Creation and the Power of Words

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.

Advertisements

Spinning your wheels: Prayer Posture

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.

The Great Divide: Ethnic Germanics and Germanic Christians

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.

Globalist and Indigenous

The predicament of indigenous “First Nations” peoples in 21st century Canada…

It seems to be a bit of a difficult position to grasp within the prevailing culturo-political paradigm. It is certainly something that requires a bit of chewing, but it is actually quite simple and requires awareness of only a few basic facts…

1) The U.N.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not acknowledge ethnic Europeans as being indigenous to Europe.

2) The people that make-up and back the U.N. are a dominant force in the politics of the Western world.

3) The political establishment of Canada, all major parties included, has announced it’s support of what has long been called the “Century Initiative”, which seeks to raise Canada’s population to 100 million by the end of the century.

4) This increase of some 65 million people to our current population of 35 million is to be achieved predominantly via immigration (from non-Commonwealth, non-European nations).

Ironically, depending on how much one knows about European history and the degree to which they “connect” with the history of their own ancestry, present day Europe is the canary in the coal mine regarding the ultimate fate of indigenous peoples in the globalist (aka post-national, aka. colonial) world of tomorrow.

Our First Nations are being tossed bones, strung along with rhetoric, and seeded with racial fear, hatred, and division. And Founding Nations are taking the agitation bait and playing right into the globalist hands. As all of our problems, as Canadians, compound.

Think twice, my friends. It’s a complex predicament, with no clear and easy answers for those who value both their cultural ethnic identity and the cultural diversity that has existed, globally, from time immemorial.

Globalism is rebranded colonialism. Same as ever.

Freedom

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 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 of course is, 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, 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, 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 who’s 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 rune poem says, “Man rejoices in man”.

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 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 as the participants saw fit, and in which the state played little to no role. This led to the (later) 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 — which could very well lead to a mob lynching, et al. — 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 distant 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.

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 self-sufficiency) under his own roof-tree was recognized and observed (and expected); 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.

On adversity, loss, and the process of excellence

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

Heritage, the Swastika and Vilification

swastika

An Anglo-Saxon grave urn. The swastika was, next to the Tir rune, the most common symbol to be found on grave urns.

It would seem that the LARPers of British Columbia Heathenry are up to, well, their same old LARPing. I read a blog posting from their current headman, John Mainer, today that seemed to be in regards to the use of runic symbols on the sweaters of the Norwegian Olympic team and the vocal denunciation of them use as “hate symbols used by the Nazis”. In his blog entry Mainer took what at first appeared to be an admirable stance in defending Norway’s use of the runes. Unfortunately, it all quickly devolved into an entry on “racists” and how “the swastika most certainly is a symbol of hate.
 
Yes, some racists will continue to try to steal the glory and worth of the symbol for their own perverted uses, but it is clear they are trying to pervert something they don’t own. The runes are a part of our heritage. The Swastika is different. We lost that one.
— John Mainer, Swastika and Runes; Heritage or Hate
 
Let’s forget for a moment that this was written by a man who has explicitly stated, regarding an ancestral belief system, that he doesn’t care what the ancestors believed and is happy to selectively use the lore of Germanic belief as a rhetorical veneer to advance his own personal and political beliefs. The same man who falsely accused the Asatru Folk Assembly of trying to speak for all of Heathenry; when in fact AFA headman, Matt Flavel, had explicitly mentioned that his statements were organizationally specific and in reference to the AFA alone. And the same man that waged a veritable flame-war on the co-founder of the organization that he stands as head of, the B.C. Heathen Freehold, for allegedly stealing from the organization, but when challenged on why he didn’t bring the matter up to the police, said that he didn’t want to make (B.C.) Heathenry look bad; because apparently a year+ long flame-war all over the internet doesn’t make (B.C.) Heathenry look bad.
 
But yes, the swastika is lost … because Mr. Mainer said so. For all of Heathenry. Or you’re “racist”.
 
In his blog entry, Mainer states that the swastika, “… was not a major cultic symbol during the timespan our surviving lore was collected“.
 
In fact, the peculiar truth of the matter is that, despite the swastika being clear and present in enough early Indo-European cultures and cults (Hinduism, Buddhism, Persian, Greek, etc.) as to give the impression of Proto-Indo-European origins — and does in fact pre-date the Proto-Indo-Europeans — the only time span in which the swastika was a cultic symbol among the Germanic peoples was precisely “during the time span our surviving lore was collected”. It’s use spanned the 3rd century AD to the Viking Age.
 
He goes on to state,
 
It (the swastika) had been forgotten by Europe, by the turn of the last century, and it was exhumed in a most terrible way, and for a most terrible purpose.
 
And to the extent that this is true, the same could be said for Germanic belief in general, and the runes in specific. And it often is said of the runes and Germanic belief. As such it might strike one as odd that Mr. Mainer wants anything to do with so “historically tainted” a belief system as Germanic belief, but of course, as already noted above, he doesn’t and, not at all unlike our glowing P.M. of Canada, is just playing at fashion and dress-up … and calling people “racists”.
 
As ever, these types are gifted at the art of projection, such as when Mainer writes,
 
Those who are taking up the Swastika now are very much carrying on the vision of the Nazi party, and those working to “reclaim it” are either innocent dupes, or far more commonly, very cold calculating propaganda masters, with an overarching vision of transforming the identity of European descendant peoples through the conscious reshaping of national/cultural symbols and faith.
 
Apparently, it is not enough for people to use the symbol in a form that is not contextually associated with the Nazi party, and so, according to Mainer, such people, rather than being insistent yet sensitive, are “dupes” or, even better, “calculating propaganda masters”, even though it is very clear the Mainer and his ilk are the only one’s possessed of “… an overarching vision of transforming the identity of European descendant peoples through the conscious reshaping of national/cultural symbols and faith.”
 
Nothing could be more apparent.
 
The swastika is still openly and proudly displayed on Buddhist temples throughout the Orient today. Even here in downtown Victoria, they can be found “tiled” into the floors of shops in China-town. It is a symbol that is thousands of years old, within the context of which, the Nazis are barely even a blip on the historical radar. There are those among us however who, for some perverse reason, would like to see that blip turned into a line that extends down through time and into future generations. Oddly, these perverse people are not neo-Nazis, but rather people who claim Asatru as their own; understanding of course that anyone can make a claim.
 
Personally, when I took up the proverbial relics of the gods, lost on Idavoll over the course of our historic Ragnarok, some some 34 years ago, I took up all of my heritage — no, I haven’t performed a human sacrifice … yet ;), but I certainly strive to understand even that on the terms of the ancestors — and not merely those aspects of it that meet with the approval of the politically correct thought police.
(Memorial) Stones seldom stand by the road, unless raised by kin for kin.
— the Havamal