Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Else Christensen Archive

September 1974



Responsibility 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.
The 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.
Thus, 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.
Now 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-

[Page 2]

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?
More questions.
Is 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 soil?
Does 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?
The 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.
What does this mean to bottom-man?
It 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 beyond salvation.
For 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 a people.
This 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.
This 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.
Under 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
----- $2.00 -----
Back issues available *
Free sample copies on request
Managing Editor: E. Christensen

P.O. Box 731
Adelaide St. Stn.,
Toronto, Ontario
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.

[Page 3]


What Does Religion Mean to Us?


Nietzsche 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.
Many 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.
Why 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.'
Even 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.'
The 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.
We 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.
It 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.
Webster, 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."
The 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.'
A 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.
Still 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'

[Page 4]

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.
This too is therefore most likely valid only for the Judaic religions.
And 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.
If 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.
What 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.
These 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.
To 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.
In 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.
He 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 Destiny'.
When 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.

[Page 5]

Is 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.
Alien 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 and order.'
Never 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.
Nordic 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.
This 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.
But 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.
We 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 peoples.

The above article is based upon an essay by M. Seeher, printed in NORDISCHE ZEITUNG 2/3-73


* * *




The 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.
Odinists 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.
Christianity 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.'

[Page 6]

One 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.
Granted, 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.
The 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.
Another 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 of God.'
To 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.
Of 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.
We 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?



* * *


(In) dependence


Our 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 themselves.
But 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

[Page 7]

hanging weights.
In 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.
The 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.
These 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.
The 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.
As 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.





Long 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.
In 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. 51)
For 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.
In 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.
Man 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 that nei-

[Page 8]

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
Woman 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.
If 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 fall.
Of 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."
What 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.
Thus, 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 ancestors.

R. H.


* * *




Kinsmen, 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.
Essentially 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.
By 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.
Hence 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!


W. B.


[Page 9]





"Why 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."
We 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.
Still, we are Odinists for several very good reasons.
First 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.
Secondly, 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.
Thirdly, 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.
Fourthly, 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'.
But 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, life.
Take, 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.
Look 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.
Our 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.

[Page 10]

And 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.
Our 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.
The 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.
Odinism 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.





The 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.'
Thomas 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?"

We 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.
Many 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.
However, 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."

We 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 forefathers.
In 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.
Our 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.'
And 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.


Reenactment at the Centennial Pageant, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1925,
photo taken from The Promise of America

The America First Institute

Please visit our donation page
and support our cause.

Short URL for this web page:

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.