys, seriously, you have a rape problem - it seems so many things are worse than rape, in your worldview). You think those antifa bullies are going there to engage in a spirited and rational debate with the Sons of Odin?

They're going there to silence them. Because they disagree with them, and that cannot be tolerated. They're the enemy. They're evil. We're good. We must be, because we're not them.

Don't like what someone says? Refute it. No human thought, no matter how much you might subjectively disagree with it, should be silenced, unless it directly incites physical violence (and even then, there are exceptions). The impulse to silence dissenting voices is based in the fear that, if someone hears a different opinion, they might actually agree with it. And that implies that your opinion might be wrong, which is intolerable.

And who are you, who is anyone, to deny any individual the right to make up their own mind? Only a fanatic, who is certain in the absolute, objective rightness of their cause. And that way lies despotism.

To them, free speech is a threat. They think you're too stupid to make up your own mind. You need them to tell you what is right and what is wrong, and what you should agree with, and what you should not. That should tell you all you need to know about them.


* The term "Fascist" actually has a very specific meaning, but they hurl it around so willy-nilly that it has lost all real meaning, other than "someone I don't like". Congratulations, guys. You've equated murderous totalitarian dictators like Mussolini and Franco with "you won't accept people literally believing they're dragons".