arises from an inborn knowledge that man owes it to himself
and to society to fulfill certain tasks. These tasks, to be
meaningful to him, must give him a sense of dignity, thus, in
fulfilling his tasks he will derive from them a sense of fulfillment
within himself. Only so can life itself be meaningful to men.
Whether he builds a road, a home, or designs a monument, self-fulfillment
renders even difficult tasks tolerable, pleasant or possibly
joyful. It makes natural allies, rather than harsh task-masters,
of discipline and perseverance, and duty begs no question.
discharge of responsibility involves two opposites, one at the
point of service, the other at the end of receiving. The usual
terms in our economic set-up are employee and employer, but
let us call them bottom-man and top-man. Bottom-man stands opposite
one who has made it to the top and as a rule is now part of
a corporate institution or this state. Obviously, top-man has
a greater share in the overall responsibility of a task performed.
It is he who decides the worth of a responsibility delivered
to him; he who judges, criticizes, accepts or rejects it. This
means power. But the power lies not only at the finish-line,
it lies also at the start, in designing the size and nature
of the responsibility of all bottom-men involved in producing
the task to be accomplished.
from start to finish the responsibility of bottom-man is in
fact part and parcel of the larger responsibility of top-man.
Because of that, self-fulfillment for bottom-man is extremely
problematic. It is top-man who defines the nature and extent
not only of material but social, cultural and -- yes -- ethical
and ethnic values of any responsibility delivered to him in
the performance of tasks distributed among his bottom-men. Obviously,
the privilege of choice for bottom-man becomes more restricted
the greater his own number and the fewer in control at the top.
Self-fulfillment, then hinges entirely on how top-man defines
his own responsibility.
bottom-man makes a fundamental discovery. He has no means to
question (except privately) the responsibility of top-man to
whom he is responsible. More importantly, he can no longer align
his sense of responsibility with actions of top-man as they
become apparent. Top-man has become an unknown with whom he
cannot identify. Once in a while the curtain is lifted showing
a glimpse of a world in which bottom-man has no place but that
yet controls his own world. Such was the recent revelation of
a bank scandal that involved huge sums of money col-
lected in the U.S. for Israel, involving the
bank of the Rothschilds in France. Such is the occasional news
that millions are only accounted for as 'aid' to other countries
(often not repayable) whose existence bottom-man may not even
know about. HIS money. His OWN country's money. Is he responsible
to these nations, why and by whom is he made to pay?
top-man, who wields power so great that he can decide the fate
of bottom-man's nation, free to do damn well as he pleases?
Is there no one to question the responsibility of the 'defense'
weapons manufacturer who aggrandizes billions while the youth
of the land must bleed to death 'defending' its nation on foreign
this then define top-man's responsibility that he is in his
job for no reason other than to make money? And if huge sums
of money are involved, does it not matter by what means this
money was obtained, to what ends it is used? And what, finally,
does it mean that we must 'fight' inflation? Can money run amuck
on some magic power of its own?
complexity of the economy as structured by high finance may
be beyond his ken, but bottom-man knows something is terribly
wrong. He can no longer correlate his own sense of responsibility
to the fulfillment exacted from him. For the group that controls
the life of all bottom-men more and more clearly emerges as
an international clique that has absolved itself from all responsibilities
to its own nations, socially and culturally, to pursue the single-minded
purpose of perpetual gain.
does this mean to bottom-man?
means that he no longer stands opposite a top-man with whom
he shares a common responsibility to that greater self of which
both are a part, the community of the nation. It means that
his natural order of existence is in jeopardy, if not already
responsibility as a sustaining reality of life evolves upon
the individual from the overall responsibility of his folkdom.
In a society that recognizes neither roots that are inherent
nor values that are traditional, the term responsibility becomes
void of meaning in the degree that values which are at the heart
and start of nation-building are uprooted from the minds of
situation, as it now exists, could not, of course, have been
accomplished without mind control. Instead of being directed
toward self-sufficiency of the nation, minds are directed toward
world economy with all its ramifications: trade, labour unions,
churches, civil rights movements, so-called service and student
organizations. All are motivated by the pseudo-ideal of the
One World concept. Funds and grants such as the Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations play an important role in thought-direction of the
young. They are in effect kick-backs serving the goals of the
finance-elite at the top of all top-men. Thus some of the most
idealistic energies are siphoned off from service to their own
kind; some of the finest young minds are recruited for 'foreign
service' such as the Peace Corps or CUSO, so reminiscent of
the 'missions' established in former centuries. The bait is
to 'help' developing nations; in fact it is to help build a
new kind of imperialism.
is the evil that is SENSED everywhere in the West, if it is
not known. Hence there is everywhere a loss of responsibility,
a devil-may-care attitude, especially among the young. Responsible
for what, to whom? Youth, no longer even acknowledging a responsibility
to itself, casts aside the demands of the society it condemns,
enjoins the wholesale suicide of the race through abortion,
drugs and vagrancy. Older individuals, settled with responsibilities
toward kinfolk, 'stick it out,' bear the unbearable.
such conditions the relationship of bottom-man to top-man becomes
that of slave to master, the master of our time operating as
an invisible, sinister force, leaving no phase of life un-
* * *
Combined subscription for 4 issues of
THE ODINIST & 8 issues of THE SUNWHEEL
----- $2.00 -----
Back issues available *
Free sample copies on request
Managing Editor: E. Christensen
|P.O. Box 731
Adelaide St. Stn.,
Canada M5C 2J8
*America First Books Editor's
Note: This subscription information is no longer valid,
and is reproduced here simply as an historic artifact
of the original publication.
What Does Religion Mean to Us?
once said that Nordic man really has no interest in religion.
This is hard to understand. What did the great philosopher mean?
Surely he did not intimate that men of our race have no religious
feelings, because this is clearly not so. Beethoven, for example,
was deeply religious, no matter whether he was thinking in heathen
or christian terms. Eckhart, the first Nordic to revolt against
the doctrines of the Catholic church, expressed a deep religiosity
in his sermons and writings, so much so that the church condemned
him as a heretic.
of the more liberal Protestant priests who rejected and/or opposed
the Catholic church's dogmatism felt the christian doctrines
were repugnant to their innermost feelings and demonstrated
it by refusing to accept many of them and by demanding more
freedom in creed and ritual. Also a long row of poets and thinkers
from the Middle Ages up to the present time have, in many of
their works touched on religious topics that, if closely observed,
represent the beginnings of a paganism of which we only recently
have become aware.
then is it that Nietzsche says Nordic man has no religious capability?
-- The difference between this statement and the fact that we
care strongly about religious principles may lie in the foreign,
and rather nebulous word `religion.'
the churches themselves do not agree on, how exactly to translate
the Latin word 'religio.' They cannot decide whether it derives
from 'religare' - to bind together, i.e. reunion of an apostatized
people with God; or 'religere' meaning 'holy obligation.'
first explanation, the reunion of God with an apostatized and
sinful people already presupposes acceptance of the teachings
of the church, i.e. that there is a God, that people are born
sinful, etc. etc. The second explanation derives directly from
Old Latin and indicates spiritual ties between man and a deity.
only accept the second explanation for what we mean by religion
is basically man's moral obligation to a spiritual law, expressed
in the inherent religious attitudes of our kin and closely ties
in with those moral values we consider essential.
is worth here to note that trends adapted by society at large
also apparent in encyclopedias and dictionaries -- they do not
always give an unbiased translation.
for example, has only `religare' as the origin of 'religion'
and thus, knowingly or unknowingly, favours the christian doctrines.
The well-known German encyclopedia Brockhaus writes under 'religion':
"Religion (lat) das Wissen der Menschen von einer ihm beherrschenden
uberbersinnlichen Macht (Gatt) sowie das hieraus folgenden praktische
Verhaltan" which in free translation means "man's
knowledge of a supersensual power (God) which rules him, as
well as any practical behavior resulting from this knowledge."
first question here to be asked is whether or not religion is
a 'knowledge.' Knowledge is usually used about a fact of which
there is no doubt. But we cannot put 'religious knowledge' in
this category. It is rather an individual's awareness of a feeling
that a certain spiritual concept is true for him and fulfils
his needs at that particular time. Religion, therefore, is not
knowledge in the sense of a scientific fact, but the emotional
phenomenon we call 'belief.'
second question arises from the idea of a 'supersensual power
(God) that rules him.' A Christian, a Moslem or a Jew is, as
far as we know, governed by his religion and its doctrines.
Not so a Nordic. A man of the Nordic race is free in respect
to his Gods; he can even untie himself from them -- it is, for
example, said in one of the sagas: "If Thor does not protect
me any longer, I will turn from him and choose another protector
or maybe none at all." This is Nordic. If the Gods will
not help a man who is doing his best, let them be. It follows
that the concept of a God 'that rules' men is only valid for
adherents to Judaism and the two major religions, Christianity
and Islam, both originating from it.
a third question may be asked with regard to the word 'supersensual.'
This indicates that God should be above our senses, but this
is very problematic from our point of view. Nordic belief states
that by being part of holy nature the divinity is in us; what
is 'in us'
is naturally recorded by our senses and therefore
cannot be 'above' or 'outside' them, but conceived as true spiritual
ties between man and the divine powers -- a relationship always
present in our thinking.
too is therefore most likely valid only for the Judaic religions.
finally we must ask one more question in reference to the use
of the word 'God.'"God in Heaven and on Earth; Father,
Son and Holy Ghost" - this many of us learned when children.
It seems such a beautiful and oh, so easy an appellation for
the omnipresent, omniscient christian god. And yet we can hardly
think of a more dubious concept than this ubiquitous all-powerful,
and at the same time all-merciful God of the Universe.
he is all and everything, we can dialectically begin anywhere
or nowhere. But this concept is not in keeping with Indo-European
religious attitudes. Our ancestors had many gods; some were
helpful and together with man battled the evil forces; others
were bent on mischief while some were outright cruel and dreadful.
This was, of course, a primitive and maybe naive way of coping
with the unknown forces of nature, but we must remember that
although the Greeks had developed science at the time of philosophers
like Plato and Aristotle, nature was still the great unknown;
and we submit that on no way was our ancestors' concept of life
more mystic than the christian doctrines; to our mind it was
more honest and realistic, for man can not ever comprehend all
of the universe.
have these considerations to do with the Nordic Pagan beliefs?
We have stated on many occasions that our race refuses a dogmatic
concept of God because such a concept does not explain the fullness
of Life, the Universe, the contradictions between the idea of
an all-powerful, all-merciful God on the one side and the tragedies,
inconsistencies and injustices on Earth on the other. When this
supposedly all-powerful God allows his own creation, man, to
suffer all kinds of crime, disease and misfortune, when he sacrifices
his only begotten son for the alleged sins of the earthlings
whom he by his own bungling created imperfect in the first place,
he is a strange god indeed.
contradictions were, through the centuries, sensed a thousand-fold;
sects were formed, heretics burned, entire tribes exterminated
and finally Rome was deposed when the Nordic nations turned
away from the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic church and
established their own protestant, reformed or anti--catholic
denominations. Where the original Nordic-pagan spirit was still
alive, the dissension was, of course, the most significant.
this day Nordic man has a characteristic viewpoint in respect
to religion. He is not in search of an abstract dogma; nor of
a fixed set of doctrines. He wants a concept that takes in all
angles of life; the sum total of his experiences at work and
play; only then can he accept laws and yet feel free, for he
acknowledges that being part of nature, he must agree to follow,
the laws that governs his own existence.
this feeling of totality there is room for awe -- awe for the
yet unknown, for prudence in regard to the inexpressible, and
acknowledgement of the inexplicable. He feels that creative
powers are present in the universe, in nature and within himself.
He knows also that powerful forces try to destroy and disrupt.
accepts calmly that there is no sure way of changing these phenomena
endangering his life and that evil and ugly things exist in
the world along with the good and beautiful. He feels that man
is caught between these forces, but that if he tries to act
honestly, responsibly and courageously, the gods (the creative
powers) are with him. He realizes that preservation of his own
identity and that of his tribe are some of the things that must
not be changed. He further knows that his life might be pitted
against powerful forces and that an adverse outcome is possible;
this is what our forefathers meant with 'standing bravely before
we formulate some of our religious feelings we find no room
for christendom's unnatural 'love thy neighbor as thyself'-attitude;
nor for the renunciation of the Nazarene -- 'my kingdom is not
of this world'; -- church hymns with themes like 'deny thyself,
-- abandon the world' make no sense to us. On the contrary,
Nordic philosophy moves in this world and tells us to make the
most out of a given situation here and now; to preserve the
life of the individual and the tribe and at the same time work
out an equitable co-existence with other peoples.
it then necessary to formulate a religious-philosophical creed?
What man experiences in life, what he feels in his heart motivates
him -- and it was always so. The spiritual substance, the very
essence of his being has remained "basically unchanged,
even during the christian millennium (900 - 1900). It was the
main motivator in all his decisions, his political actions,
his folkways, his laws and relations. But -- and here caution
is necessary -- this awareness of an inborn heritage, in other
words, the instinctive reaction anchored deep in his folk soul,
has all too often been suppressed into the subconscious or sidetracked
through the influence of alien dogmas so that at times it has
not been able to assert itself.
thought patterns tried to 'persuade' the Indo-European to follow
extraneous ways instead of his own and make him 'forget' his
cultural heritage, divert his attention from his own spiritual
inclinations and disregard the responsibility to his own kind.
This perplexing influence of christendom, even though declining,
still today de facto prevalent, has caused a complete breakdown
of tradition, discipline and, what politically is called 'law
before have those values, once honoured so highly by our ancestors,
been so absolutely abandoned. The reason, of course, is that
the traditional religious attitudes of the Indo-Europeans have
systematically been re-formed and perverted by the so-called
'modern' education systems which are based on ideologies foreign
to the Nordic folk soul.
man was originally tolerant and always willing to help the stranded
stranger, the oppressed and the despondent; there has always
in Indo-European countries been much sympathy for the underdog.
There is however danger in this attitude. If this point of view
is carried to the extreme and tolerance is shown to systems
and persons who, in fact are working diligently to destroy our
cultural and biological heritage, then it is time to call a
halt to this suicidal path we have been following.
must come as a spiritual change -- a turning away from all influence
foreign to our folk soul, rejection of alien religious dogmas
and other ideologies, not in keeping with our pagan concepts.
turning away from the present trends is not enough, we must
also know where we are going, we must have a blue-print to work
from. To this end various groups have tried to formulate directives,
and answer some of the obvious questions asked, when people
go in search of their ancestral religion.
are knowingly using the word 'religion' in spite of the previously
mentioned limitations and connotations. The expressions from
group to group differ, but there is co-operation -- there has
to be, for we are all in quest of our ancestral religion. Only
when our religious beliefs are in concord with the laws of nature,
of which we ourselves are a part, and in keeping with the intellectual
characteristics of our folk-group, is it possible to live a
noble life, in harmony with ourselves, our kinsmen and other
The above article is based upon an essay by M. Seeher, printed
in NORDISCHE ZEITUNG 2/3-73
* * *
BODY AND SOUL
old proverb 'a sound mind in a sound body (mens sana in
corpore sano)' was coined by the Roman poet and Father
of Satire, Juvenal, who lived in the first century B.C.E.
express a similar idea in this principle of the Odinist Creed
-- 'Strive constantly to improve your powers of body, mind and
spirit.' We do not, as the Christians are taught, consider mind
(soul) and body as two entities apart, but as two aspects of
the individual, existing together during his life-time.
has for centuries been teaching to disregard the body and its
functions and concentrate only on the mind. The Church has taught
that 'the flesh' is sinful, `dirty,' and should be ignored as
much as possible. "St. Paul" writes in his letter
to the Romans VII, verse 18, 'For I know that in me, that is
in my flesh, there dwells nothing good' -- and again, VIII,
6, 7, 8, 'For the minding of the flesh means death but the minding
of the spirit means life and peace; because the minding of the
flesh means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection
to the law of God, not, in fact, can it be. So those who are
in harmony with the flesh cannot please God.'
wonders why the christian god bothered to create bodies in the
first place, when they and their functions are so distasteful
to him. Of course, this is neither here nor there. You cannot
lift the mind out of the body and deal with it by itself; such
teaching is so completely unrealistic and against nature that
it is simply not possible to follow most people, professing
to be christians have, luckily, also seen this and, disregarding
their religious creed, kept on eating, drinking and having children.
if this were to be the only purpose of life, it would be as
wrong as the christian teaching, for a healthy mind and a healthy
body go together so much so, that Odinists consider it a duty
to keep both aspects of the individual in a good running order
for it is a fact that those people who have severe health problems
are restricted also in intellectual matters. They simply are
forced to use far more energy to cope with their physical problems
than a healthy person does; therefore they cannot have enough
time and vigor left over to concern themselves with intellectual
problems; their abilities in this respect are reduced when they
have to contend with pain, disease and discomfort of various
kinds, and naturally, they therefore cannot take the same active
role in things of an intellectual or spiritual nature.
improvement of mind and body should therefore be of equal importance
to a people who wants today's problems solved by individuals,
having a vigorous and healthy attitude towards life, and whose
wish it is that future generations should thrive and prosper
in an orderly society, offering the best conditions our level
of knowledge is capable of.
result of christianity's unnatural teaching is that not only
have they told their adherents to concentrate on the mind and
disregard the body; but the have, in the most insane way, glorified
the disabled, diseased and demented. "Paul" writes,
for example, to the Corinthians I, 27, 28, 29, `. . . but God
chose the foolish things of the world that he might put the
wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world
that he might put the strong things to shame; and God chose
the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon,
the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the
things that are, in order that no flesh might boast in the sight
us this makes no sense at all; for a people deliberately to
glorify the weak in order to impede the strong is just as reasonable
as walking backwards.
course, it is only right to take good care of those who, for
various reasons, cannot care for themselves, and to help all
individuals who have problems one way or another. But it seems
rather ludicrous to glorify such an existence and look down
upon those people who are supporting society and who are the
better procreators for future generations.
have just here in Canada had a campaign to 'Give the United
Way.' Most of the agencies supported by the funds thus collected,
are catering to diseased deformed or demented people. These
agencies have a great task in helping unfortunate individuals
who need to be taken care of. But would it not also make good
sense to spend as much, or more money, time and effort to develop
the healthy -- those with exceptional abilities with capacities
above normal, so that they might enrich our communities through
their abilities to improve our technological knowledge and ponder
our philosophical and psychological questions?
* * *
ancestors of many years ago were self-sufficient to a degree
that puts us to shame. An old Scandinavian saying has it that
'want teaches a naked woman to spin' (necessity is the mother
if invention) and maybe this is so. But in our big cities of
today we have become so dependent upon the manufacturer for
every little item we need, that if the machines suddenly stopped
for one reason or another, the whole society would collapse
completely, and people would hardly know how to feed and clothe
in those faraway days the girls learned to spin at an early
age for most cloth was made on the farms by the women in the
family. The upright loom of the type still found in use in remote
areas, was probably the only one known at that time. It had
an upper beam around which the warp was wound tightly; the warp-threads
were threaded through heddles
in order to make the opening through which the shuttle could
move, and were then weighted down at the bottom by freely
the beginning, the material was coarse, woolen,
and rather subdued in colour. But in Viking times the women
seem to have had finer yarns at their disposal, for it became
fashionable to wear pleated petticoats, and it was the absolute
'in-thing' to let them show a little below the outer garment,
something they apparently learned from the Celts -- so at that
time your slip was supposed to be showing.
dress was usually hanging loosely down from the shoulders, buttons
or hooks seem not to have been in use; instead, the garments
were held together at the shoulders with brooches which were
attractively decorated, done by the bronze smith with fine craftsmanship.
elegant brooches were quite intricate with the pin hidden under
the hollow shell of the brooch. But when a new fashion, the
shawl, was brought to Scandinavia, probably from the land of
the Frisians, the beautiful shoulder brooches were covered over
by the shawl, and before long they became less fanciful and
made of cheaper metals. However, now the shawl brooches were
being made of silver or gold, and afforded the bronze-smith
the opportunity to use his imagination.
men usually wore full-length trousers, and a short tunic, reaching
just below the hips, held together around the waist by a belt
and at the neck by a pin or a small carved piece of wood, acting
as a button. Another important part of a man's clothing was
the cloak. This might be of fine material and could be either
short or quite long. It was not worn as a woman's shawl symmetrically
over both shoulders but usually fastened over the right shoulder
in order to leave the sword-arm free (except for southpaws!).
It was held together by a so-called ring-pin which might be
of silver or gold and richly decorated.When riding, the longest
side of the cloak had to be in front, as otherwise the rider
would sit on it and it would pull at the shoulder fastening.
more trade was carried out with foreign countries, finer materials
such as silks in many colours became well-known, and whoever
could afford it would have their clothes made from these imported
goods; but the common people would still have their garments
made of home-spun, handwoven material.
before Christianity's conquest of Europe, marriage was regarded
by our people as being an irreplaceable part of a disciplined
world order. Family, community, nation, the laws of nature,
the seasons of the year and the religious festivals, customs
and spiritual life -- were all related in a universal system
in which man lived primarily as a member of his people, which
was perpetuated permanently in ordered procreation. This appears
with the early Greeks as the Hestia idea, and was symbolized
among many Europeans in the worship of the fire of the hearth,
in Latin, ignis, and in Celtic, brigit. Thus,
disciplined and selective procreation played an important role
in the preservation of the cultural heritage, and care of one's
people was regarded as both a consequence and a requirement
of the World Order.
the Indian Law Book of Many, at chapter 10, verse 61, the effect
of lack of order in procreation is stated in this way, "The
inhabitants of the kingdom in which disorderly procreation occurs,
rapidly deteriorate." (Professor Hans Gunther, The
Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans,
London: Clair Press, 1967, p.
this reason, Indo-European people held sexual life sacred, enshrining
it in the family, honouring the mistress of the house as the
guardian of their spiritual and racial heritage.
the Eternal Order of the Universe, there should be no conflict
or disrespect between a man and his wife: Man's world is the
State, in which he earns a living to support his family and
devotes his powers to the service of the community. The world
of the women is smaller -- her husband, her children, and their
common home. But where would the greater world be if there were
no one to care for the small world? These two worlds should
never be in conflict. They are complementary to each other,
they belong together as man and woman belong together.
and woman must therefore mutually value and respect each other,
when they see that each performs the task which Nature and Providence
have ordained. And this separation of the functions of each
will necessarily result in mutual respect. It is not true, as
alien religions assert, that respect depends upon the overlapping
of the spheres of activity of the sexes: this respect demands
ther sex should try to do that which belongs
to the other's sphere. Respect in the last resort in this: that
each knows that the other is doing everything which is necessary
to maintain the whole
is the most stable element in the maintenance of a people. Every
child a woman brings into the world is a battle waged for the
existence of her people. Woman it is who, in the last resort
has the infallible sense for all that is necessary if a people
is not to perish, for it will be her children who will be the
first victims of disaster. So a Woman's Movement is, for our
religion, not something which inscribes on its banner as its
program the fight against man, but sets as its policy the common
fight of woman together with man, in the service of
the common task of maintaining the life of the people.
today a childless working woman accomplishes ever so much, and
next door lives a mother with five, six, or seven children,
who are all healthy and well-brought-up, then from the standpoint
of the eternal value of our people the woman who has given birth
to children and raised them and who thereby has given back our
people life for the future has accomplished the most. Thus,
the emancipation of women from the women's emancipation movement
must be the first demand of a generation of women who would
like to save their people and their culture from decline and
course, one must not have too narrow a view of the place of
man and woman in the social order, but look at the family in
its correct world-historical context. As Ludwig Leonhardt has
stated, "The family is the foundation of the state, but
by family we must not understand only parents and children.
The family embraces everything that exists, spiritually and
physically, as a living patrimony in a definite circle of persons."
we are, what we accomplish, is not due to our own merit; in
the last analysis we owe it to our parents and grandparents,
our whole line of ancestors whose heritage we carry within ourselves.
In short, we owe it to the spiritual values which have been
transmitted to us and which we are to pass on to our children
and the children of our children. -- All this belongs to the
family. And we must always keep in mind that we are not the
last configuration of these multiple endowments, that are destined
to pass them on pure and unspoiled in order to continue what
we call the family, and to push our heritage ever forward, so
that a truly progressive people may emerge out of an ever-repeating
interlacing of families.
whosoever disturbs the family acts against the well-being of
the whole people. We must restore the family to its rightful
place. We Odinists should work for a healthy, strong family
structure in keeping with the best traditions of our Viking
* * *
A FEW REMARKS
on this occasion I would like for a moment to direct your attention
to the central issue of the social sciences as seen by us Odinists.
we are not political or economic ideologists. We do not slavishly
adhere to any particular doctrines for their own sake. We have
not bound ourselves irrevocably to any one economic theory:
capitalism, socialism, or any blend of the two.
the same token, we may pragmatically choose among democracy,
totalitarianism, meritocracy, or what ever for our political
system. Our criterion for choice is the good of our people.
Here "good' means an intellectual, artistic, and economic
improvement for at least a majority of our people; and 'people'
means those whom we perceive as our racial and cultural kinsmen.
we may say the central issue of Odinism is racial-cultural awareness,
-- racial awareness we may argue, is instinctive to anyone who
can tell white from black -- so to speak; however, it would
be a mistake to rely on the spontaneous awareness among average
people of the full importance of the combined racial-cultural
fact. This is why Odinists must regard awareness as an issue.
To bolster awareness we must provide the folk with a sense of
history. They must take pride in the past; there is no need
here for me to recount history -- Aryan ascendancy over most
of the world has been continuous for 2,600 years. (The only
exception of any consequence is China.) But it would be deadly
to wallow in the glory of the past, our sense of history must
project into the future as well. So kinsmen, let me propose
to you a slogan: One People, One History, One Destiny!
WHY WE ARE ODINISTS
Odinism? If you must have an alternative to Christianity, why
not Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Islam, Judaism, or Atheism?
Why pick religion that was decisively defeated over one thousand
years ago and has shown few signs of life since then? Why leave
Christianity at all? After all, hasn't it been the religion
of the West for over a thousand years now? You can't just write
off one thousand years of history, and ask people to leave the
religion in which they were raised and which gives them comfort."
know. We know that people 'need' a body of doctrines, that Christianity
and morality are almost inextricably intertwined in the minds
of most Westerners, and that consciously to embrace a religion
out-of-date by a thousand years is to be, at best, an eccentric,
at worst, a crackpot.
we are Odinists for several very good reasons.
of all, Odinism, or some variant thereof, is the religion of
our forefathers. If our ancestors thought it had some
merit -- enough merit for many of them to die rather than to
submit to the alien shackles of Christianity -- then it behooves
us at least to give it our serious considerations.
Christianity it not the religion of the West. It is
a religion of the East, fashioned from a confusing array of
myths and legends from eastern and near-eastern cults, gaining
its early adherents from the mongrelized slaves of ancient Rome,
and imposed on our forefathers by a dazzling combination of
diplomacy and force of arms.
Christianity and morality are not synonymous. Every
great religion of the world has incorporated a body of moral
rules, many of them far higher ethically than the doing of dubious
'good works' for the sake of an eternal heavenly reward.
the harmful effects of Christianity can be mitigated. Christianity
played a leading part in the decline of the great Roman Empire,
was responsible for keeping Europe in the Dark Ages for close
to a thousand years before the Reformation brought about a cultural
renaissance of scientific thinking, and latterly has been largely
responsible for the general racial decline of Western nations,
because of its fanatical devotion to the unscientific concept
of the 'equality' of all 'men'.
even if all the other objections to our religious affiliation
held some merit, there would still be an insurmountable gulf
between Christianity and our way of thinking. For if there is
one concept where Christianity and Odinism are irreconcilable,
it is that of strength. Christianity is the religion
of tolerance, meekness, humility, self-deprecation, death. Odinism
is the religion of strength, vitality, fortitude, pride, action,
for example, the contrast between two central symbols of the
two faiths: Christ's cross and Thor's hammer. The cross stands
for submissive death, the hammer for aggressive life, and if
necessary, heroic death. The cross is representative of death
accepted calmly and voluntarily to placate an eccentric God;
after ordering his disciples not to defend him, as 'those who
live by the sword, shall die by the sword,' Christ went meekly
to an unjust death. Thor tells us to live and die fighting,
as we shall all die anyway. The cross was the instrument on
which Christ voluntarily gave in to his enemies; Thor's hammer
was his prized instrument of independence from his foes. Christ's
cross was a tie in his personal relation with God. Thor's hammer
had a significance primarily in terms of his people; with it
he defended Asgard, the fortress of the gods, against the enemy
giants. The famous weapon of Thor was the symbol of the destructive
power of the storm and of fire from the sky, and a protection
against the forces of evil and violence.
further at the contrast between the Church's priests and Odin's
berserks. In general, priests eschew violence, preferring a
war of words -- except when Aryan manhood will do the fighting
for them, as in the Crusades; they wear skirts, abhor sexual
reproduction, and ape femininity. Odin's berserk, on the other
hand, gloried in battle, distrusted speeches, bred prodigiously,
and were reputed to be the most 'masculine' men in all of Europe.
They hunted down peace-mongers.
times require strength, not weakness. We no longer have the
luxury to sentimentalize about humanity when our entire way
of life is at stake. Odinism promotes self-respect -- not humility;
dignity -- not obeisance; regard and care for the family and
loyalty to your own kind, not love of every individual who walks
the planet Earth.
if, as many fear, our people are doomed to extinction, then
Odinism is pre-eminently the most suitable religion for our
troubled times. The gods of our forefathers knew that some unavoidable
day they would go down to defeat and death, with Asgard in ruins
about them. They fought a losing battle against the forces of
evil, before whom our Nordic men and women seem even more helpless
than the gods were. The only realistic hope for the human spirit
is heroism, and heroism depends on desperate causes. Only by
his death can a hero prove what he is. The power of good is
shown, even more than by triumphing over evil, in continuing
to resist evil while facing inevitable defeat.
choice would seem to be between yielding to the enemies of our
civilization, accepting racial and cultural miscegenation, or
death. Of the two, a heroic death is preferable. Yet often it
is heroism in the face of overwhelming odds that snatches a
glorious victory from the jaws of impending defeat, and, as
in the legend of Ragnarok, brings about the birth of a new world.
decision is in our hands. Only heroism will produce victory.
But even if our own downfall comes in the end, a heroic death,
according to the religion of our forefathers, is a triumph,
not a defeat. The hero in a famous Norse legend who laughed
while his foes cut his heart out of his living flesh, showed
himself superior to his so-called conquerors. They killed him,
but he died undefeated.
is stern stuff for us to live by. It is a religion for elite
peoples, not plebeian masses. But the easy way has never in
the long run commanded the allegiance of the Nordics. Christians,
like Norsemen, have at times shown heroism, but christians looked
forward to a heaven of eternal joy. We do not. But for unknown
centuries, before the .christian missionaries subverted Europe,
heroism was enough. It is enough for us. And so, we are Odinists.
above article expresses clearly the idea which also Yockey sets
forth when he talks about the ethical imperative of our times,
-- a truth-to-self, which seeks the personal victory against
whatever odds exist. 'The success,' he says, 'is with the man
who is determined to die proudly if it is no longer possible
to live proudly.'
B. Macaulay (1800-1859) puts it this way:
"And how can man die better,
Than fighting fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods?"
do not want to fight, just for the sake of fighting; we do not
seek violence. But if needs be, we would rather fight than submit;
submit to change our life style; submit to let our children
be brainwashed; submit to give up our freedom of choice.
other expressions in the language of the Indo-European peoples
show that this attitude has existed in our code of ethics for
centuries on end. 'Go down fighting', `die with your boots on'
are just two of many phrases demonstrating this point of view.
And many of our forefathers did just that.
we do not have any death-wish. It is not because we, or our
fathers before us, want to die that we are willing to fight;
it is more a feeling of personal dignity and self-respect, an
invincible wish to be free, to decide our own destiny. As Kipling
said many years ago:
"All we know of freedom,
All we need to know,
This our fathers won for us,
Long and long ago."
Odinists feel that it is our duty to do our best to keep this
heritage of freedom that was bought for us with the blood of
our code of ethics it would be a .crime of omission to sit back
and do nothing, not to give a damn and just look after one self.
beliefs, if we are to take them seriously (and we do) demand
that we do what we can to 'combat evil in all its forms and
wherever it may be found;' our creed also tells us to 'strive
to the utmost in all things you undertake' and 'if you swear
an oath or make a promise stand by it no matter how difficult
it may be.'
this is it. We have made a promise -- to ourselves and to our
kin -- that we will -- to the best of our abilities -- fight
all things which we, after mature considerations, find are detrimental
to the good of our people, and work ceaselessly for the preservation
of our cultural and biological heritage.