Prior to the late 4th century, Christians celebrated their dead martyrs as local traditions at a variety of different times of year. By the 5th century AD the Church was at work trying to unifying the celebration of martyrs and saints into a single holiday. The date for this celebration tended to fall in the month of May until, in the early 7th century AD, Pope Boniface the IV nailed it down and established the “dedication Sanctae Mariae ad Martyres” on May 13th.
This is the Latin origin of what is known among today’s NW Europeans as Hallowtide, and includes “All Saints Eve” (Halloween), “All Saints Day” (All Hallows), and “All Souls Day”.
How then is it possible that this Catholic “feast of Martyrs, Saints and the dead” came to be celebrated beginning on the eve of October 31st and on to November 2nd?
Is it really just a syncretism with the Celtic Samhein; the Celts themselves having been conquered and Romanized by the Roman’s in the 1st century BC and then Christianized as an act of political correctness in the 4th century?
But our first clue on how that came to pass is to be found in the language itself. Halloween is of course a word firmly rooted in Old English, which itself is firmly rooted in West Germanic, and from there Proto-Germanic.
It is neither Latin nor Celtic in origin.
Similarly we have the flow of time, in which Hallow Eve pre-cedes All Hallows Day; a peculiarity (ie. reckoning the day from sundown to sundown rather than sunrise to sunrise) which is witnessed in Germanic time reckoning from as early as Tacitus. This Germanic sense of the flow of the day is likewise the reason that Christmas Eve pre-cedes Christmas Day.
The historical time frame of the move of the Catholic feast from mid-May (7th century) to early November (8th to 9th century) is also telling, as it was precisely within this time frame that the Anglo-Saxons and their continental Germanic brethren were converted to Catholicism.
Now, in a letter dated AD 601 and addressed to Mellitus, his missionary at work among the Anglo-Saxons, Pope Gregory I mentions a custom among our ancestors in which “a large number of cattle are slaughtered”, and that this heathen rite should be made over into “a feast in honour of the saints”.
Meanwhile, according to the Anglo-Catholic historian Bede, Blotmonath or Blood month, was a time in which “the cattle which were to be slaughtered were consecrated to the gods.” The Anglo-Saxon Blotmonath more-or-less corresponds to the modern month of (the Latin-rooted) November, and the slaughter that took place in this month was substantial and represented the annual thinning of the herd; required so that resources would be sufficient to see the herd through winter.
In reflecting on the matter of what the Hallowtide meant within the native beliefs of our English ancestors, I don’t think that we should become too preoccupied with the consecration of “the cattle that were to be slaughtered”. Such things would have occurred in regards to any sacrifice/feast, save here, the number of cattle to be slaughtered was quite substantial in comparison, and probably set the stage for the sacred rites of the tide, as we see in the reference to the fall-tide disablot in Egil’s saga, “there was the best banquet and much drink within the hall”.
Basically, the over-abundance of meat, not to mention the abundance of food in general, ie. from the recent harvest, set the conditions for a particularly abundant feast.
But what was this feast devoted to? Afterall, it was not just “a feast”, but a sacral feast in which the animals were consecrated.
To the extent that the Viking Age North Germanic tradition of Snorri Sturlusson is indicative of anything pan-Germanic, the winter nights sacrifice was for good luck in the coming year. Other bits and piece from the lore — which might coincide and devolve more precisely with harvest than with the herd-thinning — include the disablot, the alfablot, Freyblot, and of course the widespread custom of the “Last Sheaf”. Each of these have their association, be it strong or weak, with the dead and/or the exceptional dead, while the Last Sheaf customs were generally associated, strongly or weakly, with Woden, particularly in his guise as the Wild Hunter.
As the Catholic associations of the tide are strongly focused on the veneration of saints and martyrs, and as the later, but inherently related (to West Germanic) North Germanic traditions are themselves strongly focused on the veneration of the dead — a general phenom. well represented in earlier law codes and similar legal treatments of “heathen practices” on the Continent — it is fair to suggest that the native Anglo-Saxon “Hallowtide” may likewise have involved veneration of the dead. And of course, that keeping up relations with the dead was of vital importance to the good fortunes of the community.
“42. In order that no new saints may be venerated or invoked, do not allow their monuments to be erected along the roads, etc.”
— Charlemagne, Synod of Frankfurt (AD 8th century)
“1. sacrilege at the tombs of the dead… 2. sacrilegious funeral songs made to the dead… 9. sacrifices made to some saint… 25. Those who carve images for dead persons whom they say are saints.”
— Index of Superstitious and Heathen Practices (AD 8th century)
Reflecting on the raw nature of the tide itself, we see a gradual retreat of of the spirit of life from nature. The fields lay bare, the trees have begun to lose their leaves, and nature itself has begun to cool and discolour. To top it all off, the blood of life, quite literally, flows freely and saturates to land.
The spirit of death has come into power; itself betokening a “thinning of the veil” between the world of man and those less seen “otherworlds” that “surround” it.
This “thinning of the veil” allows the spirits that occupy those “otherworlds” to wander into our own; attracted to the substance of life, the blood, that has come to saturate the earth. And while some of these spirits might not represent anything more mysterious or malevolent than “late grandfather Harold”, many are the otherworlds and varied are their denizens. Others would be the starving souls of the evil or otherwise neglected dead, or things more primal that had never existed in association with man, eg. thursar, all particularly attracted, like hungry predators, to the life-force inherent in the blood of the slaughter.
Such beliefs would thus have made the fall slaughter something of a dangerous thing, from whence, we might speculate, the season took on it’s more “horrific” associations, ie. above and beyond the Christian association of anything non-Christian or heretical with “horror”.
This horror element would subside and morph with the first snowfall, ie. the washing away of the blood of the slaughter, and the promise of the Yuletide.
We must be very careful about the narratives, the stories, we weave about ourselves, or allow others to weave for us.
It is not without reason that the god who breathed the breath of life in Mankind at our creation, ie. Woden, is also the god who gave us the gift of language. Nor is it without reason that this same god gave us the gift of poetry, of magical songs, and indeed, the gift of Creation itself.
I recall watching some documentary a couple of decades ago, perhaps it was “Millennium: Tribal Wisdom and the Modern World”, but whatever the case, it spoke of this shaman from one of those obscure hunter-gatherer cultures that still dot the world today, and how every morning he had to chant creation back into being by reciting his tribes creation hymns. If he were to fail in his task, creation would begin to unravel.
Creation is of course less a matter of conjuring, or even arranging the objective universe as it is of coming into an understanding of existence and our place within it. More poignantly, it is the ability to express and share (and gain further insight) into that relationship. As such the evolution of Creation, as a thing distinct from aconscious existence, is tantamount to the evolution of a peoples cultural matrix (world tree, mjotvidhr), in which language plays a significant role.
If you think back to just before your earliest memories, and then move forward, through your bewilderment at the greater world around you, the senselessness everything seemed to move with, how lost you were in it, only for the world to gradually order itself, to begin to make sense, you can get an inkling of the unfoldment of Creation, and the power of words in giving it shape and sense.
We can see the effect that negative language has on people who have been verbally abused as children. Some are stronger, less impressionable than others of course, but we have an inclination to conform to the stories we are told about ourselves, such that the person who is always told they are an idiot for instance might very well come to play the idiot. And all the more so the smarter they actually are; those smarts removing them as it does, not unlike the idiot, from the sensibilities of the common person. We see it in a more culturally pervasive form in the stereotypes of the smart but uncoordinated nerd and the dumb jock, when in fact the hallmark of the truly gifted individual is a fair to above average measure of competence in all fields even if they only excel in a few. The stereotype of the intellectual vs. the spiritual is yet another, that of the dumb blonde is yet another, despite the fact that such a gulf does not exist between spiritual and intellectual, and that blondes actually have a fairly high average IQ, ie. are smart, not dumb. One of my biggest and oldest pet peeves in this regard is the insistence that any person interested in their Germanic identity must be some “eyes of hate” reject from the Geraldo or Jerry Springer show, and how if you don’t look like that caricature, you must not be interested in your Germanic heritage. And yet for all of that, our need for identity reaches out… to whatever presents itself, and we conform, through no real fault of our own.
And so, as we see, having failed to “chant our creation hymns with each dawn”, for who we are as a people, forgetting our relationship to each other and our environment, our culture has unraveled and Ragnarok set in… just like that primitive shaman, chanting each dawn, knew it would.
This power of language is at the very heart and soul of the English word spell, as in a magical spell, as seen in the word gospel, which is Old English in origin (like so many other familiar terms frequently but erroneously deemed “Christian”) and literally translates to the “Spell of God”. The word spell itself refers, primarily, to the enthralling power of moving speech, of a powerful narrative.
Words have the power to build, mold, and/or breakdown Creation itself.
As such, we must be careful of whose stories we take to heart; stories about us, about our ancestors, about the world and our place in it.
Words have power. Respect that power. And where you play the role of the Shaper, eg. parent, wield them wisely.
Our great and noble ancestors knelt in prayer.
I’ve gotten a lot of “feels” over the decades, worthy of your most delicate snowflake, in reaction to pointing out the facts on this matter. But as for any actual evidence that our ancestors didn’t kneel, but rather stood in worship, I had to go out and do the footwork on that for these people; who themselves could only produce anger and insults and self-indulgence to defend their position. Maybe I will share my findings one day. But regardless, I did this because I’m not interested in “defending a position”, but rather I’m interested in understanding my actual ancestors; as opposed to fabricated fictitious ones whose sole purpose is to bolster a fragile ego. In others words, ironically enough, because I refuse to bow to nonsense, no matter how many sheep bleat out the same slogans. And I have been surrounded by veritable herds of them, demanding that I bow to their imaginary ancestors. And these are, for the most part, the same “unbowing sheep” that spout their nonsense but, grudgingly or otherwise, then proceed to allow their boss, their government, their wife, their herd to periodically dry hump them.
But hey, you’re quite the stand up man for not bowing to your gods and ancestors! At least you “unfurl your sail of greatness” where you’ll get the most resistance and so prove what a champ you are.
At the end of the day, I personally don’t care how people choose to go before the gods. We go before them here, and so needn’t concern ourselves with such matters as go on there. There is however, a question of honesty and integrity in representing our ancestors involved here. And of course there is the matter of personal repute and obligation to challenge insults hurled, not only at ourselves, but also at the ancestors who’s beliefs and practice we have returned to; as Heathens who know what to give due respect to and what to never bend knee to; who know what is easy (ie. disrespecting the gods and ancestors) and what is difficult (ie. standing up to the peer group, to those in a superior position).
One need but look over to modern day Europe to see that some subordination to our indigenous gods and ancestors is in order; as opposed to blithely letting our governments and hordes of foreigners dry hump us. But then, we all have our priorities, don’t we? For some of us, it’s our gods, our ancestors, and our people. For others, it’s their ego.
Suffice it to say that the Germanic peoples were not alone in their practice of bowing in worship. I encourage all of the “stand-up men” out there — unbowed and unbowing as they helplessly watch their world crumble around them — to go out and try to make a slave of any of the people who bow in worship. Let me know how that works out for ya.
If your master allows it.
As for the rest of us, who have noted the evidence and extracted ourselves from the time-hole that is the “they did/they didn’t” debate; we are of course free to move on passed the threshold folks have been stuck at for some 3+ decades now, and sink our teeth into meaningful questions regarding prayer posture like why and who and where and when?
Incidentally, sheep don’t bow. Wolves on the other hand do. Guess who eats who? If you’re having trouble answering that, just look around the West.
I was reading some comments over on a Norse Christian FB page the other week and came upon this comment,
“Neopagans always forget the last thing their ancestors did was choose to get christened.”
Well, there are a lot of things that no small number of would-be Heathens “forget”. And in fact, have no interest, and even counter-interest, in remembering.
But as for the “Norse Christians” of the world, they would do well to remember that we are not talking about “their ancestors”. The folk they refer to as “their ancestors” were also their own ancestors, ie. OUR common ancestors, whose ethno-cultural legacy their Christianity has been carried on and developed within as Norse peoples. And that ethno-cultural legacy is the product of an age-old relationship between the Norse peoples and the divine, and extends back prior to even the emergence of a specifically “Norse identity”. And of which Christianity is but a single, ill-fitting component; as evidenced in the comment “their ancestors” for example.
These people aren’t speaking Aramaic. Or even Greek or Latin. They are speaking in one of the tongues of Woden, and all that entails regarding their fundamental thought processes, idiosyncrasies, and worldview; as evidenced in their desire to hold on to and celebrate their Heathen-God-given Norse identity for example.
Christians can of course be forgiven for imagining that Heathenism is just about deities and worship, as this is what their Christianity is to them. To the Heathen on the other hand, while there certainly were threads of culture that were directly and specifically religious, our native spirituality touched upon all aspect of our ethno-cultural make up; from the creation of man, to the emergence of tribes and nations, to the formation of tribal land masses, to the birth of language and poetry, to values and customs, to techniques of farming and hunting and warfare and craftsmanship. As the term Heathen, itself ultimately a gloss for the Greek ethnos, implies.
The Christians might well worship Christ, maybe, but they do so on the proverbial altar of Woden. And they tend to despise the “altar of Abraham” like Cain despised Abel; as evidenced in the very evolution of Christianity throughout its history among our people.
Christians should never forget that what “they are choosing to do” RIGHT NOW is reject their heritage as both Christians and Norse. And this is occurring in exactly the same fashion as Christianity was first carried into the Norse-Germanic lands, ie. top-down via the formation and power of the state.
Now, the ideological divide that exists between Germanic Heathens and Germanic Christians …
This origins of this ideological divide was not put in place by Heathenry. Even among the Goths, while much us made of the martyrdom of Sabbas and his ilk, Christianity was first brought into their midst via (powerless) *captured slaves* and yet was allowed to spread and flourish until it was at last able to challenge the dominant Gothic culture and beliefs. Only then did Christians suffer any persecution. And even then this was done more out of the desire to safeguard and preserve the Gothic identity/community rather than out of any malice towards the worship of a different god; which, once again, could easily have been stomped out if such was the Gothic will.
Among the Franks, King Clovis suffered the constant nagging of his Catholic wife and her entourage of Christians; when in fact, like the Goths, he had the power to put them all to death.
Likewise, missionaries were received with open arms, provisioned, given freedom to preach, etc. by the likes of King AEthelbeorht of Kent, King Ongentheow of Denmark, and even such staunch Heathens as King Penda of Mercia and King Radbod of Frisia; the latter of whom had one foot in the baptismal font before he deigned to ask the fate of his ancestors under Christian belief. The response, ie. they are in “Hell”, but you shall find yourself at the right hand of “God”, was the catalyst that led to his rejection of Christianity and his subsequent wars vs. Charles Martel in an attempt to drive the missionaries and the advancing Abrahamic theocracy from his land.
Indeed, the typical Germanic response to the introduction of Christianity was to make room for Christ on the altar of the native gods, as in the (harshly criticized) case of King Raedwald of East Anglia. It is reflected in the words uttered by Queen Sigrid of Sweden when she her self was asked to convert, “I must not part from the faith which I have held, and my forefathers before me; and, on the other hand, I shall make no objection to your believing in the god that pleases you best.”
King Olaf Tryggvasson’s response to this statement, typifying early Heathen-Christian relations, was to slap her in the face and call her a heathen bitch.
And so we come to the manner in which our preChristian ancestors “chose to adopt” Christianity…
To start, it should be noted that missionary activity among the common folk of the Germanic tribes generally proceeded painfully slow and resulted in little to no success. The folk themselves were, on whole, simply not interested in adopting the fables of a foreign peoples and/or their inclusive “cult of universal brotherhood and urban salvation”.
And so, from Clovis forward (if not earlier), the Germanic mission focused heavily on the (nominal) conversion of Germanic kings and the securing/establishment of “state power”. The conversion of these kings was achieved via the (ahem) “exploitation” of the natural jostling for position that occurs, internally, between royal kinsman, and externally, between rival houses and tribes. A prime example of this is to be found in the first Anglo-Saxon king to be converted, AEthelbeorht of Kent; who, with the aid of his Franco-Catholic alliance (see the archeological record), was able to unite Kent into a single kingdom and emerge as the most prominent of his rivals within the heptarchy.
King AEthelbeoht utilized the same tactics, a form of proto-affirmative action, in the conversion of his people, offering friendship and boons to anyone who would join him in the new faith.
And so began the rat-race, as the lowly and unworthy were galvanized at the prospect of getting some glory on the cheap, while the wiser were forced to get there first for the sake of the kingdom. And this for a price that, in those early “Germanic Santeria” days of the conversion, must have seemed like far less grievous a prospect than we regard it today with full hindsight. The biggest change was that the animal sacrifice was divorced from the sacred feast. And sometimes the names of “Christ and the saints” were used; though sometimes long established titles of the divine were used (god, metod, drihten, etc) leaving the attribution up to any given worshipper.
And within a few decades came the destruction of the idols in Kent, and finally as the 7th century drew to a close, to the drafting of Kentish laws against “devil worship”; not to mention the new laws that accompanied and followed in the greater body of the Anglo-Saxon Law Codes… that made failure to observe Church services, customs, or pay Church dues punishable under (foreign) “law”.
That was the “choice” given to the preChristian Anglo-Nordic peoples. That was the “choice” they made in their conversion, ie. to not be regarded as a pariah, to not be driven into debt, to not be legally hamstrung in self-defense, to not be driven into slavery, to not be sold outside of the country.
So, again, what are “you” choosing today?
It is a tangled web we weave, as the Bard once remarked.
Freedom. It is an interesting word. A word that has been with the various Anglo-Nordic peoples since (at least) the dawning of Proto-Germanicism, which, like Celticism, was the only branch of the greater Indo-European tree that developed the notion out of a root (*pri-) that originally meant “beloved”.
This is the same root that we get the word friend from incidentally.
One might think of the development of the word free — from “beloved” to “not in bondage” — in terms of, say, who you would have as a room-mate in your home. Or who you would invite to home-sit for you while you were away on some extended trip. In short, in terms of who you would grant the freedom of your home to. And the answer is of course, to one’s beloved, to one’s friend/s, to those who are trustworthy and so can be trusted to conduct themselves as you yourself would; and who are thus free to “act as they will” (ie. in a beloved, friendly manner) within one’s home.
Certainly, one could argue that such a state isn’t exactly “unburdened by constraint”, but it is not a conscious matter of legalities and/or a check-list of criteria either. Friendship and the freedom that walks hand-in-hand with it are mostly organic evolutions, the unconscious attraction of like to like, such that among friends there is not a feeling, much less a manifestation of constraint. Each are acting, unrestrained according to their own habits of conduct, as they please. It’s just that the conduct that pleases one is also the conduct that pleases the other, eg. I don’t have to demand that you wash your dishes because you dislike dishes piling up just like me and act accordingly.
A common thew is shared between friends, and in a broader cultural sense between the free; thew being an Old English (and uniquely West Germanic) word that means “custom, habit, morals, conduct” and carries implications of “sinew, muscle, strength”, acting as what we today might call “social fabric”.
One could thus easily say that, like friendship and freedom, thew and freedom walk hand-in-hand; though again one is forced to acknowledge that thew doesn’t necessarily leave the individual “free of constraint” in any universal or objective manner, and contains within itself an implicit set of criteria which, if not organically met, will certainly leave a new-comer feeling constrained, a long-stander ashamed, and in either case, as the odd-one-out.
“Everyone! Look! There’s Johnny!!! He has no clothes on!!!”
Freedom it would thus seem is something of a relative state, that comes with implicit constraints that are most apt to be imparted and enforced socially, organically. Indeed, by the reckoning of our ancestors — in fact by the reckoning of common sense — freedom had no effective existence outside of social interactions and relationships, outside of human society, and was a thing that could only be achieved in relation to one’s fellow man.
To be free meant, to our ancestors, the freedom to take part in society; shouldering it’s obligations and benefiting from it’s privileges.
In contrast to the free, our ancestors had, not so much the thrall or slave, much less the young — both of which had no rights under law, but nevertheless benefited from the rights and freedoms enjoyed by their owners or adult relations — but rather the wretch, who, regardless of his degree of self-sufficiency, was left without either law or loved ones to shield him and secure his rights, to care for him in sickness and/or old age, and who was left to contend with the merciless tyranny of nature and any man or group of men that wanted to work ill-will upon him. And whose line would, at best, end with him, or alternately, produce offspring who would be damned to a wretched life of loneliness, hopelessness, and perhaps even inbred dysfunction.
As the Havamal poem says, “Man rejoices in man”. Likewise the Old English Rune Poem.
This freedom to take part in society, as a member of society, was imparted by our Anglo-Nordic ancestors at the tribal assembly, the (ahem) “state” assembly, as noted as early as Tacitus, who wrote,
“Then in the presence of the council one of the chiefs, the young man’s father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear. These arms are what the “toga” is with us, the first honour with which youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as a member of a household, after-wards as a member of the commonwealth.”
It can also be gleaned in the respect of the indigenous Germanic state for freedom and thew, as seen in it’s largely fine based system of crime and punishment. Their system of crime and punishment was itself a manifestation of Anglo-Nordic thew, representing one aspect of our shared customs and habits of conflict resolution; a thew evolved to deal with the inevitable sprains and tears in thew, which, as such, remained largely in the hands of the people and their locality, to be used or not used, used well or poorly, as the participants saw fit, and in which the state played little to no role. This led to the characterization of the Icelandic gothar for example as being “lazy” and/or (ahem) “too permissive” in regards to the conduct of their folk, ie. “too respectful” of their freedom. Only in the most severe of cases, such as deeds which threatened to undermine the collective trust, eg. secret killing, was the state empowered to mete out more familiar legal punishments such as flogging, imprisonment or execution. This attitude extended to military service outside of a certain distance from one’s own locality among the Anglo-Saxons. No law could be invoked to oblige a man to take part in his king’s call to muster or force a man to go aviking; though thew might well prompt a man to do so at least once in his youth. Whatever the case, as a matter of both law and thew no man would be forgiven for failing to rise to the defense his own locality and he would be dealt with very harshly, be it by law or mob, and understandably so I would think, by his neighbours within that locality for refraining to do so.
It can also be seen in the beliefs and functioning of the Germanic hierarchy as well; in which the free could fall into thralldom (play at dice anyone?), the thrall win his freedom, and being the firstborn of the reigning king vouchsafed one nothing. As the Havamal states, a king’s son, an uppity thrall, none should be so trusting as to trust in these. Unlike the caste structure of our fellow Indo-European belief system, Hinduism, the indigenous Germanic hierarchy was dynamic rather than static, and while ancestry certainly meant something, the ability of the individual was given it’s rightful due. And the right of even a thrall to self-rule — not to mention basic obligation of self-sufficiency — under his own roof-tree was recognized and observed; albeit by thew rather than by law.
The problem with freedom in this post-modern world is a lack of thew, a lack of common identifiers, and the self-regulation that comes with it. And it was toward the notion of thew in general that Tacitus was speaking when he wrote, “good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”, and provide the real reason why, among the Anglo-Saxons for example, state executions were so rare (ie. based on an examination of felon graveyards).
Not strong laws, but strong thew.
Freedom flows upward, out of the soil, into the sole’s of one’s feet, and throughout one’s entire being. And only then can it, not so much descend, from “on high” as it were, from the state, as simply turn about, reflect and affirm, that which gave it life and upon which it’s continued vitality relies. Freedom does not come from political institutions, laws, or intellectualized social constructs or ideologies.
Freedom comes from the habits of a people. From thew. Or not at all. And thew cannot be all things to all people. It cannot be intellectualized and instilled. It evolves through local, first person interaction.
As first stated in the Eddic poem Lokasenna and later reflected in Snorri Sturlusson’s Prose Edda, “Tyr is no peace-maker”.
Some take this as a negative assertion within the context of Tiw’s (ON. Tyr’s) association with the Thing (legal assembly). And yet, as with war (Tiw’s other popular association), law is fundamentally dualistic and adversarial, with an offender and an offended, each arguing their own case against the other, and ultimately with a winner and a loser.
And true enough, nobody likes losing. Nor should they.
Nevertheless, up until the advent of Christianity in the North, the Thing proved that, whatever lingering resentment might have existed in the hearts of the losers of court-cases, it certainly served the collective peace of the community; even if accuser and/or accused still harboured resentments on an individual level. Moreover, Tiw’s specific role within the context of the Thing was as “divine judge” invoked exclusively in regards to punishments carried out by the state (ie. flogging, imprisonment, execution). And while I’m sure this left the accused quite unhappy, it again served the common weal of the community.
Finally, in the greater scheme of Germanic law, society and divinity, there certainly were deities who were able to weave peace between men, such as Fosite (Forseti) from who’s court all disputing parties came away reconciled, while in the Lokasenna Tiw Himself praises Ingui-Frea, the god of frith (peace), as the BEST among the gathered host of gods.
I suppose some people simply can not see the forest through the trees, the whole for the many parts that comprise it. But forsooth, who can deny the adversarial nature of law? The spirit of mediation in law? The spirit of judgement in law? These things are not exclusive to each other, and all exist side-by-side even within the context of modern law.
It might also be noted that not everyone came away from a dispute settled at Thing with a grudge; as the historical success of the Thing again testifies to. It could have no general success over time without specific successes that both parties involved came to terms with and so left the matter settled. As Tacitus remarked,
“It is a duty among them to adopt the feuds as well as the friendships of a father or a kinsman. These feuds are not implacable; even homicide is expiated by the payment of a certain number of cattle and of sheep, and the satisfaction is accepted by the entire family, greatly to the advantage of the state, since feuds are dangerous in proportion to the people’s freedom.”
But no, it is a truth … Tiw is no peace-maker. Tiw is an glory-maker. An excellence-maker. And adversity is a prime ingredient in the cultivation of excellence. And so is loss … showing us where our weakness lay and so where we need to make improvements if we are to better ourselves, ie. continue to strive for excellence.
This quest for excellence applies universally to all endeavors. As much, as Sturlusson asserts in his Edda, to the hero as to the sage, and far beyond, ie. to the craftsman, to the herdsman, etc. to encompass the great diversity of glory that is the essence of the Heavenly realm.
And so, while no one likes losing, a competitors culture reacts very differently to a loss. For starters, it acknowledges loss, owns the loss, and has come to terms with the loss. And after a certain point in one’s upbringing, if one has lived any sort of competitive lifestyle, indeed if one has lived any sort of life (eg. break-ups, death of family/friends, etc.), the last thing that loss should be is crushing.
If one is striving, if one is reaching, if one isn’t afraid to play the role of “small fish in big pond” and challenge one’s self, to realize in the true Olympian spirit that the only possibility for glory is to be found in the strength of your adversity, then sooner or later, you shall have your ticket punched. And that is not a crushing experience, but rather something to be taken in stride as par for the course and as testament to one’s sense of competition and desire for self-betterment.
Do not cringe at the prospect of a loss. Rather, accept no competition that does not offer that prospect (unless they insist of course). And do not dwell on a single loss as definitive, much less blame the winner, as all losers do. Rather, take control of the only thing you can control, the only thing that will actually better your situation — yourself. Embrace the suck, let the loss drive you forward, learn from it, and improve your game, as all champions have done.
“All the Einheriar fight in Odin’s courts every day; they choose the slain and ride from battle; then they sit more at peace together.” — Vafthrudhnismal, Poetic Edda
It is often said of the Nordic goddess Freyja that she is a goddess of sexuality. While that might very well be the case, the notion is often carried out into the murky realm of whoredom which folk seek to rebut simply by trying to recast “bad” as “good”. Lending to this notion of “Freyja as whore” folk will cite the Eddic lore that states that she has lain with all of the gods, her own brother included; that she is comparable to the mythic goat Heidhrun prancing about in heat, and of course the tale in which she lays with four dwarves so as to win the fabled necklace Brisingamen. Of course, the first two bits of lore come, within the stories, from the mouths of her detractors (Hyndla, Loki) and can hardly be taken at face value, while one of the Icelandic sagas, Njal’s saga I believe it was, relates how a Christian Icelander was outlawed for calling the Vanadis a whore/bitch. So, all we truly have in this regard, beyond some very questionable hearsay, is the tale of the Brisingamen, the precise nature of which we today are left largely to guess at.
My purpose however is not to disprove Freyja’s association with sexuality or, really, to wax at all academic on the matter. Rather I would simply shake up such conventionally accepted notions as surrounds the goddess and offer a perception of her that is not the product of those out to discredit and undermine her (and indeed out indigenous beliefs themselves as a whole) by an utter reluctance to see beyond the base carnal realities that all higher truth is rooted in.
It is that “higher truth” that we should be interested in.
As with all good lies, there may indeed be some kernel of truth to the words of Freyja’s detractors. Freyja may indeed have been regarded as having a strong sexual component. Rather than casting her as some two-bit mortal whore however, one might be inclined to say that she is the spirit of the passion that exists between lovers. And so that where there are lovers engaged in a “passionate embrace” there is Freyja. Following these carnal lines alone, one might say, in this regard, that highest expression of Freyja would have been more similar to Hinduisms Kama Sutra and certain Tantraic teachings rather than the “Girls Gone Wild” nonsense of the low-minded and uncultured.
Indeed, I have reason to believe that the magical art of seidhR, that is so strongly associated with Freyja, and was so “strongly opposed” by the early Church in Norway, was a cult that taught mysto-magical arts of seduction, ie. the generation of sexual energy and it’s use to manipulate the mind of other beings.
But as the spirit of sexual passion, to refer to Freyja as a whore is to misunderstand and cheapen the fundamental value of sexuality, the intense passion of lovers for one another, and to drive the very spirit of passion itself from one’s bedroom; a passion that extends well beyond the bedroom and into the higher realms of passionate devotion for one another as reflected in the supreme value the indigenous Germanic people placed on monogamy, and mythically reflected in Freyja’s own longing for her absent lover OdhR (Mental Excitement).
But Freyja is more even than the spirit of sexuality, or even of passion in general, but also of sensuality and what my high school Western Civ. teacher would have called “the aesthetic experience”; which itself was basically a recasting of Plato’s hierarchy of thought. Freyja promotes a fine appreciation of all the better things in life, noting, indeed, relishing in their fine and subtle details, like the brush strokes of a painting, the subtle differences in taste of a fine wine, etc.
A stately connoisseur of beauty. A Lady. A Freyja.
Indeed, I would tend to think that much of Freyja-lore survived, after a fashion, and can be gleaned in Eleanor of Aquitaine and her so-called “court of love”, where the ideas of ideas of courtly love, chivalry and the troubadours were brought together; not so much as a pure expression of Eleanor’s native Germanic spirit, but as a reaction of that spirit to the increasingly rigid structure of NW European society that began with the absorption of southern European culture and the introduction of Abrahamic Christianity.
The knightly notion of the lady as muse, be it in battle, or as found re-expressed in the Renaissance, in the production of art.
“Not at all do we consider him to be a god. He was evil and all his descendants. We call them rime-thursar.” — Snorri Sturlusson, Prose Edda
By the indigenous worldview of our ancestors the present is an accumulation of interwoven *layers* that set the context of our lives, both individually and collectively (in ever expanding circles of relation out to all of humanity).
We see this in the evolution of the primal realm of Niflheim, formed by the layers upon layers of rime and frost that built up around the primal spring called Hvergelmir (Seething Cauldron), and we see this in the actions of the Great Mothers at the Divine Counsel of the Tivar in Upper-Heaven, as they “lay the layers/laws” (of Divine Judgement) into the holy spring of Wyrd. And of course we see it in the folklore and the appearance of the Little Mothers at a child’s birth who would set the baby’s “orlogR”, the “primal layer/law” or “basic context” of their life … which would of course be deeply influenced — wherever that stops short of “micro-managed” — by the “primal law” of the family, tribe, culture, etc. that they sprung from.
Layers upon (interwoven) layers. Laws upon laws. A veritable three dimensional tapestry.
This is a useful perceptual tool in approaching the “Creation myth” of the Germanic peoples as embodied in the Norse-Icelandic Eddas; that each event along the path to Creation (and forward) represents successive “laws” or “precedents” that set the context of human existence on a fundamental level.
And THE primal law of all existence is, arguably (ie. Ginnungagap), the “Law of Ymir” whose “offspring” it is said are all brutish and hostile, the very forces of hardship and adversity as inherent in nature and natural existence; to which all things, great and small, are and ever shall be subject too (to one degree of another).
There is no escape from this primal law. It is set. Indeed, if one can rely on nothing else in life, it is an undeniable fact that one can always count on hardship and adversity. It shall always be there to hurt you, to make you suffer, to kill you, and then to casually step over your broken form utterly heedless that you were ever even there to begin with.
And this is how it should be; a fact that one can most certainly argue against, in all futility, but which remains a fact nevertheless. And it remains a fact that has and shall prove itself, over and over and over again, and never show itself off as anything other than the cold, hard truth.
No malicious intentions necessary.
There are of course mitigating factors, mythologically speaking, in the form of the All-Nourisher, Audhumbla, the Tivar and of course in the the foundation of the “innangeard” or “in-group/community”. But that combination of adversity (Ymir) and nurture (Audhumbla) is what gave birth to the first of the gods, to glory, and the process of the cultivation of resilience, strength and excellence, of divinity, in which adversity is a key component. And in which adversity remains ever-present, regardless of one’s degree of strength, fortitude, and excellence.
The “Law of Ymir” remains ever in place.
Adversity is a given.
And the best life is had by the those who accept that, who look upon it as a challenge; by those who have an inkling of exactly how adverse life could potentially be without the buffer of the innangeard established by the gods and maintained by our ancestors since time immemorial. And this keen awareness also makes such people some of the most thankful.
“the hardships of the freedman mark the freedom of his condition.” — Tacitus, Germania
Politics. It’s a funny thing. Funny-strange.
I spent most of my life, not unlike most of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s, without affording politics much more than a sideways glance. Unlike most of my peers, I was much more concerned with my native culturo-spiritual heritage as a man of Anglo-Frankish (paternal) and German (maternal) ancestry; which is to say that I was interested in my preChristian heathen heritage. And that of course is as much as to say my ethnic heritage; the word heathen (country-dweller) being a gloss of the Latin paganus (rustic, villager; from pagus meaning “rural locality”) which itself is a gloss of the Greek ethnos from whence we get the Modern English word ethnic; which itself is a much deeper and complex concept than “race” that certainly encompasses the notion of “race” but which is neither limited to nor dominated by it.
As a Germanic Heathen, my values, my identity does not “descend from on high”. It rises up out of the soil beneath my feet, up from the halls of my ancestors and through their generations to me, and stretches up and out as far as my reach can grasp and my environment will allow. That is my domain. And the well-being of my domain, of my tribe, is my politics.
My tribe first.
This is not to suggest that I don’t care about the well-being of other tribes, or fail to realize how successful alliances with outsiders can benefit my tribe, only that I know where my priority-one responsibilities and obligations lie. No one enters into a deal that is not beneficial to them; for all that we might hope that the benefit was mutual. This is of course no different than someone saying that they put their children first, even before my children, to which I would respond, not with self-righteous contempt and holier-than-thou indignation, but rather with a pat on the back and a warm assurance that this is the foundation of being a good parent. You are behaving as you should, as one should expect of you as a parent. Nothing more, nothing less. And the same principle applies no matter the context, big or small. What is true for the parent is true for the family head is true for the tribal head is true for the head of state.
Among wiser folk, folk more in-tune with nature and human nature, folk less ideologically obsessed, such a statement as “I put my child first!” might well come off as uncouth, a statement of the obvious, and as such might be perceived as carrying certain implications that might be frowned upon, depending of course. But we Euro-descended people of the 21st century are not such folk.
No. We 21st century Euro-descended folk can, as a whole, be summed up in the prophecy of Queen Basina, the mother of King Clovis of Frankland, when she foretold that her children would be like noble lions, but her grandchildren like savage bears and wolves, while her great-grandchildren would be like dogs and small squabbling animals that would devour each other. It might have taken a little longer for the dynamic to infect the West as a whole as opposed to just the once sacral Merovingian line of France, but infect us it certainly has. We are like a bunch of stuffy old obsessive-compulsive hyper-critical grannies with nothing better to do than constantly peck and nit-pick, remembering the past only insofar as it can be used to fuel our self-righteous indignation, but utterly senile and entirely oblivious to its many virtues … the very things that have afforded the “grannies”, the weak, the luxury of their continued existence, as well as the rights and freedoms to engage in their incessant, hyperbolic whining and protest to begin with.
One has but to speak towards the historical virtues of the “white male”, or express a concern over our demographic predicament, or cite a fact that runs contrary to the “victim narrative” — or even simply exist as a “white male” — to bringing the wrath of, not only the politically correct mob, but the politically correct establishment down upon you.
Nope. In the U.S. a Christian bakery can’t refuse the business of making a cake for a gay wedding. Meanwhile here in Canada, if you were looking to become a member of our Feds, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, you might imagine that you were in luck as they have plenty of vacancies and are having difficulty filling those positions. Not so lucky however, if you are a white male. Sorry. That quota has been filled. Indeed, in an effort to fill their vacancies with non-white males, the R.C.M.P. have since done away with … wait for it … the requirement of Canadian citizenship! And meanwhile any hint of Euro-descended peoples, and particularly straight white males, coming together to in any way discuss and/or represent their concerns and interests is denounced as “sexist” or “homophobic” or “racist” or “anti-immigration” and set upon by the mob as certainly as Pavlov’s dog begins to salivate at the sound of a bell. No actual “food” required. No actual hate required. And just never mind the fact that so-called “minority groups” are both encouraged and celebrated for doing the very things that Euro-descended folk are demonized for.
Indeed, just the other day there was what is believed to have been a “terrorist attack” carried out in Edmonton, Alberta by a Somalian refugee. In the wake of the attack our Prime Minister shared an image, presented within the context of the attack, that denounced white supremacy.
Inappropriate one might think. Definitely lacking in couth. But it comes as no great shock. We have seen similar responses as this numerous times at this point from other (or the same) politicians in the Western world; responding to Islamic terrorist attacks by lecturing us about the evils of “Islamophobia” … or even just deciding to “throw it out there” to the world that we the (Euro-descended) people (of Canada) are a bunch of low-life “racists”.
And no one questions it. Like Pavlov’s dog they simply begin to “salivate” when someone “rings the bell” of white racism; all too happy to hop on board and goose-step to the tune of the state … all the while imagining themselves to be that courageous soul with his arms crossed, indignantly, while amidst a crowd of (actual) Nazis eagerly throwing up the Roman salute … in the name of Germania.
Political correctness is after all adherence to the doctrine of the state by any other name. It is explicitly totalitarian, implicitly Leftist, and as such runs against the grain of our fundamental ethno-cultural disposition as Germanic people; as evidenced in our centuries long struggle and ultimate(?) victory against the theocratic Abrahamic (Christian) state that resulted in the separation of Church and State and the freedom of belief. But in fact, while the state my have tossed out the proverbial baby, it decided to hang on to the bath-water and carry forward the worst elements of the Christian theocracy; namely its negative evaluation of human nature and its over-bearing, “born again” paternalistic presumption to hold the one and only true path to salvation … which you are “literally Hitler” if you don’t give your mind, your soul and your undying devotion over to.
And hey! Don’t forget to ante up your “Peter’s Pence” while you are at it. Or else.
The Germanic ideal of government is of course best summed up in Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote, “That government is best which governs the least“; which shows off our ancient love of liberty, locality, and self-determination, our trust, our confidence and our sense of security in relation to our neighbour, our fellow man, that hearkens back as far as Tacitus in the historical record. In his work Germania, Tacitus expresses it in so many words here,
“Their freedom has this disadvantage, that they do not meet simultaneously or as they are bidden, but two or three days are wasted in the delays of assembling. When the multitude think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests, who have on these occasions the right of keeping order. Then the king or the chief, according to age, birth, distinction in war, or eloquence, is heard, more because he has influence to persuade than because he has power to command.”
He hits upon it again in relation between lord and thrall here,
“slaves are not employed after our manner with distinct domestic duties assigned to them, but each one has the management of a house and home of his own. The master requires from the slave a certain quantity of grain, of cattle, and of clothing, as he would from a tenant, and this is the limit of subjection. All other household functions are discharged by the wife and children. To strike a slave or to punish him with bonds or with hard labour is a rare occurrence.“
What has become known as the “roof-tree law” in modern Germanicism is echoed centuries later in such Havamal stanzas as,
One might say it is further demonstrated among the Viking Age Norse in the founding of Iceland, Greenland, and the Vinland colony! But getting back to Tacitus, he also speaks towards the heart and soul of what made the Germanic concept of self–rule, the ideal of small government, actually work,
“good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.“
This observation is noted within the context of marriage and fidelity among the tribes of Germania, but speaks toward a more pervasive concept that the Anglo-Saxons called thew; meaning “customs, habits” of a community, as expressed, not in some lofty doctrine, but in rather in the habits of life and social interaction of the people that make up that community. Today we might call it “social fabric”, though “social muscle” would be more appropriate. It is organic, strong yet fibrous and flexible, and it is inherently functional. Thew is what enabled our ancestors, top to bottom, to feed and shelter and cloth themselves, and each other, to extend charity to the needy, to operate under a system of law that was largely civil in nature and absolutely dependent on the parties involved, and their local community, to determine and make amends for any wrongdoing. Good habits. Common values, common vision, common history, common sense, up out of the soil, emanating from the halls of the ancestors and down through the generations to them. And it is primarily in the area of thew that a society that has become co-dependent upon the state most suffers.
And yet in all of this talk that has emerged since the birth of Classical Liberalism about the oppressive nature of the state, and rabidly advanced by the mob of minorities that make up the “politically correct” crowd with the ever paternal “white knights” leading the charge, where is the call for smaller government? Where is the call for limiting the power of the very instrument of oppression that they are all so sore about? Rather, as a result of the very “politics of fear and division” they so often speak out against, they work to feed the wolf, to feed the state, in a frantic effort to secure a hold, Gollum-like, of “the one ring to rule them all”; granting the state ever more power to limit the freedoms and rights of their countrymen, and utterly oblivious to the ever-changing nature of the political landscape.
Here is a word to the wise for you … when you say that all politicians are liars and cheats, that’s a good indication that you mean all of them, rather than all of them except for this one here, who is offering me free stuff and catering to my sympathies, and who is clearly remarkably different than the rest … until I am betrayed by my own selfish naivety … yet again. Rinse and repeat.
Now, it’s one thing to see European peoples in general, or even NW European peoples in specific pander to this political correct nonsense, this faux shaming that generally amounts to so much hyperbolic hot air. But it’s another thing to see people who claim to be “Germanic Heathens” do it. And it is an absolute joke to see one of these “middle grounders” denounce “fanaticism on all sides, be it Far Left or Far Right”, when in fact, for one, both Nazis and Commies are on the Left, both equally big government totalitarian regardless of the presence or lack of an ethnic component, and for another, they set to salivating at the chime of “racists” every bit as quickly, as furiously, and as unthinkingly as the rest of Pavlov’s dogs.
Does it matter to them that the Sons of Odin for example, and most pertinently their Canadian contingent, have never been charged let alone implicated in a hate crime? Does it matter that they regularly spend their free time making sure drunk women make it safely home after a night of partying, do garbage clean-ups in their local neighbourhoods, and shovel their less-than-able neighbour’s sidewalks for them? No. Of course it doesn’t matter. It only matters that their Finnish founder had a background as some kind of “white supremacist” as though, true or otherwise, he is representative of the whole. Does it matter that such outfits as the Sons of Odin or the Proud Boys can boast members, prominent members, married to non-white wives with mixed offspring? No. All that matters is that they have a positive evaluation of Western culture and Western history, which of course somehow means that they are “Far Right” and “white supremacist”. Heck, does it even matter that some of the people being branded with the stigma of “white supremacists” are … wait for it … not even white??? Nor male, nor straight, nor even of clear gender in some cases? No. All that matters to the mob is the doctrine (and udder) of the state and the threat such people pose to the prevailing narrative and the status quo.
What is most confounding about these “Germanic Heathens” that engage in this game of smoke and mirrors, is that they often cite (unfounded) accusations of racism leveled against themselves, and a desire to get out from under them, as their motivation and justification for opposing “racists”; oblivious to the fact that, as such, they are complicit in the slander by, at the very least, validating it with their agreement. And also to the fact that, no matter how many times they address the question of racism to these slanderers, even going so far as to pull out their own token non-whites to prove the matter, the same slanderers can and do go on doing exactly what they do … slandering them with allegations of racism. This holds true for Euro-descended people as a whole of course.
Does anyone ever stop to consider where some of these so-called “racists” are coming from? Ever attempt to actually “build bridges not walls”? Do they ever stop, if they’ve accumulated enough years to do so, and think, “hey, in the 70s and 80s we were strongly encouraged by the political narrative of the time to stop having babies because doing so would result in a global apocalypse, only to be told in the 90s that because we didn’t have enough babies, we had to accept perpetual mass immigration as the only solution. Now, something isn’t right here.”?
No? Well, why not???
If nothing else, we were lied to … taken in by the good ol’ “bait and switch”. A person of honour and conscience could not simply over-look that or let it pass unchallenged, to say nothing of try to silence any such observations with socially malicious gossip. Our fertility rate as Euro-Canadians sits at .5 points below the abysmal national average of 1.6 (kids per couple) at an even more abysmal 1.1 (kids per couple). You don’t need to have a degree in advanced calculus to do the math on the issue.
Or maybe we weren’t lied to. Maybe Canada really did need to cap its population growth? After all, from its foundation in the mid-60s to its abolishment in the early 90s, the Science Council of Canada consistently advised a population cap in order to ensure sustainability and environmental health. And of course it was in the early 90s, paralleling the abolishment of the S.C.o.C., that Canada began its modern practice of perpetual mass immigration and we began taking in an average of 250,000 immigrants per year, every year, with the goal of reaching 100 million by the end of the century; a farcical and pretentious goal that flies in the face of simple logic, common sense, and every study done on immigration to date, and relies on some obscure metric that suggests a “sweet spot” of population density that, if reached, shall magically “unlock the bounty of the nation”, but which can’t actually be demonstrated, and only serves to be undermined by using existing countries that do sit in the hypothetical “sweet spot” of population density as examples. They might as well be prophesying from the entrails of goats or predicting the Second Coming for all that they can validate their claims.
Yes, gentle reader, for those of you unfamiliar with the Scientific Method, a hypothesis is not at all the same thing as a conclusion. And even a conclusion requires verification.
This notion of a population cap was in more recent times echoed by the West Coast’s very own environmentalist golden boy, David Suzuki, who said in criticism of the Harper government and its immigration policy that, and I quote, “Canada is full“. And for this Suzuki was lambasted as “anti-immigration” by the Conservatives and such media personalities as the roundly loathed Ezra Levant. Moreover, Suzuki was left so shaken by the Mjolnir-like bludgeoning power of the accusation, which, again, actually amounts to a lot of hot air, that he hasn’t said a peep about immigration since.
In fact, those very Conservatives that slammed Suzuki as “anti-immigration” were themselves coloured anti-immigration by their critics, and despite taking in a modern record of 285,000 immigrants in a single year. Likewise, back in the 90s, Preston Manning of the old Reform Party was slammed as “anti-immigration” for suggesting that we pull our intake down to 150,000 per year, despite being able to boast 150,000 articles of evidence as to why he was anything but anti-immigration … unless of course one meant that he was anti-immigration like antifa is “anti-fascist”, ie. not at all.
I mention this to demonstrate what a farce the accusation of “anti-immigration” is. And in this it is no different than the accusation of “racism”. Indeed, both have a very direct relation to one another, serve the same end, utilize the same hyperbolic tactics and rely on the same knee-jerk reactions, and as such are more-or-less synonymous. It would also seem to illustrate the essential contradiction that exists between the Leftist platforms of environmentalism vs. immigration and economy. And there is every reason to question the received doctrine of “immigrants and economy” as well.
Despite the oft repeated mantra that “Canada needs immigrants”, not a single study has been produced that lends credence to the notion. According to the study undertaken by the Fraser Institute immigrants represent a net burden on the Canadian tax-payer of some $23 billion dollars per year. A similar study conducted by the Simon Fraser University, often used in (pathetic) retort to the former, concluded that immigrants “only” cost Canadian tax-payers $2 billion dollars per year, ie. but cost us nevertheless. Meanwhile the study that, until recently, sat upon the Government of Canada website, “the Economic and social objectives of immigration: The evidence that informs immigration levels and education mix”, concluded that, economically speaking, immigration has only negligible effect, either way, upon the country; but also drew firm conclusions that, on the one hand, immigration certainly improves the economic outcome of the immigrant, and on the other, that immigration certainly undermines the social cohesion of the host nation.
That is to say, it undermines thew … the ability of people to get along, work together, and feel at home in their surroundings.
These questions regarding fertility rate, demographics, and immigration, the integrity and power of the state, are real concerns based on actual data whose discussion should and shall be insisted upon by a civic-minded population possessed of right goodwill. And they are not at all problems exclusive to “straight white Christian males”. They impact the lives of women and homosexuals no less, and have already had a significant impact on the state of First Nations people within Canada … who have found their voice of 1.4 million strong eating the dust of “First Generations”, of which some 6+ million (offspring not included) have been brought into Canada over the past 25 years. And it is “predicted” that future population increase, and they are planning a lot of it, shall come predominantly from immigration (as opposed to natural increase), which should raise an alarm with any legitimate citizen of Canada.
Note that none of this is observed with any particular prejudice or malice towards the non-European populations of the world, or those existing here. There are certainly some groups, such as Islam, that I think we should certainly be more careful as setting up as our “preferred source of immigrants”, but I understand the motives of immigrants for wanting to come to Western countries, to come to Canada. Contrary to the self-loathing collectively apparent in those so eager to hurl and accept the slurs of “racist” and “anti-immigration”, we lovers of the West understand the motivations of immigrants only all to well. Namely, they know as well as we do that “the West is the best”. It’s not at all perfect, and still has some major hurdles to overcome, as this blog entry should make abundantly clear, but it’s the best thing that the world has going and, more importantly, it has evolved a process that speaks towards our collective humility, self-awareness and self-criticism, that is requisite to any hope of growth and progress. And it’s possession is why the West is the best. Moreover, while I am happy to judge groups collectively, I am also wise enough to judge individuals based upon their own merit as individuals and have in my life grown up alongside wave after wave of immigrants that had washed up on the shores of Canada. And contrary to the prevailing narrative, we all got along pretty good back in the 70s and 80s, governed on the play-ground and ballfield largely by local thew, before the state and its political correctness at last stepped in to do what it does … ruin an otherwise good thing for everyone, the young not least among them.
Finally, these questions, which amount to nothing less conscientious than questioning the state, are also a concern for anyone who has a true appreciation for ethno-cultural diversity. History has shown us time and again that in any collision or coming together of cultures within a given area that one shall dominate and subsume the other/s. It is a simple logistic reality. Whose language shall be the language of the state? Or shall the state have 12+ official languages? Whose values will it embody, who will define its social mores, what shall be it’s laws and system of laws? And what will become of its history? This is not to suggest that such “cultural conglomerations” cannot work. It is only to point out that the end product isn’t a wonderful garden of either baseline human or ethno-cultural diversity; which itself is not actually an ideal that needs achieving, but rather is the default position of human life on Earth, that only needs observing, but which has never been in greater danger than it is today.
You see, the political paradigm is no longer one of Left vs. Right, of Liberal vs. Conservative. No. The (re-)emerging paradigm is a very old one at this point. It is one of the diverse peoples and cultures and nations of the Earth vs. a pretensious and self-serving global elite and their collection of useful idiots. And its modern manifestation has been working hard, both at home and abroad, to destabilize cultures both foreign and domestic, with the end goal of establishing a global monoculture overseen by a global state … in which we mere “peasants” have all been reduced to interchangeable parts for their own convenience. And the rhetoric of these globalists and their stooges, most poignantly on the Left, betrays itself. In one instant they are demanding a respect for and celebration of diversity, and in the next they are insisting that we are all really just the same, with nary a difference between us; black or white, male or female, gay or straight, and indeed, ultimately, you or me.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
And so as this long rambling entry of mine draws to a close, my thoughts begin to wander back to its beginnings and the events that have transpired over the last few days. Particularly, this time around, to the events that rocked Las Vegas and left nearly 60 concert-goers dead. In its wake I have heard the bewildered questions, “how could this have happened??? What possibly could have been his motive??? What could have triggered him???”. And I am reminded of the fact that second generation Muslim immigrants tend to be far more prone to radicalization than their immigrant parents. How is that, we wonder? After all, unlike their parents, they themselves grew up here in the West, did they not? How could they fail so utterly to integrate with Western culture? But then you take a look at the cultural landscape they have apparently been in the process of integrating with since they were born. Where did this hatred of the West come from? Indeed, where did this disdain for humanity itself come from?
Gee. I wonder.