The Monarch and the Anarch

It may seem strange for a self-professed monarchist to endorse the concept of anarchism, since the idea of having no leaders is at odds with unity under a single leader. However, I do think that it is possible for such contradictory concepts to co-exist within a single worldview, but a distinction must be made between anarchism as a political ideology and as a personal philosophy. The promotion of the state of anarchy is an ideological manifestation of the chaotic forces within the human psyche which is, in essence, a state of absolute individualism and the absence of any collective identity.

This is not the same as applying the principles of anarchism to oneself, which is something that does not exclude a collective consciousness. However, this is only possible for those who are capable of becoming fully individuated, and will not be a desirable path for those who require leadership and direction from others. Monarchy is the natural state for a group to exist, since one leader is needed to act as the head of a collective. Unfortunately, this becomes a problem once a monarchy becomes a state, which extends the collective beyond the individual, essentially violating the principle of mutual consent and enveloping all inhabiting a given territory within its net.

Being an ‘anarch’ rather than just an ‘anarchist’ means living an independent life and answering to none but one’s own inner direction. An anarch may be in league with a monarch for mutual benefit, but this is something which can only ever be continued through contractual obligation. Once there is no longer a reason for an anarch to remain allied to a monarch, then he may leave the monarch’s ‘realm’ and exist instead as a freeman. This system of anarcho-monarchism is the ideal mode of human interaction, but unfortunately the mechanism of the state has been imposed upon us from above and makes it impossible for an individual to exist outside of its jurisdiction. Common law is present as a way of making each individual responsible for themselves and to recompense or seek compensation from other individuals for any infraction committed, as defined by common sense.

Criminal law is only ever something which is defined by an external authority, which is usually the state but may also be influenced by wealthy lobbies and even public opinion. It is the assumption that the individual has transgressed against the collective rather than another person, and so the state becomes the arbiter of justice and defines what is and what isn’t a crime. The problem with the application of criminal law is that if the state becomes abusive (and at this point, all are in some form or another), then it means that the law will be used to persecute those who are not truly criminals, only dissidents, even if they are non-violent.

It is for this reason that all over the world we must endure laws enacted against freedom of speech and thought, personal possession of weapons and substances and basic rights to natural utilities. Every aspect of human existence is becoming increasingly regulated and scrutinized, to the point where more and more just can’t handle the unnatural conditions that this fosters and choose to end their lives or those of others. If we are not allowed to exist as individuals, then the human endeavour becomes reduced to what the collective deems to be worthwhile, which becomes impossible to break free from once a state is established. While it is certainly true that there must be some level of social control employed, it must be based on divine principles, which are discovered from within and transcend the ego. An individual who can utilize their talents to direct and employ the service of others is only able to act as an effective monarch if he is aware of his own responsibilities to his kinsmen. It is not about having absolute control over others and interfering in as many aspects of their lives as possible.

In Britain, we used to have elective monarchies, which functioned on the basis of all freemen gathering together to vote for the one who was seen to be the best leader. This was known among the Norsemen as the álthing, and it was through the selection process that the best man from among the nobility, the jarl, was drawn, who was the spiritual leader of the tribe. There were equivalents in all of the various British cultures, and it was only with the Romans that we were subjected to state tyranny. Thankfully, they never managed to conquer Scotland, and so here the old ways continued for longer.

However, after the Normans led by William the Bastard gained a foothold in England, the concept of the state was introduced to Scotland with the reforms of David I, who sought to centralize his authority and established a system of permanent primogeniture and hereditary monarchy. Ever since then, we have undergone the increasing encroachment of the state into our lives, beginning with the so-called ‘divinely appointed’ Medieval monarchs, who later became ‘constitutional monarchs’. The result is that in Modern times, we have had many a weak and ineffective monarch who is subject to the will of a corrupt and decadent parliament which does the bidding of powerful corporations and banks. Now, the British monarch is more of a celebrity and a mere facet of national sentimentality rather than a leader.

I have already discussed the details of tribal monarchy in my article concerning Neo-Monarchism, and so I wish to return to the concept of anarchism, specifically the misinterpretations of it. The most common attribution of anarchism in recent times is to the communist group known as Antifa, who act as redshirt street-thugs against perceived ‘fascists’. However, the sort of anti-statist rhetoric touted by such organizations is based on the writings of Karl Marx, who proposed the implementation of a stateless society where all is held in common. On the face of it, the Marxist doctrine appears to advocate anarchism, since the undesirable state has been removed and resources are available to all.

However, since private property has always existed among human societies (at least with regards to handmade goods as opposed to land which has traditionally been held in common), the complete abolition of private property means that the individual is not recognized as a sovereign entity. This means that all utilities are subject to the will of the collective, which is the difference between the utopia of communism and the ideal of anarchism, that is the freedom to choose who to work with or for. Absolute collective ownership is only possible with the oversight of some external authority, which is why all attempts to implement communism have failed to abolish the state, as the state is necessary to administer redistribution. This is similar to the concept behind fascism, where the individual and the state become subsumed into one entity and essentially leads to the same result, except that private property is still acknowledged.

Aside from these misunderstandings which arise among anti-social adolescents and weak-willed men, there exist many appendages to anarchist thought, each of which focuses on the individual’s perception of an ideal lifestyle. Some may prefer to emphasize reducing reliance on technology, others to pursue private enterprise and there are also those of us who seek to work as individuals for the sake of their nation. The obligation of an individual to any collective should be voluntary, and each should be able to exercise freedom of association based on one’s own personal values.

Without the state, you have less need to feel resentment towards others, because you then become responsible for yourself and therefore have nothing to complain about if you subject yourself to authority, since it is a mutually agreed partnership where both parties must agree to the terms of a contract if one is made. Anarchy is a term used to describe the state of leaderlessness, where every individual is out for themselves and no collective unity is present. It is for this reason that monarchy is necessary to provide guidance for those who need it and for a monarch to fulfil his role as a leader. However, we should still allow for the presence of the anarch, who may remain on the outskirts of the tribal territory or wander from place to place, guided by his own inner light.

Wulf Willelmson

Man and Woman: The Masculine and Feminine Polarity

Too often today, the polarity between the masculine and feminine aspects of mankind is misunderstood. Both are frequently disregarded for the sake of achieving ‘equality’ and thereby remove the distinctness of each, resulting in an unhealthy striving toward androgyny, which requires for men to become like women and women to become like men. This is an unfortunate sign of societal decay, because as gender roles are disregarded, so too are the principles upon which men and women govern their lives. By being unable to distinguish between our own inherent strengths and weaknesses and what we are told by society, people attempt to fulfil roles which are unsuited to them, but are expected to uphold them because of a sense of moral obligation to correct perceived injustices. This particular aspect primarily affects our menfolk, as we are often told that we have an inherently abusive nature unless we manage to hold our ‘toxic masculinity’ in check. The fear of seeming too forceful or dominant causes men to adopt a position of submissiveness, in order to ensure that we do not become the monster that we fear may lurk within our souls. However, this has the unfortunate side effect of making women feel like they must be more masculine in order to feel like they are in control.

Unfortunately, when men and women hide their true selves by adopting the habits of the opposite gender, this results in a breakdown of communication between them and in such a situation one is not able to understand the other’s wants and needs. Men do not need to become more like women in order to control their strength, they should instead be able to distinguish when brute force is necessary (for example, in a fight with another man, as men are more likely to engage in physical violence with each other) and when he must curb his urge to dominate. Knowing the difference between dealing with a man and dealing with a woman is vital to acting appropriately, especially since personal interaction between two men is never the same as between a man and a woman. Similarly, while a woman should be able to stand up for herself and not tolerate abuse, she should not need to compete with a man in order to make sure that she remains a free agent. Typically, men have a better grasp of decisiveness and leadership, and so it often happens that a man would take command and pursue a goal. Though he should not ignore a woman’s advice, since women are generally better at managing the finer details and thinking more about how to accomplish a task successfully rather than deciding what should be done.

Thus, men and women naturally balance each other out, and it is through partnership and mutual understanding that they are able to build families and societies together, rather than ensuring that one or the other always comes out on top. However, what must also be considered are the varying degrees to which individual men and women possess masculinity and femininity within themselves. Though for most folk it is a matter of clear and conventional differences between a man and a women, there are some of us who feel more suited to roles which are not as clearly defined, and so the gender dynamic between a man and a woman who naturally possess some characteristics of the opposite gender will be different than between people with a more binary polarity. In this way, gender roles are more of a guide to practice rather than an established set of rules, and should be made to fit the relationship between two individuals rather than insisted upon in every circumstance. It is simply that in most cases, men and women benefit from recognising their own capabilities in relation to the opposite sex and discovering how to compliment the different aspects of each other.

The breakdown of traditional gender roles has been the result of the increasing prevalence of Neo-Marxist ideals, which seek to undermine the basis upon which our civilization is founded:  the partnership between men and women in order to build society. Through the weak egalitarian principles of Liberalism, Neo-Marxists operate under the guise of ‘feminism’ in order to promote antagonism between the sexes through institutions such as schools and the media. Men are constantly shamed for being too dominant, while women are encouraged to become dominant themselves in order to compensate, in order to achieve ‘equality’. However, all that results in is that men and women become equally resentful towards each other and refuse to cooperate in order to build stable families. If women refuse to acknowledge the forthright and forceful nature of men, then men will either submit to them and become passive ‘nice guys’, or else they become embittered and come to despise women for their sometimes fickle nature. If men must acknowledge that they are capable of brutishness and insensitivity, then women must also recognise their capacity to twist the truth and manipulate others. Each of these traits are inherent weaknesses within those who display either masculine or feminine qualities, and should be dealt with when they arise and should not be ignored when pointed out by somebody of the opposite sex.

At this point I should probably clarify the difference between sex and gender, since there are efforts to convince people that such things as gender do not actually exist, or that they are one and the same. Sex is obviously determined by the presence of either male or female reproductive organs, while gender is a result of hormones in the body that determine how the body and the brain operate. However, gender also covers anything which expresses a masculine or feminine quality, and so sometimes feminine physical or psychological features are present in a man and vice versa. Therefore, gender is something which pertains to features that are characteristic of a man or a woman, but may be present in either. This means that it is possible for men or women to engage with that part of themselves which is of the opposite gender in order to understand somebody of the opposite sex better. By expecting certain behaviour from another person based on their gender, it is easier to predict the best way to communicate with them, though one should not expect the other to conform to one’s own perception of how they should act.

The ideals of how man or a woman should behave are for the individual to strive for rather than to be forced upon others or else disregarded altogether. When we act out of accordance with our own nature we begin to act unlike ourselves, and this is often a source of frustration and resentment towards others. It is not fair to expect from someone what is not in their capability to do so, as this leads a man or a woman thinking that they should be more like the other, thereby becoming insecure within their own masculinity or femininity. Suppressing our natural instincts will only lead to a distorted perception of ourselves and cause us to forever feel inadequate in pursuing an ideal towards something which we are not. Let women be women and men be men, it is not for others to decide how much one is allowed to express their masculinity or femininity, though it is also upon the individual to realize which expression is appropriate in a particular circumstance. As personal experience has taught me, things that can be said or done around others of the same gender may not be appropriate or understood in the company of the opposite gender.

When men and women are able to fulfil their own determined gender roles to the best of their abilities, this helps to foster a strong and stable society with solid foundations and clarity with regards to what each person is meant to do. If men are permitted to be heroic and manly, then they will be able to fulfil these ideals the best they can, while women may lay the foundations of a family and homestead and manage these things the way they see fit. If, on the other hand, men are expected to be submissive, then they may become perverted and seek to express their masculinity in ways which are underhanded and passive-aggressive. If women are told to assert themselves above men, then they may become domineering and aggressive. Though there have been some great female leaders throughout history and also men who worked better behind the scenes as women often do, this is the exception rather than the rule, and it is for each person to find out what works best for them.

In the end, we all have aspects of both the masculine and feminine, as we all have both a father and a mother, these principles will always be present within us. It is through having good relationships with our parents and other members of the family that we learn how to behave towards those we meet who are of the opposite sex or gender, and so those who have experienced trauma or have bad relations with their family members are more likely to treat those of the opposite gender poorly because of a lack of understanding of how the other functions. We must also strive to fulfil the role of mother or father if we choose to raise children, as neglecting this in favour of our own personal happiness will only lead to fragmented families and people who do not know how to be good men or women for want of positive role models.  Whether we look to the gods or to our own parents and relatives for inspiration, we can perceive the presence of masculine and feminine in the world every day, and we should learn to appreciate the presence of both in our lives. Without the union between masculine and feminine, there is no creation, and so the interplay between the two is essential to understanding the world and others around us.

Wulf Willelmson

Excerpt from the ‘Shahnameh’ (Persian ‘Book of Kings): Bahram Gur’s Priest Ruins and Revives a Village

‘Another day Bahram went out hunting at dawn with a group of companions. His vizier Hormozd rode on his left, and a priest on his right, and the two told him tales of Jamshid and Feraydun [legendary early kings of Iran]. They took no dogs, cheetahs and hawks with them and searched through the morning, but by noon they’d found no trace of either onager [wild ass] or deer, and when the sun shone in the heavens like a bright coin, Bahram irritatedly made his way back from his expedition. A green area, filled with men and flocks, appeared, and many people gathered round to stare at the hunters. Bahram was weary and feeling short-tempered; he’d hoped to dismount and rest in the village, but no one came forward to meet him, and the place seemed inhabited by donkeys. He grew angry with the people there and looked askance at them, saying to his priest:

May this green, prosperous village be a den
Of beasts – a wild and uncultivated fen –
And may the water dry in every ditch
And turn to stagnant and black as pitch!

The priest knew how to fulfil Bahram’s command and he turned aside from the road and entered the village. He said, “This green area, filled with houses, people and flocks, has pleased King Bahram and he has a new plan for you. Rejoice in your hearts, you are all masters now and can make this a splendid place. Here women and children are masters too, and no one has to obey anyone else. Labourer and headmen are equal: men, women and children, you are all headmen of the village!” A cry of joy went up from the inhabitants; in their minds men and women were the same, and labourers and servants were equal to the village headman. Since the young men now felt no fear of authority, they cut off the heads of the village elders: everyone became muddled up with everyone else, and bloodshed became commonplace. The area became as confused and horrifying as the Day of Judgement, and the inhabitants fled. A few weak, old men stayed there, but every sign of activity or prosperity had gone. The whole village took on a rundown look: trees withered, irrigation ditches dried up, houses were now in ruins, fields were uncultivated, men and their flocks were nowhere to be seen.

A year passed, and the following spring Bahram again went hunting in that area. He reached the place that had seemed so pleasant and prosperous, but the village he remembered was not there. All the trees were dead, the houses in ruins, the fields empty of flocks and people. Bahram’s heart was wrung to see this; he feared God and wished to act justly. He said this to his priest, “Ruzbeh, it hurts me to see this lovely place in ruins, go quickly and provide them with money from my treasury, so that they won’t suffer any more.”

The priest left the king’s side and rode into the ruins. He went from house to house and finally found an old man who had no work. He dismounted, greeted him politely, and invited the man to sit with him. He said, “Old man, who has ruined this prosperous place?”

The old man answered him, “By chance one day
The king and his companions come this way.
A foolish priest with no sense in his head,
One of those noble idiots, born and bred,
Declared to us, ”You’re all the masters here,
Social distinctions are to disappear.
The ranks of those who rule and those who serve
Are niceties that no one need observe.”
As soon as he’d said that our little village
Was filled with fights and plundering and pillage:
May God reward that man’s stupidity
And fill his days with grief and misery!”

Grieved to hear this, Ruzbeh asked “Who is your village headman?” The man replied,

“A headman’s a place where grain is grown,
And men can reap the harvest they have sown.

Ruzbeh said, “You are to be the headman here, you’re to rule over these ruins. Ask the king for cash, seed, cows, and donkeys, and bring back to your village whoever you can find who is destitute. You are to be the headman and they’re to do as you tell them. And don’t curse that priest who came here before, as he didn’t want to say what he did. If you need help from the king’s court, I’ll send you whatever you need. All you have to do is ask.”

The old man was pleased to hear this and forgot his former sorrows. He immediately went from house to house to find men to work on the irrigations channels and to start cultivating the land again. They asked neighbouring villages for donkeys and cows and set to work making the plain productive. The headman and his villagers worked hard at planting trees everywhere, and their hearts were filled with happiness each time they saw a house had been rebuilt. All those who had fled from the place weeping and wailing came back one by one when they had heard of the success of the old headman’s efforts. The watercourses in the streets were rebuilt, the stocks of cows, donkeys, and sheep multiplied in the pastures, and the trees that people planted everywhere made the former ruins look like paradise.

By the following year the village had responded to the old man’s efforts and was as he wished. Once again, at spring time, the king went hunting with his priest, Ruzabeh, and for a third time they came to the village. Bahram Gur saw the land under cultivation, the herds of animals, the fine buildings, the plains and mountain slopes covered with sheep and lambs, the water courses coming down from the foothills, and the village filled with handsome men. He turned to the priest and said, “Ruzbeh, what have you done? This fine village was in ruins, its people and animals had fled. What did you give them so that they were able to make it flourish again?”

Ruzbeh answered, “One speech was enough to bring this ancient village to its knees, and one idea was enough to make it prosperous again, and so rejoice the heart of Persia’s king. You had ordered me to destroy the village using money from your treasury, but I was afraid of God’s judgement and the reproaches of noblemen and commoners. I saw that strife results when one has two thoughts, and knew that when a town has two masters it cannot survive. I told the village elders that there was no master over them, that women were masters now, and children too, as were servants and labourers. When the commoners became masters, the master’s heads were brought down to dust. This lovely place was destroyed by a speech, and I escaped reproach and did not fear God’s judgement. But then the king forgave them, so I went to them and suggested another course of action. I set a wise old man over them as their headman, someone who was eloquent and knowledgeable. Through his efforts he restored the village’s prosperity and made his inferiors’ hearts happy.  Once one man was put in charge of the rest, things went well again: goodness increased and evil decreased. I showed them the way of evil and then I opened the door to God for them. If a man uses speech in the right place, it is worth more than fine jewels. If you want your soul to have no troubles, wisdom must be your king, and language your champion. May the king’s heart be eternally happy, triumphing over all evil and ruin.”

The king responded, “Ruzbeh, you are worthy of a crown!” He gave this clever and perspicacious man a purse of gold coins and a royal robe of honour, raising his head to the clouds in glory.’

[Abolqasem Ferdowsi, English translation into prose by Dick Davis, Penguin 1997]


Bahram V was the ruler of the Persian Empire between 420 and 438 AD and this story, written in the 10th Century, is set during his reign. It is a cautionary tale that demonstrates how a society can fall apart, but also how it can be built up again. The village is a microcosm of society and the events that occur mirror the process of dissolution and revival. Because the villagers did not greet the king and his entourage, this signals the beginning of the society’s fall, as the lack of manners and hospitality to strangers invited the king’s wrath upon them. The first speech given by the king’s priest is an example of the kinds of things touted by demagogues that preach egalitarianism, which then ensues in class warfare. The suggestion that everyone is equal results in a loss of focus and purpose other than removing power from those that have it in order to distribute it equally. Since each person is considered the same as everyone else, this results in confusion about who is to do what and so nobody knows what they should be doing. The distress that comes from loss of purpose when one is out of touch with their innate capabilities drives people to insanity, and so they become self-serving and opportunistic. The fact that no one can co-cooperate means that everybody becomes poor and no longer has a sense of common purpose. At this point, people begin to flee and leave for greener pastures, leaving only the old who are unable or unwilling to leave. And so, as there are no young folk, the society has no future.

However, upon the return of the priest once the king sees how destitute the village is, he finds the wisest of the old men, who knows how the society of his village fell apart and why. Because of his capability to understand this, he was appointed as the new headman of the village and was able to use the money given to him by the king to pay for new people to work for him. This demonstrates that there are natural leaders among a population, and that the wisest should be considered the most able to be so. Once there is somebody who can work with others and make use of their labour, their focus becomes finding what each person’s skills and abilities are in order to make use of them in working towards a common goal. The headman does not need to interfere in the lives of those that he commands, and so there is no resentment between people when they adopt the roles of master and servant. Thus, by recognizing the most agreeable purpose between individuals on a voluntary basis, a society can prosper and thrive.

When the king inquires about the splendid state of the village on his third visit, the priest explains that words and ideas can have a powerful effect upon a society, and can tear it down just as easily as they can build it up. By seeking to recognize a common truth with others, a society becomes functional and able to provide for the needs of those who inhabit it. This can only be done by working out the distinctions between those who can lead and those who follow. There is also the aspect of provider and dependant, which can be reflected in gender roles and definitions of maturity. As men are more likely to assume leadership roles, it does not make sense to expect this as something which women are as likely to fulfil, just as most men would struggle to perform roles better performed by women. Similarly, children are not considered capable of leadership as their immaturity makes them unsuited to the responsibilities of running a society.

However, whenever the natural tendency towards unity is disrupted and the idea of multiple leaders is introduced, society fractures into factions based on personal allegiance, and so people will not see themselves as part of a complete group, but as smaller competing collectives based on class, gender or race. When this happens, it results in hostility and bloodshed, and the benefits from the conflict are generally reaped by those who started trouble in the first place. But since the priest did not have a self-serving motive to begin with and was also able to promote truth and harmony, he appointed the old man to the role of leadership and returned the society to even better prosperity than before. Thus, the priest demonstrates that the mastery of language and the ability to convey truth or falsehood is a powerful tool that should not be abused if one has good intentions. King Bahram remarks that his priest deserves a crown, recognizing that wisdom is required to rule justly.

Wulf Willelmson

What is ‘Wotanism’?

The Creed of Caledon is based on the doctrine known as ‘Wotanism’, which is a modern-day expression of the people of Europe’s ancient religious and spiritual beliefs. The head of the Teutonic pantheon as far as the lore can tell us was known as ‘Wotan’ to the Germans, ‘Woden’ to the Anglo-Saxons and ‘Oðinn’ to the Norse. Though the names of the deities in Wotanism are based on those of these particular cultures, the path is open to all those of European descent and one may refer to deities from other European pantheons and even figures from Christianity, which has incorporated much of our ancestors’ traditions into its practices. It is a belief based on blood kinship and the bond with our sacred land, and so it is tied to the seasons and features of the landscape such as rivers, springs, hills, mountains and groves. Therefore the functions of many of the deities correspond to things such as the weather, the sea, the sky and even Mother Earth herself. There are others who oversee more human aspects, such as bravery, strength, wisdom and magic, and they are all described in detail in Angels and Demons in Teutonic Mythology.

The most commonly cited figures in Wotanism are David Lane and Ron McVan, who gave birth to the idea of ‘Wotan’s Folk’ in the 1990s. David Lane came up with the name and philosophy, while Ron McVan wrote much of the literature, including The Temple of Wotan, which is the source of the Creed of Caledon’s philosophy and rituals. However, the concept of ‘Wotanism’ goes back much earlier, to an Austrian mystic known as ‘Guido von List’, who was born in the mid-19th Century and died not long after the First World War. He coined the term ‘Wotanism’ to describe the exoteric religion of the Ancient Teutons, which involved invoking the deities in ritual and emulating the gods, particularly Wotan. This was paired with the concept of ‘Armanism’, an esoteric practice that involves working with the runes, particularly the Armanen Futhorkh, which was revealed to List during a period of blindness and is based on the rune poem in the Hávamál, which Wotanists consider to be the most sacred text. The Armamen Futhorkh is explained in his work known as Das Geheimnis der Runen (‘The Secret of the Runes’), published in 1908.

Armanen futhark stem version

Armanen Futhorkh

Wotanism can be described as a ‘pagan’ religion, which primarily involves interaction between oneself, one’s ancestors, ones kin, one’s land and one’s gods. Therefore it is a ‘folkish’ belief system that is dependent on one’s genetic and cultural lineage. It can be observed anywhere in the world, though only by those of European descent and preferably in a temperate climate which suits our kind best in ecological terms. This is different from ‘Armanism’ in that it is based on the external and objective reality, while Armanism is based on one’s own internal and subjective experience and should be seen more on an individual level. Armanism is a mystery religion akin to Gnostic Christianity, Vajrayana Buddhism or Western Hermeticism, though it is still based in Teutonic language and tradition. Therefore, Wotanism is not so much a form of ‘Neopaganism’, but a Wihinei (‘way’, more specifically ‘folk-way’), that incorporates aspects from other Aryan religions.

While Wotanism has been linked to Neo-Nazism and ‘White Supremacy’, it is worth remembering that many Wotanists  were interned in concentration camps under the Third Reich, as they were considered ‘heretics’ or ‘occultists’ that were deemed a thread to the regime. Heinrich Himmler’s spiritual advisor, Karl Maria ‘Weisthor’ Wiligut, declared Wotanism to be a false religion, and was in opposition to his doctrine of ‘Irminism’, which may have been the intended state religion of the Third Reich that was to replace Christianity had Hitler won the Second World War. Therefore, it is not in our best interests to support any totalitarian regime, be it Communist, National Socialist or Corporate Socialist.

As Wotanism is not a centralized religion without any structured organization outside of each kindred, there are many different interpretations and definitions of the doctrine and so the personal opinions of one adherent or kindred may be at odds with another. This, however, is not the case when it comes to the core philosophy, which is that we are to be gaining and spreading awareness of the ways of our forebears and promoting the wellbeing of our descendants. This is done through personal self-improvement, much of which is tied to the particular archetype or’ god’ which we unknowingly impersonate. By assessing one’s own nature and reason for being, you can aspire to achieve your full potential and become a valuable asset to your tribe. The tribe is considered to be a network of family and friends that share with you a common genetic and cultural bond.  It is a ‘nation’ that is not so much centred on what nation state you ‘belong’ to, but on whom you can trust and rely on.

Much of the work done by Wotansvolk, in the 1990s and early 2000s was involved in prison outreach, which is now impossible seeing as Wotanist literature is banned from many prisons because it is seen as such a threat to the establishment. However, the core mission of Wotanism hasn’t changed, and emphasis is placed on rehabilitation of those struggling with addiction, criminality, violent tendencies or simply weakness (with the exception of those who have committed crimes against children, who will never be welcome among the folk). It is true that Wotanism draws many who believe in Neo-Nazism or White Nationalism, but much of our work is designed to divert energy away from negative and destructive ways of thinking towards productive and honourable ideals and behaviour. This is why, despite the fact that I have written about political issues, the Creed of Caledon takes no particular stance in that area and supports no political organization. Our only concern is when such organizations transgress our natural rights or attempt to silence us.

We have much in common with other groups that describe themselves as ‘Odinist’ or ‘Wodenist’, though we call ourselves ‘Wotanists’ to distinguish ourselves from any organizations whose members may refer to themselves by those terms. The main difference being that we have no central authority or hierarchy, aside from those that are present in Nature between gods, men and beasts. Therefore, while each kindred is led by a goði (‘priest’), there is no overarching structure and connection with other kindreds is based on networking. We perform two types of rituals, which are known singularly as blót and sumbel. The former consists of ceremonies that are performed at holy tides (including Yule, Easter and Midsummer) and involve offerings to the gods and celebration of the seasons. The latter refers to folk-binding rituals which are less formal and include pledging oaths and recounting one’s ancestors and past deeds in order to encourage self-improvement. These are not held at fixed dates and are usually observed more frequently than blótar.

We believe that we are undergoing Ragnarök , ‘the doom of the gods’, and so the world is in the process of being destroyed so that it can be remade. The acceleration of Postmodernism has led to the downfall of Western Civilization and left a heap of ruins and lost and spiritually starved people. While the state and corporations seek to replace this need with consumerism and political involvement, some of us have become disillusioned with the established dogmas and decided to follow our own way. As Wotanism is based on self-reliance and intimate trust, we encourage others who feel that this is the way for them to create their own kindreds and endeavour to improve themselves. Rituals and ceremonies help to strengthen kinship, but more important is the need to fulfil one’s own talents and embody your chosen archetype. Remember who you are and where you came from, and honour yourself, your ancestors and descendants.

Wulf Willelmson


Having had a good look at Christianity and it’s various positive and negative forms, and also the various pagan myths of Teutonic lore, we will now shift our focus toward a particular feature of mythology that is a recurring theme throughout the history of religion. The being known as ‘Satan’ in Judeo-Christian mythology and as ‘Shaitan‘ in Islam, means ‘adversary’ and features as an antagonist either to God or mankind in different mythologies throughout the world. He is known in one sense as the embodiment of all evil, but also as a tragic or even sympathetic figure who rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven.

The lore surrounding this dark figure is a mixture of pagan and Christian myths, and his association with the Judeo-Christian ‘God’ is either as the prosecutor of Job, as in the Old Testament, or as tempter of Jesus within the New Testament. However, his appearance as a horned man with goat legs and a trident is a mixture of pagan imagery, in particular the Greek forest god Pan and his Celtic cognate, Cernunnos, as well as the Greek sea god, Poseidon. To mainstream Christians, Muslims and Jews, he is seen as the one who leads you astray from the path of God and towards damnation, but he is perceived as a liberator and a figure of freedom in some pagan traditions; and sometimes is even seen as a god to be feared, rather than the more benevolent Creator deity.

Though ‘Satan’ is the name most commonly known in the West today, he is also known by the titles of ‘the Devil’ (whose name relates to words ‘devious’, ‘deviant’ and ‘devour’), Beelzebub (‘lord of the flies’, thought to derive from the Canaanite deity Ba’al) or even ‘prince of darkness’. He is also associated with Lucifer, although this is a slightly different figure that we will look at in more detail later on. In other cultures, Satan is known in different forms, such as Ahriman in Zoroastrianism, who is seen as the enemy of Ahura Mazda (‘God’) and deceiver of mankind. In Buddhism, he appears as the arch-demon Mara, who represents illusion and is the lord of death.

Within Teutonic mythology, the best fit for a Satanic figure would be Loki; who also represents illusion and deception and is the nemesis of Heimdall, guardian of the Bifrost Bridge to Asgard (the home of the Aesir and a place representing enlightenment). However, in other cultures he was seen as a deity to be worshipped, such as among the natives of Virginia, who called this being Oke, and some even performed human sacrifices of teenage boys to him. In Ancient Egypt, he was known as Seth or Set, and despite being the brother and slayer of the Sun god Osiris, he still had followers among the Ancient Egyptian kings, though his name was later blotted out in religious dedications. Even within the Old Testament, there are references to dual goat sacrifices, one to Yahweh and one to Azazel, lord of the desert, who is very similar to Set in his attributes.

Today, he is often seen as representing a very real force of evil that compels individuals to commit atrocities against others. The so-called ‘Church of Satan’ and its brand of Satanism are simply a pompous form of atheism that promotes mockery of Catholic Mass and very base individualism based off of capitalist ‘philosophy’. However, much more serious stories involving human sacrifice and child abuse have appeared in mass consciousness over the past few decades. This practice of Satanism was once associated with people usually characterized as mentally deranged heavy metal fans, particularly in the United States during the 1980s.

However, this extreme expression of teenage rebellion is not nearly as prevalent nor as disturbing as tales of ritualistic sacrifices of children by plutocratic elites, many of whom are said to be or have connections to world leaders. Due to the nature of such clandestine activities, such practices are difficult to prove. For instance, it is possible that such stories are made up in order to disseminate fear and paranoia and have no basis in truth. Such accusations are similar to those made against witches by the Catholic Church during the Burning Times. However, it would also stand to reason that if these things were happen among the wealthiest members of society, then they would have sufficient resources to cover it up and protect themselves from the wrath of the public. Either way, the idea of offering humans as a sacrifice to an infernal being are nothing new, and it is naïve to assume that such beliefs and practices are not still adhered to within the darkest corners of Man’s heart.

Thus, the nature of ‘Satan’ is multifaceted and not so easy to discern in terms of a singular being. He is a different sort of character depending on the context and how his role relates to other beings portrayed as ‘God’. For example, in the Book of Genesis, Satan is usually associated with the Apple of Eve, which was eaten by the first woman from the Tree of Knowledge. Though not explicitly mentioned as the name of the serpent who tempted Eve to eat the apple, it has been inferred from the theme of temptation to disobey that this figure represents Satan in this context. However, this story could be interpreted in different ways. On one hand, the Judeo-Christian interpretation is that Eve and her mate, Adam (the first man, whose name comes from Atum in Egyptian mythology) were damned by God and cast out of the Garden of Eden (‘paradise’) for their acts of disobedience; and so began the Fall of Man from spiritual grace.

On the other hand, a Gnostic or Luciferian perspective is to see the serpent as the spirit of curiosity, which encouraged Eve to disobey the tyrannical false god ‘Yahweh‘ and reach towards enlightenment. Both versions reflect either a Left-Hand Path or Right-Hand Path interpretation of the story, for which the meaning differs depending on one’s own values. For one on the Right-Hand Path, Satan more often is seen as a dangerous enemy, and one who tries to distract you from achieving your goals through temptation and deception. However, within the Left-Hand Path, any obstruction to liberty is seen as a hindrance and Satan can be a valuable ally in overcoming the bondage of psychological conditioning during one’s lifetime. It is at this point that it is worth distinguishing the figure of ‘Satan’ from that of ‘Lucifer’, who are often conflated but who generally represent two distinct but related beings. Satan is a figure who was originally seen as ‘the accuser’ and acted as God’s dispenser of justice on Earth in Judaic mythology. However, within Christianity he is seen as the ruler of Hell (based on both the Greek and Teutonic underworlds) and as a fallen angel and lord of demons.


Lucifer is an angel or demigod known as Phosphoros in Greek and whose name means ‘morning star’, which is the planet Venus. He is a metaphor for the ‘light-bringer’ or seeker of enlightenment, and is associated with both Loki and Prometheus; who is said to have brought the divine gift of fire to Man (‘Loki’ means ‘lightning’ in both a metaphorical and literal sense). Within Judeo-Christian mythology (though not actually in the Bible) Lucifer is portrayed as the angel who led a rebellion against God when asked to bow before Adam, and who was cast down into Hell following his defeat and becoming Satan. In this way, he is similar to the Yazidi deity Melek Taus, though their Creator is said to have praised the archangel for his refusal to bow before any creature lower than he, for this is how he was created. In these terms, Lucifer is the one who chooses to rebel, and Satan is who he becomes in doing so.

This process may also, however, work in reverse. Wotanist mystic, Kalki Weisthor, has suggested that both the figures of Satan and Lucifer can be incorporated into Wotanism by adding Wotan as a third component. The idea is that one begins their journey on the Left-Hand Path by acting as Satan, and so undoing unhelpful social conditioning and false beliefs by refusing to follow what you have perceived to be the rules. The next step is to become Lucifer, which involves pursuing enlightenment and acting as a free agent, having done away with what restricted you before. The last step is to embody Wotan, after mastering the skills of magic and using one’s liberated position to come back into society as a teacher and as a leader.

I personally find this a very helpful concept, though it presumably does not work as well for those on the Right-Hand Path, who will want to stick to their principles and resist the urge to rebel, since it is not in their nature to do so. Satan is not so much to be feared but respected, and he is a figure that will remain as long as human consciousness can conceive of a negative force, pulling us either towards damnation or enlightenment. It is also worth keeping in mind that Satan can mean many different things to many different people, and that misunderstandings about his character have led to persecution and ostracism which arise from ignorance. As a friend or enemy, he is with us always, as a teacher, tempter or that which we despise but know we must embrace as a part of life.

Hail Satan!

Wulf Willelmson