Over the years, as my own thoughts and beliefs have developed and transformed, this blog has come to reflect a change from a particular set of beliefs I cone held to those which I hold now. Originally, I had intended to use this blog to propagate Wotanism, which is essentially a ‘racial religion’ that is based on the concept that the deities of European paganism reflect the archetypes and ideals of the European peoples, with a particular emphasis on the Germanic pantheon. This mainly appealed to me because of my own realization of how much our spirituality is encoded within our genetics, that we inherit our values from our ancestors (society can only have limited influence on who we are as individuals, despite what liberals and socialists may think) and because my own spiritual awakening coincided with the realization that the archetype of Wotan (or ‘Odin’) reflects my own personal nature best.
However, where such a ‘religion’ falls short is in its assumptions regarding race, on what criteria peoples are to be distinguished and even on the origins of our own so-called ‘white race.’ It is unfortunate that Wotanists make the same mistake as the Nazis did in that they assume that race constitutes both a biological and a spiritual entity. This is somewhat understandable, given how such ideas are derived from 19th Century pseudoscience which was intended to explain the differences between the various peoples of the world and the types of civilizations that they created. This was all a part of the era of nationalism, imperialism and colonialism, so often-times it was used to justify the oppression of people belonging to other races who were perceived to be not quite so fortunate in terms of their heredity as those who happened to be asserting their control over them.
At the same time, because of the misunderstandings that arose among those like the Nazis regarding race, biologists have become averse to the mere notion that genetics play a role in how people behave, propagating the liberal and socialist fantasy that the majority of human characteristics are developed by the experiences of individuals. Therefore, any perceived differences in behaviour, intelligence etc. must be explained solely by environmental factors, because admitting the importance of genetics would mean that there are some things which cannot be solved by altering environmental conditions. Since liberalism and socialism are both urban-derived ideologies, they are completely rooted in the concept of altering one’s environment as a method of survival, and so the thought of some factors being determined by Nature and not by Man is somewhat frightening to city-dwellers.
Yet, both assumptions are wrong, both environmental and biological determinism ignore the most fundamental element in the unfolding of life: spiritual character. This is, of course, a symptom of a materialist society, and even those who make pretensions to ‘spirituality’ fall prey to the superficiality of biological race, because it is rather easy to determine how someone appears. It is rather more difficult to determine their inner character, which takes time and, more importantly, discernment. Yet, this is what is necessary, as simple judgement of character based on physical appearance simply leads to racism, and I have concluded that such an outlook on the world is incompatible with the pursuit of spiritual harmony.
This is not to say that outward appearance never reflects somebody’s inner state. You can tell if somebody is sick from how they look and you don’t need to be able to see where their body is being overrun by pathogens to know that. You can also sometimes infer information about somebody’s character from their characteristics, whether it be things such as facial features, complexion or bodily shape. Unlike the politically correct, I don’t deny the existence of race, but rather argue that it can only ever be a limited indicator of things such as which part of the world ones ancestors are from and what sort of environment they were adapted to. Other characteristics that can be made from body language, speech patterns or a particular set of beliefs and values are cultural in origin, and can only be discovered through personal interaction with an individual.
One key difference between the fascists and National Socialists is that the fascists saw race as a product of culture, whereas the Nazis argued that culture was a product of race. The latter view has largely won out among nationalists not aligned with the liberal-derived so-called ‘civic nationalism,’ but I would contend that both are in fact correct. That is to say, people of similar natures (but potentially different ethnic or racial origins) will be drawn to each other and intermix, leading to the creation of a unified culture which may be genetically heterogeneous. This is particularly true of the Turkic peoples, as well as the Jews who derive their lineages from multiple sources (though they are overall more closely related to each other more than anyone else due to the practice of endogamy in recent centuries). Therefore, lineage creates culture and culture creates race.
This undercuts the fundamental assumptions of those who base their assessment of human interactions on biological race, because it means that people of a similar racial origin may have contrary and incompatible natures, while two individuals of different races may have much more similar natures to each other than others of their respective races. Of course, genetics still play an important role here, since if one derives their characteristics largely through heredity, then this means that the most crucial points of similarity with others will still be determined by their lineage, which is not necessarily the same as racial origin.
The reason why these two things are not the same is because one’s lineage is unique to the individual and those with whom they are considered closely related, whereas a ‘race’ is something which emerges over time through interaction with people of either the same or other lineages. This is another crucial point that is missed by those who assume some sort of primordial origin for the various human races as they exist today (even if they don’t assume a ‘hierarchy of races’ and prefer to see each race as adapted specifically to its environment), because it ignores the fact of historic and prehistoric mixture between different races in the past which gave rise to cultures which today may seem much more monolithic.
We now know this thanks to advancements in genetic studies which track paternal and maternal lineages, which are known as haplogroups. To give an example of how this applies to European peoples, the two most common haplogroups among European males are ‘I’ and ‘R.’ Haplogroup I derives from so-called ‘Western Hunter-Gatherers,’ while haplogroup R is more associated with the ‘Eastern Hunter-Gatherers.’ Both groups came into contact during the Mesolithic, particularly in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, which gave rise to mixed populations in those areas. Yet, the interactions did not end there, as ‘Early European Farmers’ introduced the lifestyle and practices of the Neolithic to Europe, bringing with them their own set of haplogroups to add to the gene pool.
However, the reason why haplogroup R is so prominent today in Europe among men is because of the arrival of the Aryans (more commonly known as ‘Indo-Europeans’), who were mostly descended from Eastern Hunter-Gatherers, but had some genetic input from other groups outside of Europe and had a pastoral culture. Their innovations such as the spoked wheel and the use of bronze allowed them to conquer Europe, though there is evidence in some places (particularly in the West) that they actually assimilated more into the local cultures (whilst adding their own innovations) rather than dominating them as they did further East.
There are some interesting implications which arise from the respective relations of haplogroups to each other, such as the fact that haplogroup I shares a common origin with haplogroup J, the most common paternal lineage in the Middle East today. Conversely, haplogroup R shares a common origin with haplogroup Q, which is the predominant paternal lineage of the American Indians and some Siberian tribes. This means that there will have been (and will still be) stronger commonalities between some Europeans with others outside of Europe than people with whom they share the same ethnicity or ‘race.’ This is not to say that one’s haplogroup will determine one’s nature, but that there is always the possibility of having a more similar nature with somebody of a completely different cultural and racial background than somebody with whom one shares history and heritage with.
This is anathema to racial explanations for differences between people, as the fundamental assumption of the Nazis and other biological determinists was that some races are more ‘pure’ than others, and that racial admixture leads to degeneration, biologically and culturally. While there may be some truth to this on an esoteric level, the fact is that the so-called ‘Nordic race’ is not pure, but very much mixed. However, the Germanic peoples do retain a very high level of admixture and lineages from the Aryans, and so they can be said to possess one of the best examples of an Aryan culture. Nevertheless, because Arya is a state of having a noble nature rather than simply one’s biological origin, being of Germanic heritage is certainly no indicator that one will necessarily be an Aryan, while somebody of West African or Indian heritage may qualify as an Aryan because they too descend in part from the original Aryans.
Arguments concerning a primordial ‘Aryan race’ may be true when speaking in the past-tense, but because of subsequent intermixture with other races, this can no longer be considered the case. Therefore, the pagan gods of Ancient Europe are mixtures of different traditions, which mainly reflect the different peoples for whom they are archetypes. In Norse mythology, the Æsir and Vanir are described as different races of gods, and therefore represent prehistoric races of people. The Æsir are the Aryans, they are gods of war, craftsmanship, virtues and ideals. The Vanir, on the other hand are gods of peace, fertility, growth and sensuality and are associated with the Neolithic Europeans. Norse mythology also attests to differences in cultural practices, such as the practices of seiðr (witchcraft) and brother-sister marriages among the Vanir, which were unknown to the Æsir (though they were said to have been instructed in the former, they outlawed the latter).
The subsequent civilization of Bronze Age Europe was somewhat varied, with some parts maintaining more of an ‘Aryan’ character, while others displayed more continuity with the previous, Neolithic cultures. Eventually, however, the Germanic peoples purposely isolated themselves from those to the south and west of themselves during the Iron Age, because of theinflux of influences from the Mediterranean that they wished to avoid. I would argue that it is primarily for this reason that the Germanic peoples were once thought of as an an example of ‘racial purity,’ but modern genetic evidence proves this to be false, and that it is rather an development borne out of historical events.
This is not to say that the character of the Germanic peoples (or any other ethnic group for that matter) is not unique in its own right, but that the trials of modernity are beginning to sow fissures within the once monolithic cultures which are showing that their foundations are not as solid as once thought. The assumption that one must have a common interest with those of the same race or ethnicity is absurd, as is demonstrated by the virulent disagreement among Europeans on how to handle issues such as mass immigration and even how to govern their own countries. This may be explained by the fact that mixtures between people of conflicting character has occurred because of the practice of arranged marriages, which were very common during Antiquity and the Middle Ages (at least among the nobility and bourgeoisie) and have only in recent centuries fallen out of favour.
However, I would argue that the damage has been done further down the line because of that, and the result is that in some cases, people of the same family may be at odds with each other because of contrasting natures, which has potentially severe consequences when extended to a nation-state. We must think very carefully before assuming a common interest with those of a similar heritage, since this is not nearly as important as having shared values. While this may sound similar to civic nationalism, that ideology is founded on a liberal interpretation of nationalism, which means that its criteria for ‘values’ are mundane and materialistic, as opposed to intrinsic and spiritual. Liberals and civic nationalists often assume that someone’s nature may be altered by education in order to conform to the values of the nation-state in which they reside.
Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that individuals derive most of their state of being from their genetics, and therefore it is impossible to change an individual’s fundamental nature in order for them to fit into some pre-conceived idea about how they should be. Besides, this strategy reeks of the type of colonial policy implemented in countries like India, where it was assumed that the native inhabitants could be ‘taught’ to the British, which involved denigrating their heritage and culture in favour of a foreign one. While some Indians may have responded well to British education, that was probably because they already possessed a similar set of values which reflected those of the British Empire, while other authorities within the colonial administration blamed their ‘inferior nature’ if they performed poorly; which reflected an understanding of the importance of heredity, but ignorance of what constitutes ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ cultures.
Often-times, chauvinism is the attitude of a culture (or individual) that is unsure of itself, insecure in its aspirations and which feels the need to put down others in order to make itself feel superior. While I am not arguing for the left-wing principle of cultural relativism (which sanctions harmful behaviours practised by a given culture on the basis that “it’s just part of their culture, who are we to judge?”), I am arguing that nationalism is the result of either a state wishing to find justification for imperial expansion, or that it arises among a people who are living under an empire ruled by a foreign people (or both, as was the case with the Third Reich). While the latter state is perfectly understandable, it still has its pitfalls, since it can foster ethnic or racial hatred, encourage a selective approach to history which emphasizes favourable aspects and ignores others (such was the case in the newly-independent nation of Greece in the 19th Century, which based its entire sense of identity on the Classical Era to the detriment of earlier and later time periods in the Greek consciousness), or simply perpetuate the lie that shared ethnicity must mean shared values and aspirations.
I say this because I can see a growing trend among those awakening to the pernicious nature of the aspiring global state (taking the form of such institutions as the UN and the EU) to respond by adopting nationalism, whether it be civic or ethnic/racial. I would caution against this because this development mirrors events of the past, such as the rise of National Socialism and the ensuing holocaust that was the Second World War. While Nazi-sympathizers may maintain that such extreme measures were justified in order to protect Europe from the evils of liberalism and communism, this ignores the fact that the Nazis and fascists imitated one of the worst aspects of the USSR in the form of totalitarianism, as well as the hypocrisy of liberalism in claiming to be for freedom, but enforcing a pre-defined ideal of what society should be like.
While the human species (not just the ‘white race’ as White Nationalists may maintain) is indeed threatened by transhumanists masking their cause as social justice and by the predations of unscrupulous capitalists across the world (both of which are now using environmentalism as a way to advance their interests), this does not mean that we should give in to the urge to react violently and to trust in those we may perceive to be acting in our best interests. Adolf Hitler is a perfect example of a man who was not what he appeared to be, as he claimed to act in Germany’s best interests, yet left it in rubble. Again, while Nazi-sympathizers may argue that it was the Allies who destroyed Germany (which they did with unbelievable cruelty and malice), they forget that it takes two to start a fight, and that the Nazis’ were wholly intent on rearmament for the sake of conquest and expansion, and that they used the persecutions of German minorities in neighbouring countries as a pretext to do so.
While war may indeed be an inevitable result of the actions committed today against the human species, we must remember what we are fighting for, and in order to do that we need to know who we are. If we allow others to define that for us, whether it be along the lines of ethnic, racial or any other external ‘identity,’ we will always be under their control and may become complicit in crimes against ourselves or fellow man. Remember that what is inside truly is more important than what is on the outside, since this is merely a reflection of the internal state, but does not define it. Rather, we are defined by what we value, who we choose to associate with, what we do with our lives, and what our attitudes are towards ourselves and others. While there may be some socialized element to this, I would argue that it is mostly intrinsic, but it may not be as easy to discern through appearance as biological racism would have it.
The personal revaluations I have had in the past couple of years have led me to abandon such a naïve perspective on the world, but this is not some self-flagellation of a ‘self-hating white;’ rather it is a confession of an honest mistake in perspective, which has been superseded by the recognition of the true nature of spirit and how it manifests through Sacred Tradition. Often, ‘tradition’ is thought of simply as the time-honoured customs of a folk, whose meaning has largely been forgotten in the mists of time. But ‘Tradition’ (with a capital ‘T’) is more of a recognition of one’s inner nature and the discernment of the nature of others, which then leads to a common understanding of how to behave in the world. The customs which form as a result of this have intrinsic meaning, because they come from within the individuals who participate in them. Ancestry is important, heritage is important, but what we interpret such things as is largely dependent on which definitions we use. Do we use those which we receive through our own inner guidance system, or those which are imposed upon us from outside?