‘Neo-Monarchism’: Sacral Kingship in the New Age

One of the more interesting concepts that has presented itself in recent years is the resurgence of monarchism, the idea that a society should be led not by a democratically elected representative (who one is almost never able to trust except to do the wrong thing), but by a leader selected by natural law and the will of the folk. It is not surprising that we are beginning to see this sort of thing again, as in Scotland we have been bereft of capable leaders since the Renaissance, though the power of the king was becoming increasingly restrained and bound to the will of parliament.

Today in the United Kingdom, designating oneself as a ‘monarchist’ is usually taken to mean support for the British royal family, and also support for the Union (which is based on the extent of the kingdom and includes all lands in which British folk are the majority). However, the problem with this identification is that not only are there serious issues between the British folk and the ‘British’ state, but also with the royalty themselves. As the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is almost completely subject to the will of parliament, though they still retain the power to veto anything put forward by parliament. This does not happen, however, as the concept of democracy means that the will of the parliament (which represents the interests of the merchants and plutocrats, as it always has) is seen to be more legitimate than the will of the monarch, and so the monarch can only realistically act as a puppet of parliament and not as a free agent.

In the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the parliament mainly represented not only the interests of the nobility, but also increasingly of the merchant class who were becoming more powerful because of the connection that had been forged between trade, loans and war. In the Dark Ages, war was done more for the sake of glory and honour, to avenge insults and to expand territorially for the sake of one’s folk. Once the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms has been established, kingdoms such as Northumbria began to expand not for the sake of territorial expansion, but for tribute.

Extracting tribute as part of the terms of surrender to a defeated foe had always been a feature of tribal warfare, but during this time it became the motivation for going to war in order to sustain a growing economy. As the king became a more secular figure with the conversion to Christianity, the profit motive began to dominate warfare. This did not change with the idea of divine kingship being reintroduced by the Normans, as they expanded territorially in order to gain subjects and tax them, which was a development from earlier tribute collecting and made the conquest permanent. It is worth noting that William the Bastard was not a legitimate heir to the English throne because he was Norman rather than English. Harold Godwinson was chosen by the English nobility, and was naturally a more suitable candidate than either William or Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, after the death of Edward the confessor.

This is a rather different situation from the earlier Danish and Anglo-Saxon settlements in England, as they involved the migration of new folk to Britain and the need for their own leaders. The Norman conquest was only possible because William recruited Flemish and Breton mercenaries by borrowing from money-lenders, and so did not need to raise an army from among his own people (the other Norman nobles were not interested as they saw no benefit from the risk of invading England). This was repeated during the English Civil War in the 17th Century, as Cromwell invited the money-lenders back (who had been expelled in the 13th Century by Edward I) in order to finance his war and defeat Charles I.

This sequence of events in British history has led to the situation of our current monarchy, which has been under the heel of the merchants ever since the parliament under Cromwell committed regicide by ordering the execution of Charles I. From then on, war was fought for the sake of expanding trade networks and monopolies, and the king would merely remain the head of state rather than leading his men into battle of his own volition. Nowadays, the only purpose of the monarch is to act as a tourist attraction and a celebrity by being a sentimental reminder of the former power of the British Empire, in addition to acting as the head of the Anglican Church and the Commonwealth of Nations (which is essentially the current form of the British Empire as a trade confederacy).

With this in mind, the identification with ‘monarchism’ is problematic as this would imply retaining the monarchy in its current form, which is essentially non-functioning. I therefore propose the term ‘Neo-Monarchism’ as a way to describe a position which acknowledges the role of the monarch and sacral kingship, but does not apply to the Modern monarchy. By this I mean the rejection of succession based on primogeniture, but on natural talent and suitability for leadership. Ideally, this would result in the passing of the crown from father to son, but this may not be possible if a more suitable candidate appears. I also suggest that the role of monarch should be closer to the Ancient Teutonic role of erilaz (‘earl’) rather than the kuningaz (‘king’), as the latter was a secular general elected by the warrior caste, as opposed to the former being divine royalty who is chosen by the land and the folk. The concept of Neo-Monarchism may also apply to those of our folk in lands where the concept of monarchy has never existed, such as in the United States or other former colonies such as Australia or Canada.

In this instance, it would be possible for other nations to have their own monarchs, as opposed to acknowledging the authority of the Modern British monarch. Personally, I do believe in maintaining the Union among the British folk, although the system of monarchy should be reformed drastically. In particular, the concept of ‘high kingship’ is appealing to me, since it implies that each tribe or nation would have their own kings that are then in allegiance with a high king, or ‘king of kings’. The lands of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own monarchies would ensure accountability among leaders to their people and erase the problem of having to all share the same monarchy, which is always based in England.

The issue of accountability is another great advantage of monarchy over parliamentary democracy. Because the leaders of the democracy are elected as representatives of the people (and therefore the people that vote for them are theoretically the ones in charge), the responsibility rests on the people themselves. Since most Modern people do not wish to accept responsibility, it is claimed by no one, and this enables the oligarchy of politicians to evade accountability due to their interchangeability. A common excuse given by representatives of political parties after coming into power when something goes wrong is that the cause is the fault of the previous administration, thereby implying that they did not cause the problem and so it is not up to them to solve it.

In this way, individual MPs can also refuse to fix certain problems f they were implemented by a previous MP, and they are usually unwilling to do anything about it because they are backed by the same banks and corporations that are usually causing problems through over-regulation and financial interest. When power and responsibility are all placed into the hands of a single individual, it is easy to see who is to blame when things go wrong, and everybody else is simply following the guidance of the monarch and so it is clear that in such circumstances the monarch has to accept responsibility; either fix the problem or hand it over to somebody more capable. The parliament is the Modern equivalent of the Teutonic Althing, which actually included all male members of the folk and was much more local than centralized as a Modern parliament is. A parliament at the level of our Modern one should only consist of regional kings, as the stooges of banks and corporations have no place making decisions on behalf of ‘the people’ of Britain.

In Ancient Scotland, kings were usually coronated on a sacred stone, which represented their marriage to the Earth Goddess and the union of king, land and folk. The folk were the ones who worked the land, while the king led the folk and who was in turn bound to the land. This ensured that everybody knew who each was accountable to, and that each party was engaged in mutual exchange and respect. If the population of a tribe grew too large, then a section of the tribe would elect a kuningaz (which where the word ‘king’ comes from, but in its meaning is closer to ‘duke’) and conquer territory to gain land. This is inevitable in societies that are dependent on agriculture, and cannot realistically be avoided unless population control is better managed. Thus, the role of the king is to maintain balance, to act as a mediator between his tribe and the gods and to provide for his folk. It is not the person of the king himself who is important, but his ability to fulfil the position to which he is appointed. Genetics play a huge role in these requirements, which is why it is necessary to employ eugenics in the selection of a king and queen.

The importance of the queen is also not to be ignored, as she represents the Goddess. She holds the power that is to be wielded by the king, and his attitude towards his queen will reflect his attitude towards the land. A king who does not respect women cannot be expected to perform properly, though if possible he should always act as the monarch. A queen should only be considered to perform as the monarch in the event of an emergency and if there are no male alternatives. Such was the case with the Iceni queen, Boudicca, who was considered the most capable leader to fight against the Romans because she was married to the king (who was killed by the Romans).

It also follows that showing kindness to one’s folk is also important (the fact that the concept of ‘subjects’ applies to a conquered people rather than one’s own says a lot about our current monarchy), but also in remaining steadfast and doing what is right rather than what will please others. A monarch is also notably different from a dictator, in that a dictator seizes power through might of arms or through constitutional reform upon acquiring power through democratic means. A monarch is chosen through none of those means, as they do not involve either the land or the gods in their consideration. It is upon the basis on natural law rather than state law that a monarch is chosen, and so the monarch is considered to be one with the folk rather than above them.

In essence, Neo-Monarchism is anti-Modern and anti-democratic, as its ideas only apply outside of the concept of Modernity and are reliant on the capability of leadership rather than ‘the will of the people’. The mob cannot be entrusted to lead a society, and it is for this reason that the tyranny of the majority under which we currently live is much worse than the tyranny of one man. A single king can be replaced, but if nobody is accountable, then our society’s problems remain unsolved and will lead us to self-destruction. In this sense, Neo-Monarchism also rejects autocracy, as the monarch cannot have so much power that it interferes in the personal life of each member of the folk. The power of the monarch is general in nature, and acting as a micro-manager will only lead to bad results, including resentment among the populace. This is why a monarch appoints others to be in charge of smaller management tasks.

Neo-Monarchism is in fact corporate in nature, although in the sense of the tribe or nation being a corporate body as opposed to a business venture. In order for the ‘body’ of society to function, it must have a head to direct its movements, and one person to act as the head while enabling the other parts of the body to function automatically. The particular people in charge of our society today do not see themselves as part of ‘the people’, but as a separate entity that intends to rule all peoples. We are in desperate need of transparent government, and the only way to achieve that is to adopt a system that has a holistic attitude to the Earth and to the folk, rather than acting as a parasite on both.

Wulf Willelmson

On the Importance of Syncretism

One of the main differences between orthodoxy and eclecticism in religion is the willingness to incorporate other belief systems into a spiritual practice. While orthodoxy emphasizes purity of dogma and rigidity in structure, in more mystical or folkish religions there is more of a tendency to acknowledge similarities with the religions of other peoples and adapting to changes brought about by migration and trade. While there is nothing wrong with a more defined and specific approach per se, it does limit one’s perception and the failure to give value to the insights of others may hinder understanding of one’s own belief system. A more syncretic approach is becoming necessary in response to globalization and the erosion of traditional religion in the West. While Christianity has largely lost relevance among Westerners at the same time as the expansion of Islam in our lands, it makes sense to proudly defend our traditions from all throughout our history, not just those from the time before Christianity.

Though we carry the torch that has been passed down to us from our ancestors within our genetics and our culture, and in many ways we embody our ancestors, we are not living under the same conditions as they did. This means that our forebears had more access to their own local traditions in the form of skills passed down through generations, as well as folk-binding ceremonies such as the ceilidh (an event traditionally hosted by the local storyteller, now more centred around Highland dancing). However, many of us today have lost touch with our roots in the whirling confusion that is living in a Modern multicultural society, and so we need to be less picky about what can be used to further the spiritual well-being of our folk.

As opposed to the Judeo-Christian Europe of the Middle Ages (where the Church engaged in pogroms against ‘heretical’ sects, who were usually practising some form of Gnostic Christianity), the pagan Europeans had a much more relaxed attitude towards the cults of other peoples. While the adoption of Celtic, Teutonic and various other European pantheons by the Romans helped to strengthen their state religion, it also led to the eventual decline of paganism in the Roman Empire. As Asian and African cults (such as those of the goddesses Cybele and Isis) were also incorporated into Roman religion, they undermined the patriarchal vigour of the Greco-Roman belief systems and allowed for Judeo-Christianity to take over the empire. And this is where the danger of syncretism lies; in order for this method to work, a belief system must be compatible with another in a way that there is no contradiction due to a common spiritual understanding.

More often than not, this is only possible with other spiritual teachings that derive from the same racial root as the one you may wish to supplement. It is no good trying to adapt the beliefs of foreign races into one’s own religion, as the cultural assumptions will differ and lead to a misunderstanding of symbolic meanings. For example, the wolf or dog is considered a noble (if not somewhat dangerous) animal in Aryan and Turkic cultures, and is the guardian animal for many tribes among these two races. However, in Semitic cultures, the dog is seen in the same light as the jackal, a lowly creature who is shunned and considered unclean. Attempting to reconcile such contradictory symbolism will only lead to confusion about the role of parables and symbols in religion, leading to its eventual abandonment.

However, it is now the case that many of our native European customs are so intertwined not only with each other, but also with Christianity, that it is necessary to admit to what works and what doesn’t with regards to carrying tradition. During the Dark Ages, Gnostic Christianity successfully merged with Celtic paganism in order to compose what has become known as ‘Celtic Christianity’. In many cases, the folklore and mythology from Medieval Ireland and Wales are so heavily shaped by this post-Roman culture that it is now difficult to separate the two, making the attempt to reconstruct a ‘pure’ form of Celtic paganism fruitless. Even with regards to Anglo-Saxon paganism, we only have fragmentary evidence for their specific spiritual practices, and most of this comes from after their conversion to Catholicism. In this way, the poetry of Anglo-Saxon England is no less ‘authentic’ despite the Christian overtones, because the original tradition is preserved underneath the symbolism reflecting that time period. It is only because of the preservation of Norse mythology in Iceland that we know more about Teutonic paganism than its Celtic counterpart, although even the works of Snorri Sturluson (the Icelandic priest responsible for preserving the Eddas and Egil’s saga) are written from a Christian perspective.

Nowhere is the need for a combination of cultural motifs in contemporary paganism more apparent than here in Scotland, where it is difficult to ignore either our Celtic or Teutonic heritage. The British peoples are known to be mongrels, yet we still preserve a specific blend of traditions that is unique to both us and the Irish. Specifically, they do well to compliment each other as embodying the masculine and feminine (or patriarchal and matriarchal) forms of religion, with the Teutonic tradition as the former and Celtic culture as the latter. The head of the Teutonic pantheon is Allfather Wotan, who values the manly pursuits of warfare and rune magic, in addition to encouraging exploration and adventure.

While Wotan’s Celtic cognate, Lugh, is also the chief deity in Irish mythology, there is a strong emphasis on the cult of Danu (‘Mother Earth’ equivalent to Nerthuz) and more focus is placed on trade and shamanistic ‘woman’s magic’. Together, their worship forms the basis of the solar and lunar festivals; Yule, Ostara, Litha and Winter Finding (marking the solstices and equinoxes) among the agricultural Teutons, and Samhain, Imbolc, Beltane and Lughnasadh in the Gaelic pastoral tradition, marking the beginning of each new season. It is for this reason that I consider Wotanism and all other folkish forms of paganism as the European variant of Aryan religion. We do not need to have our religion specific to one ethnic group or another, as long as the mixture is between cultures with a shared origin so that each can represent two sides of the same coin. While the main source of pagan lore comes from Norse mythology, there is also much to be learned from the cultures of all Aryan peoples, from Ireland to India and from Russia to Spain.

Having said that, care must be used when dealing with the religions of Iranian and Indian cultures. Though the peoples of Central and Southern Asia share much in common genetically and culturally with Europeans, they have also been affected by the presence of indigenous non-Aryans (such as the Dravidians of India) and by incursions from peoples like the Arabs and Turks. This means that while the esoteric meanings of Zoroastrianism or Hinduism can be adapted and applied to European paganism, the more exoteric cultural aspects (such as traditional cuisine or music) may be more alien and inappropriate for blending with our own culture (for example, the presence of figs and dates in Middle-Eastern folklore, whose symbolic meaning is difficult to apply in temperate Europe where they don’t grow).

An example of a successful cross-cultural interpretation is with the story of Wotan and Gunnlod. Wotan wished to drink the sacred Odrerir (‘mead of poetry’) held by the giant, Kvasir. To achieve this, Wotan slept with his daughter Gunnlod for three nights, each night turning into a snake and slithering up the mountain to drink the mead. On the third night he was caught by Kvasir and had to turn into an eagle to escape back to Asgard. This symbology can be interpreted as a metaphor for the practice of Kundalini yoga, with the mountain representing the body and Wotan as a serpent representing the astral ‘snake’ (Shakti in Hinduism) that travels up the spine. The drinking of Odrerir and changing into an eagle is representative of the ecstatic state achieved by channelling this power, and this is a feature of Wotan’s quest for wisdom which serves as an example for his followers.

As a reflection of my mixed ethnic heritage, I choose to outwardly revere the gods of the Teutonic pantheon, while at the same time studying Druidism and other forms of Celtic and Aryan mysticism. This feels like a natural state and it is similarly the case for many of us in Britain. While there is a stronger Teutonic presence in somewhere like England, and in turn a stronger Celtic influence in a place like Ireland, the aspect of this mixture is what gives us our own unique sense of identity. It is obvious that most will swing more one way or the other, but the dual nature of each aspect is always present, and has been for millennia.

While the Nordic character of the East coast has been shaped by the first inhabitants who crossed the lost land of Doggerland in the North Sea, down to the Aryans and later Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen, the West has been more thoroughly colonized by folk from lands facing the Atlantic and Mediterranean seas. It is because of this that it is necessary to draw from a larger pool of culture, as the demise of Western civilization has stripped our heritage down to its roots, and it is more pragmatic at this time to revive our local customs in addition to taking inspiration from religions far and wide. Our blood and spirit runs much deeper than nation or language, as the source has and will remain for as long as we remain.

Wulf Willelmson

Folkish Tribalism VS White Nationalism

We live in a time when the Neoliberal order of the past few decades is beginning to disintegrate, signalling the final collapse of Western civilization; probably within the next decade if not within a few years. The combination of crony capitalism along with ‘social democracy’ (socialism within a Neoliberal framework) has become exhausted because the central banks that fund both of these ideologies are siphoning off the wealth of the West and leaving more and more people destitute. The resulting strain felt by the average human has pushed many of us (particularly in the younger generations) towards more radical ideas about how to replace the current order with something more desirable. The spectres of the past (particularly those that led to Word War II) have appeared in the voices of the Millenial generation in the forms of both Neo-Marxism, commonly referred to as ‘social justice’ (which is based on the plight of perceived ‘oppressed minorities’ in racial, sexual and economic categories) and what is known as the ‘Alt Right’, which is a combination of various nationalist and traditionalist ideologues acting as an effective opposition to the Modern Left. There also exists a more Centrist aspect, consisting of ‘libertarians’ and ‘civic nationalists’ who claim to oppose both movements as extreme and primarily advocate individual liberty, though they refuse to address fundamental truths about the differences between races so as not to seem ‘racist’. These divisions reflect deep fissures within our civilization and are a sign of its fall, which I believe to have occurred between the 1960s and the 1990s. Now, new ideologies are competing for dominance, and there are various factions involved on all sides that I will not discuss in detail here. For now, we shall focus on the ‘Alt-Right’, in particular its relationship to White Nationalism and how this is connected to, but also distinct from Folkish Tribalism.


First of all, one thing that unites the two movements is the resurgence of the folk soul of the Aryan race, which has occurred as a result of multiculturalism and the realization among certain Whites that their civilization, and in fact their very existence as a subspecies, is under threat. The fact that we appear to be the only race of people that should feel ashamed of our heritage for the abuses of imperialism and colonialism has awakened many to the hypocrisy that all races have engaged in such behaviour, yet only non-Whites are seen as victims of White oppression in the eyes of the Modern Left. This even extends to the general Liberal consciousness, which maintains that all races are equal and so to make distinctions between them is absurd and leads to racism. A feeling of not being able to express ourselves as a distinct group without either having to apologize for past grievances or denying our own heritage has permeated the consciousness of White men in particular, which has awakened a desire for the prevailing zeitgeist to be challenged and changed. Thus, this impulse expresses itself in the various socio-political ideologies that compose the Alt-Right and others that signify the resurgence of folk consciousness. The rise of the internet in particular has led to the awareness of these issues and made it easier to consume and create content relating to these topics, and to engage in contact with others who have reached the same conclusions. For many of us, this is an exciting time to be alive, as we are fuelled by feelings of destiny and purpose that have come to fill the void left by our decadent and worthless consumer society.


However, in many ways this is where the similarities end, and we can now critically examine the relationship between these movements, and how we can not only work together for the sake of our people’s future, but also to avoid the drastic mistakes of the past that led us to the mess that is the post-World War II West. The main distinction between the Alt-Right and Folkish Tribalism is that the former is socio-political in nature, while the latter is not. The Alt-Right relies on the dissemination of information relating to social and political issues and raising awareness of topics such as biological differences between races and the incompatibility of other cultures with our own, particularly those of the Middle East and Africa. This is achieved through spreading ‘memes’ used to highlight or provide humorous commentary on a particular issue, or through various alternative news outlets in the form of podcasts, blogs and YouTube channels (though online censorship is taking its toll). Folkish Tribalism, on the other hand, is primarily spiritual in nature, and is more concerned with the revival of our native traditions and providing the tools necessary to build a future for our folk through musical, literary and environmentalist expressions. This is twain with paganism and the reverence for our ancestors in the form of the gods and heroes of our native lore, although it may also be expressed through a traditionalist interpretation of Christianity. Though both movements spring from the same source of discontentment with post-Modern society and an urge to reconnect with our folk-soul, the means of achieving this are quite different and the focus is oriented in different directions.


On one hand, the Alt-Right focuses on biological and cultural differences between races, and acts as a reactionary force against the forces of globalism and multiculturalism. On the other, Folkish Tribalism is geared towards asserting our people’s existence in its own right, and is less concerned with what people of other races do as long as it does not interfere with our own well-being. In this way, both forces act as pillars of our emerging civilization, one defending our people against false accusations and abuse directed towards us for perceived transgressions, while the other provides a focus for how to build and sustain a society based on tradition and natural law. However, one thing which must be kept in mind is that the relationship between the two must be one of relative greater and lesser importance, with maintaining our folk in a cultural and spiritual sense being the priority with the political and social dimensions remaining secondary. The danger that now presents itself in the wake of the ascendancy of the Alt-Right is that the political and material aspects will take priority, and subsequently drive both movements into the ground, thus destroying our race’s chance of survival. This is precisely what happened during World War II, particularly in Germany. The völkisch movement that heralded the rise of Wotanism as a new expression of Aryan heritage and the revival of Teutonic culture was eclipsed by the rise of the Third Reich, which placed its own importance above that of the German folk once the National Socialists gained power, who subsequently interned various ‘occultists’ in concentration camps. In doing this, it doomed itself by removing the spiritual core of what had propelled National Socialism into power in the first place.


It is this point in particular which I wish to emphasize; which is that it is not the political or even racial expressions that are the most important in our struggle, but the spiritual foundation on which such movements are built. It is here that I also wish to make a distinction between the two ideologies of White Nationalism and Folkish Tribalism. Since the Alt-Right acts as a political vehicle for spreading the concept of White Nationalism, I wish to emphasize that such an idea is neither desirable nor possible. The concept is flawed in two ways, one of which is the idea of returning the current White nations to their previously homogeneous states. The problem with this idea is that is proposes to work within the framework of the already existing society in order to advance the interests of our folk, which would imply gaining control of the very state as it exists today that works towards its demise. The matrix that binds together the nations of our world through the mechanisms of the ‘deep state’ (which is collusion between the banks, the media and the state to maintain the current trajectory) is designed to facilitate entropy and the destruction of our culture by removing that aspect which is central to maintaining a healthy, functioning society; which is the spiritual essence of our folk and the guiding hand of tradition.


The other issue is the question of race, and how this should be reflected in one’s conduct towards not only members of one’s own race, but also towards others. Essentially, the principal problem with a White Nationalist view of race is that it is based strictly in biological terms, where the mere membership of the White race is enough to guarantee one’s interests as far as establishing an ‘ethno-state’ is concerned. Let me be clear in saying that I have no interest in maintaining the White race as it exists today, most of whom are deluded and sheepish creatures who may not even be aware of the importance of blood and soil in the divine order of the universe. I would rather be involved in the creation of a new, invigorated Aryan race, which is able to sustain itself both on a spiritual and material level. This takes us to the distinction that must be made between the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘folk’, which is that the former is material and biological and the latter is spiritual. This is not to say that race is not important in building a new society, as it would only be possible to build a tribe with other members of one’s own race (or else, such a project would devolve into a group based merely on ideology rather than blood kinship, which is essentially what globalism strives to implement worldwide). However, there must also be a shared concept of what is important and that the divine order is more important than both the individual and the collective, thus excluding members of one’s own race that think otherwise. Such connections based on intuition and shared belief can transcend nationality and ethnicity, and there should be a willingness to let go of our more particular regional identities in order to maintain the folk as a whole.


Another issue with White Nationalism in this regard is the focus on identity politics, which begins from the collective and ends with the individual. In this sense, since the primary focus is on the preservation of the White race, this acts as the central focus and everything else comes after. This is a backwards way of going about restoring our people’s dignity, as the first point of reference is the individual. The individual must assess his or her personal nature, their skills and purpose within the tribe and work to become a fully functioning component that is indispensable to the tribe, unlike the interchangeable ‘individual’ of Modern society, whose worth is measured quantitatively and is replaceable. From there, the next point of departure is to the individual’s own family, then to the tribe and the folk. As each collective grouping becomes more abstract and removed from the individual, the more importance is placed on the spirit of the folk as a whole and then we can speak of ‘nations’ and ‘races’. The future Aryan race will be at a point between the spiritual and biological aspects based on a shared genetic lineage, but also on shared ideals and values. A society must have both of these in order to survive and thrive, as an example of one that had the former but lacked the latter would be the nations of Western Europe, while the opposite would apply to somewhere like the United States.


Both of these societies within Western civilization as a whole have succumbed to the same diseases of multiculturalism and consumerism, which arise from the loss of tradition and the recognition of the folk as an organic entity. The idea of building a society from the ground up and the urge to form tribes to preserve our ancient customs is what drives Folkish Tribalism, not the desire to return to some glorious past where you could be assured that your nation consisted of others like you in a genetic or cultural way. This is not to say that the role played by the Alt-Right is not important, in fact it is what represents the things we advocate within the political realm and can introduce those curious about their own heritage to other sources of information regarding how to go about reclaiming it. Its main advantage lies in its sense of humour, as opposed to the dour and overly sensitive Left, which is unable to laugh at itself and is in a weaker position as a result. However, when one takes these ideas too seriously, it can lead to delusions about the rise of the ‘Fourth Reich’ and even revelling in all of the atrocities which that would entail. In this sense, building a future for our children and exiting multicultural society should take priority over the political arena, which consists of posturing and all of the basest characteristics of man’s animal nature. It is also the fact that one cannot simply shy away from politics that I choose to address these issues, as this would imply a denial of what needs to be done in order to reach those who enter the fight from the political end first before moving on towards more practical and worthwhile endeavours.


Despite the bickering and disagreement between individuals online, I am still confident that we are winning the culture war and have a solid basis from which to direct our future endeavours. Such base behaviour is to be expected among those who feel drawn towards the call of their blood but still cling to petty political ideology and racial identity as the core of their personal opinions. There are a much more significant number of us who are finding that we all have particular talents that we are capable of utilizing to advance our people’s interests. This may even take the form of completely apolitical activity, such as promoting awareness about our history, folk customs and musical traditions, which are specific to each geographical region of our lands, but which speak to all of us on a fundamental level. The most important thing to remember is that the political aspect comes last, and that it is essential to have an anchoring in one’s own personal achievements before focusing on the collective effort. This is certainly important, but only if we have energy to spare after our personal relationships and tribal and familial bonds are secured. It is what we do rather than what we think that unites us in camaraderie, and there will indeed be many who may share the same opinions as us, but will not have the will or the courage to go beyond that. Such people are as irrelevant to our cause as those who will perish along with our sick, rotten society because they still cling to ideals deriving from the 18th and 19th Centuries (Liberalism and Marxism respectively). The future looks bright, but only if we know in which direction to go and in the most effective way possible.


Hail the folk!


Wulf Willelmson