Church and State: The Two-Headed Beast

No collaboration has managed to be quite as insidious and abusive throughout history as the union of Church and State. These two pillars of government (represented by the two-headed eagle) are the standard for countries which have adopted an Abrahamic religion at some point in history, and they continue to be particularly strong in conservative Islamic countries; where Sharia is used as a combination of religious dogma and state enforcement. However, they have also experienced periods of conflict. While the Church and State maintained equality of power among themselves during and after the Christianization of Europe (the Early Middle Ages), by the Late Middle Ages the Catholic Church had secured its supremacy across Europe and began to experience competition from powerful monarchs. Their monopoly over the European economies through the businesses of the Church (such as charging for forgiveness of sins and the trade in ‘relics’) made them richer and more powerful than the kings, who could only gain wealth through extracting taxes from their people or as tribute from their defeated enemies. This was consistently the case in the ‘Holy Roman’ (German) Empire, where it was unclear whether the emperor or the pope had more control. This eventually resulted in a Papal Schism and, later on, the Protestant Reformation, which involved removing the influence of the Catholic Church and making the monarch the head of the Church, before transferring secular power to parliaments.

The idea of having spiritual and secular branches of power comes from the basic structure of a tribe. In Ancient Germanic society, the spiritual leader was known as an erilaz (which became ‘earl’) and the secular leader was known as a kuningaz (from which ‘king’ derives). The erilaz was the high priest and magician of the tribe, while the kuningaz led the warriors and was more similar to a general. The kuningaz levied taxes and went on raids to gain tribute or booty, so that they could support themselves and the gothar (priests and magicians in Old Norse). Meanwhile, the erilaz was responsible for the general wellbeing of the tribe and performed sacrifices and offering to the gods, as well as made important decisions about what the tribe should do. In Gaulish society, the vergobret (‘magistrate’ or ‘arch druid’) was elected by the druids (though they were probably elected by all free men of the tribe in earlier times), while the rix (‘king’) was elected by the warriors.

However, the Roman kings sought to become both spiritual and secular rulers, becoming both the heads of the army and the priesthood. This continued even after the Roman Republic, as both proconsuls and emperors held the titles of commander-in-chief and head priest. This is one of the reasons why the Late Roman emperors converted to Christianity, because it had become too difficult to control the empire with both spheres of power embodied in one monarch, and so the pope became the head of the Church while the emperor focused more on leading the army. However, the popes became more and more dominant and saw themselves as more legitimate rulers of a Christian empire than the emperors, which caused the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the patriarch acted as the chief priest, but the emperor remained the head of the Church and selected the patriarch, which has meant that there has been less competition between the Orthodox Church and the leaders of Orthodox countries, such as Greece and Russia.

As far as the conversion to Christianity in Northern Europe is concerned, the role of erilaz became secularized, and ‘earl’ has come to be a title of nobility and landownership, based on the earlier territory of tribes (many ‘earldoms’ corresponded to previous tribal boundaries). While the king continued to act as secular ruler and head of the army, bishops were appointed as religious leaders by the Church to act on behalf of the pope. It is in this way that the Catholic Church maintained itself as a religious empire and permeated most of Europe by the Late Middle Ages. Its last acts of conquest in Europe were the ‘Northern Crusades’, carried out against Baltic pagans in Prussia and Lithuania by the German Teutonic Order. In this way, the Church used converted folk to conquer the unconverted. Even after the Reformation, the Catholic Church found new victims in the Americas, Asia and Africa. However, the Reformation did not save the Protestant kingdoms. As the kings and queens moved from secular to spiritual rulers, they simply became the heads of the religion of the State. For example, the Church of England (and Ireland and Scottish Episcopalians) functions as a State religion, with the Queen of England as it’s head. In countries without a monarchy, this role is fulfilled by a president if a prime minister or chancellor acts as the secular leader. In this way, the State acts as a religious body, but without spirituality, both spheres of power have been secularized.

The result of this is that in Protestant countries (but also in any secularized nation whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish) the peoples’ religious needs are fulfilled by consumerism, the shopping centres and cinemas are our churches while actual churches are replaced by mosques to suit incomers from Islamic lands. In removing power from the priesthood, even one as corrupt and abusive as the Catholic Church, the capitalists and ‘social democrats’ (the self-designation of gradualist socialists) have removed the spiritual hearts of our nations, and replaced them with dogmas based on the worship of wealth or the worship of idealism, depending on what side of the political spectrum one chooses to support. Our folk have become disconnected from their native spirituality through centuries of indoctrination and abuse, and are largely unaware of our ancient lineage and heritage.

The Church has so thoroughly mixed heathen traditions with their own that many of us mistake our own customs for Judeo-Christian ones, and so in modern secular society, we have cast aside our own ways in an attempt to throw off the yoke of the Church. Whereas Catholic countries still have these traditions embedded in their culture, the Reformation actually destroyed many texts kept in monasteries and churches and severed many folk from their original, heathen practises. The only leader in the British Isles who ever attempted to do away with Christmas was the Puritan tyrant Oliver Cromwell, a move which even those materialists in control today do not even attempt, at least for now. The doctrine of egalitarianism that was espoused by the Christians has passed over into Cultural Marxism, which denies the legitimacy of the existence of race and folk as a basis for spirituality, leaving hollow faith solely in the ‘human race’ as a uniform and homogeneous unit under one global zeitgeist.

Nowadays, the State is observably more powerful than the Church in people’s daily lives, however, they still continue to support one another. It is no coincidence that there is evidence for widespread child abuse both among political elites and within the Catholic Church. These two institutions exist to mislead and abuse, and are well known for propagating lies to their people. It is telling that both the State and all of the representatives of organized religions in this country (Protestant, Catholic, Muslim and Jewish) encouraged people to support the invasion of Europe by economic migrants from Asia and Africa, conflating them with the refugees from Syria and appealing to ‘humanitarianism’. The Church has done much to feed folk with feelings of guilt and shame that permeate even into secular society, encouraging us to value others more than ourselves, even if others are taking advantage of us. Its role has been to keep folk ignorant and weak, so that we may accept the abuses of the State to take our rights away. We do need two sections of society to balance the spiritual and the secular in our societies, but the Church and the State do not fulfil either need, as their powers are rooted in exploitation and extortion. They only exist in order to govern a population larger than a tribal confederation (such as that of a nation-state or an empire), and cannot be trusted simply on the basis that they cannot possibly have your best interests at heart if they operate as separate classes above the rest of us, rather than belonging to one tribe and working on their behalf.

Wulf Willelmson

Scottish or British? Conflict or Harmony?

The peoples of Britain have a somewhat unique situation among other European countries in that while we all share the same landmass, language and government, our island is composed of three distinct nations; namely, Scotland, England and Wales. This state of affairs is something which doesn’t sit comfortably for the concept of the nation-state, as you have multiple, competing identities among the folk that are native to the island. Each of these nations have their own history and ethnic origins, which despite being unique in their own right, have constantly been aware of and interacted with each other. While the Scots have a history of Brittonic (including Pictish), Gaelic and Germanic cultures (namely, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Flemish), it is the last that is dominant, while our Gaelic heritage and close ties with Ireland are what make us distinct from England and Wales. England and Wales are less confused in terms of ethnic identity; while the English have a Brittonic prehistory, their ethnic identity is firmly based in Anglo-Saxon culture, which was established after the Roman conquest (who, along with the Normans, had their own imperialist, elite culture that was apart from that of the common folk) and whose tongue forms the basis of both the English and Scots languages. Wales defines itself by its Brittonic homogeneity, although linguistically and culturally they have been heavily influenced by England. For the Welsh, their Brittonic culture and language, which was once dominant across the whole of Britain, is a source of pride.

From this brief summary of our peoples’ ethnography, we can see that the situation is complex and takes many things into account, which is a problem especially for modern politics. While the idea of being both British and Scottish, English or Welsh has not been an issue for previous generations, politicians have discovered that they can use such issues to polarize the public and vie for political power. Nationalism is a funny thing in Scotland; while British nationalists that prefer to see themselves as part of a united island (along with our old imperial hegemony) are associated mainly with the ‘right-wing’, so called ‘Scottish nationalists’ are politically dominated by the Neo-Marxist Scottish National Party (SNP) and Scottish Green Party. The latter position tends to be characterized by a heavily watered-down civic nationalism, which is shared by the supposedly ‘right-wing’ Scottish Conservatives and UKIP. The main source of conflict created by such machinations are that those who lean ‘left’ or ‘right’ will let such partisan ideologies shape their preferred form of nationalism. Therefore, those who have Marxist tendencies and wish to break apart existing structures will generally side with parties that promote regional nationalism based on our more local identity, while those who support the old establishment will prefer to emphasize the similarities between the British peoples rather than their differences. The irony, especially for the former, is that all of these forms of civic nationalism are to varying degrees pro-EU, multiculturalist and not based in ethnic or racial similarities. Therefore, we have a situation where folk are forced to decide between two political structures that denigrate our genetic and cultural heritage in favour of globalism, while pretending that they act in our best interests.

This is especially true at the moment, where we have a party known to be ‘nationalists’ (the SNP) in power locally, who seek to define Scottish identity within a globalist framework, preferably as a small and irrelevant nation within the EU (though there is significant division on this issue within the party, as it is mainly the leadership that promotes this particular agenda). The other side offers no solutions, as UKIP and the Conservatives mainly appeal to English or Welsh voters and don’t really see Scotland as an equal to England in this regard. Thus, there is significant alienation in our country, possibly even more so than in England or Wales, whose own forms of regional nationalism are not as polarized as in Scotland (although Plaid Cymru in Wales are similar to the SNP ideologically, they face stronger competition from the other parties and are much less powerful than the SNP in Scotland, who maintain a slight hegemony in our parliament). There are National Socialists in Scotland, though they form a tiny minority and are irrelevant politically as well as a hindrance to the promotion of Folkish Tribalism through their touting of an outdated and unappealing political ideology, groups such as National Action and the British Movement.

What then is the solution for those of us who have grown sick and tired of this constant conflict concerning whether we should see ourselves as an individual people or as part of a wider collective within our island? It seems apparent that we will simply have to accept the dualistic nature of our folk with regards to who we are as a people. That the Scottish folk are their own is something which cannot be ignored for the sake of promoting unity, and we have always done things differently from the English and Welsh. For this reason, it is at least symbolically positive that we have our own parliament (hideous and pernicious as it is) and our own laws are somewhat different from our neighbours. However, to see ourselves as equivalent to a nation-state in its own right such as those on the continent is simply false. It is not so much that we are too small a country, there are many countries within Europe which are tiny compared to us, if not in size but in population (think of the fact that Scotland has a population higher than that of much larger Norway), but that we cannot realistically act outside of our place within Britain. There was a time during the Stewart era when Scotland looked to the rest of Europe rather than within the British Isles, but such periods are short-lived and resist the strong bonds that tie us to our fellow islanders. England is not our superior, but she is our nation’s sister, who we can rely on to recognise our shared interests. Aside from the contemptuous among the English who see us as a lesser folk, this is mainly restricted to the elites, who are themselves detached from other English people. Most of us in both countries would rather not see the other conquered or destroyed, despite our mutual conflicts in the past. We are not living at the end of the 13th Century, England is not attempting to annex us, we are both occupied by hostile forces that seek to enslave all peoples, and to destroy Europeans.

For guidance we can look to the Brittonic tradition and the Iron Age political structure of Britain. Our island was split between Cymru, Lloegyr and Alban, which correspond nowadays to Wales, England and Scotland (although back then Cymru was the largest of the three). In those days, these nations were distinct from each other, but united under one king and spoke the same language, which in those times was Common Brittonic. Nowadays, England is the largest and most influential of the three, and it is English that is the common tongue across the island, although we have our own native minority languages in the form of Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish. We are three peoples with a shared land, we must work together but on our own terms as distinct peoples in order to unite against our common enemies. The British monarchy is one example of a symbol of our unity that has become corrupt and decrepit, a ‘royal’ bloodline descending from Germans should not be seen as something which helps us to define our shared identity. The land, its peoples and our history is what we share and what we can look to for inspiration. In this way it must be remembered that ‘Britain’ or ‘the British Isles’ (which includes the Northern and Western Isles of Scotland, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight) is distinct from ‘the United Kingdom’, which is purely a political entity and is purposely confused with British identity for political reasons. In this instance, somewhere like Northern Ireland is included, even though they have their own political and cultural history and have a separate destiny from the rest of Britain, as it is in Ireland rather than Britain.

It is not enough to define ourselves under whichever authority is attempting to subjugate us, whether it is the ‘British’ establishment or false nationalists working on behalf of the EU, as our identity is not held within a passport or within a specific jurisdiction, but within our blood and memory. We are three peoples and one land, if that seems contradictory to you then this simply means that you do not understand our culture, even if you are from here. Whether I am Scottish or British matters mainly depending on the situation. When thinking about managing local affairs and creating laws, this can only be done within the context of Scotland, but with regards to trade, war and mutual interest with England and Wales, it is Britain that takes priority. We should be free to unite in times of war and then to divide in times of peace. I suppose it would make more sense to emphasize our shared identity right now as we are very clearly at war, even if many of us are unaware of it. England and Wales are in many ways in a more dire situation than Scotland, although if we are not careful and remain complacent, we may end up in an even worse state due to a lack of awareness with regards to the danger that threatens all of the peoples of Europe. Though Scotland has never been conquered before, this does not mean that it is not a possibility, and we must make sure that England is not conquered again. Their struggle is our struggle, what affects them affects us and Wales too. We have had enough Brother Wars throughout history, we do not need more.

Wulf Willelmson