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.

Friday, September 30, 2016

Those were the days

So this is going to be a rare post where I disagree with Lucius Svartwulf Helsen, who earlier today posted As It Was In The Old Days... over at his usually-excellent Son of Hel blog.

See, I consider myself on the reconstructionist end of the pool, and as such I really don't have a particular problem with "our ancestors did it, so I'm okay with it" as a general principle. I think the specific examples the unis give regarding their anti-Folkish position are rubbish, but that doesn't invalidate the general principle that, basically speaking, our ancestors spent tens of thousands of years honing their understanding of the Gods through a particular, if ever-changing, cultural lens, and they are therefore going to have a more accurate view of what those Gods are like, and what They happen to find pleasing.

Now, this approach necessitates a certain bifurcation when it comes to classifying beliefs and practices. On the one hand, we have those things that directly relate to the Gods, and can therefore be classified as "religious" according to our modern understanding of the term. On the other hand, we have those things that deal with those things that are purely interpersonal, and thus fall on the "secular" side of things, again according to modern understanding.

That does not, of course, change the reality that our ancestors didn't see such a division. To them, there was no difference between those things that were done for the Gods (or other spirits) and those things that were done between men. But on a practical level, in a world and a culture where laws are in place that do not recognize the primacy of "but my ancestors did it this way" as an argument, such a distinction is necessary.

So, when Helsen provides a list of things he finds... problematic... I find myself nodding in agreement with a lot of them. Of course, being a product myself of a 20th-21st century post-modern, post-Christian, mostly-secular, liberal democratic culture that is ever-more obsessed with individuality rather than clan/tribal identity, I am programmed to find some of them personally distasteful. But when it comes to things from his list such as:
  • killing each other over insults
  • fucking at the dinner table
  • human sacrifice
  • wholesale slaughter
  • animal sacrifice
  • polyamory
I really don't see the problem (although I'm going to ask where he got the fucking at the dinner table thing, because I don't remember reading that in any of the Icelandic Sagas).

But killing each other over insults? Honestly, we could do worse than returning to a state of affairs when we didn't rely on an impersonal justice system that was more interested in slavish obedience to written law, rather than a situational system that was self-enforced. Holmgang isn't the worst thing in the world. But that's a social, not a sacral, thing. I don't see it as a religious imperative.

Fucking at the dinner table? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do it myself, and as mentioned above I don't think that was a particular thing that our ancestors did, but I'm also not too concerned with Victorian mores concerning sex. As a rule, sex is a good thing, and the sooner sexual taboos that have been held over since the late 19th century go away, the better. But again, that's social, not sacral.

Human sacrifice? Bring it on. We already execute criminals convicted of heinous crimes such as murder. If society deems they are to die, I see nothing wrong with doing it in a sacral manner that gives their death some meaning beyond mere vengeance. Bearing in mind that the objects of such sacrifice were state-defined offenders such as criminals and prisoners of war* (so it's not just plucking random people off the street and hanging them), of all the things on his list, this is the first that deals with the Gods themselves.

Wholesale slaughter? I invite Helsen to watch any documentary about World War II. It is quite justifiable, and hardly confined to "the good old days." So we return to the social.

But animal sacrifice in particular I object to being on such a list. I've written before about the practice, and its centrality (and modern relevance) to Heathen religious religion. I've personally been to a swine-blot, and to this day it remains one of the most intensely spiritual rituals in which I've ever participated. It also falls in the category of "things relating to the Gods" rather than things relating to men.

In this case in particular, short of Odin Himself appearing simultaneously to every Heathen on the planet and telling them to stop, I'm inclined to err on the side of history, and accept the idea that this was pleasing to the Gods for thousands of years, and there is absolutely no reason to think that has changed just because humanity in the West has moved away from a largely agricultural lifestyle where such things are common, to a place where most people don't care where the hamburger-wrapped-in-plastic came from.

The Gods are not beholden to mercurial changes in human mores.

And polyamory? I'd never do it myself, but if someone else wants to do it, in full knowledge of what they're getting into, I don't see why my own jealous nature should prevent other people from trying it. Everything above-board, known to and with the blessing of all involved, then my personal preferences shouldn't be enough to stop them. Once more, social, not sacral.

Now, Helsen has made the distinction between that which is legal, and that which is morally right, before, and I don't disagree. Indeed, I think it has a very distinct impact on my own division between how our ancestors interacted with one another, and how they interacted with the Gods. But even there, it must be remembered that morality, as such, is a human invention, and the Gods are not held to the same standard as men. Thus do I make the distinction between the sacral and the social.

Again, the Gods are not beholden to mercurial changes in human mores.

If we accept the premise that our ancestors knew more about what the Gods wanted, based on their thousands of years of constant interaction with Them, and thereby honing their knowledge of what the Gods did and did not find pleasing (through observation of omens, comparison of outcomes, direct intervention, etc.), it stands to reason that we should defer to them in how we approach the Gods. And if the Gods find it pleasing to receive offerings of animals, or having capital punishment carried out by the State done in a sacral manner, then I'm frankly okay with it, as long as it can be done in the proper fashion.

I'll weigh ten thousand years of religio-cultural evolution that says such things are right, against forty years of human cultural change that says some people don't like it, any day.

* The key being that the objects of such sacrifices are those already condemned to death by the laws of the land. Why not give their life a religious meaning beyond simple vengeance, or deterrent, or a cold calculation that it's cheaper to kill a prisoner than imprison them for the rest of their life? If I was, for some reason, on Death Row, I would petition the court for such a death, to give my execution a deeper meaning that mere secularism can't provide. Again, this is not about grabbing random (or even deserving) people off the street, hanging them, and sticking them with a spear.