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

Folkish Tribalism: Beyond ‘Right-Wing’

In a time when expressing pride in one’s ancestry and heritage is looked upon with suspicion because it conflicts with the concept of all races being ‘equal’, the world of politics can seem like a frustrating and hopeless place. While leftists and centrists seem to harbour feelings of at best apathy and at worst hostility towards their own people, the so-called ‘right-wing’ sphere of the spectrum offers only an older, ‘lassiez-fare’ attitude towards capitalism and a vague, ‘civic nationalist’ populism that still unquestionably supports Israeli interests, modernity and statism. The term ‘far-right’ is now more of a catch-all term for unpopular political opinions and is associated mainly with fascism or White supremacism, but can also be used against folk who oppose multiculturalism, support racial nationalism, or who simply hold contempt for the current order of things, and is avoided by most people for fear of the dreaded ‘R’ word. The banks and states of the world have supported each other to ensure their complete domination of the planet. The systems that they use to administer their control are focused on sowing division and mutual hatred between peoples, to ensure that they remain focused on fighting each other and not those that consider themselves ‘elites’.

The state in particular has become bloated by bureaucracy, especially when extra layers of government are added to administer a larger region, such as within the EU or the US. Taxes are unreasonably high in order to continue supporting expensive military projects, such as nuclear stockpiling, development of drone weaponry or selling weapons to countries that fund ISIS like Saudi Arabia. Huge sums of money are given as subsidies to wealthy energy companies to continue with the destruction of the environment and holding back the development of technology to reduce energy consumption, as opposed to the expensive and intrusive ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ energy, such as windfarms and huge hydroelectric schemes. We also waste so much on economically unproductive and patronising ‘foreign aid’ to countries which have such corrupt political systems themselves, that the money invested simply enriches the wealthiest in those countries. The only useful things that the state could exist for would be to fund public transport and provide an actual living wage to folk (as in a regular allowance given to a citizen); two ideas which are completely alien to most politicians who prefer to privatize essential public institutions and waste money on ‘welfare’, which keeps people completely dependent on the state when they are unemployed, while corporations offer most of the jobs available.

The cycle of debt means that all of the money that is borrowed by people and their government feeds into the banks who are constantly consuming the world’s financial resources. However, they do not simply keep the money that they solicit, they invest heavily in leftist social movements, which merely serve as ineffective opposition to capitalism, because they are funded by the same people. The dichotomy of ‘right-wing and left-wing’ is based on the assumption that economic models are the same as social policies. Capitalism and socialism are not the only options, but since they receive all of the funding, they have each narrowed their differences and become barely distinct from each other. ‘Corporate Socialism’ is probably the best description for the political system in most countries today, especially in the West. This system is an authoritarian expression of centrist politics, akin to Leninism, Stalinism or National Socialism. Like fascism, it is a fusion of capitalist economics with socialist policies, but instead of being focused on the strength of a nation, it exploits their weaknesses and continually strips humans of their civil rights as we are de-humanized and are seen as slaves by those who have the most financial power.

The economic foundations of our political systems are rooted in globalist financial interests. Modern capitalism supports a system of usury practised by the bankers, while modern left-wing politics have become dominated by Marxism, an ideology fermented by the Zionist Karl Marx. His conception of politics was that industrial society was detrimental to the workers who earned a wage because they were being exploited by the European ‘bourgeoisie’ (who would have not existed as a social class had we not an industrial society as a result of capitalism), and should be overthrown to establish a socialist regime, where everything is controlled by the state in order to create a ‘communist’ society where everything is collectively owned. Aside from the obvious flaw that the state will not willingly grant power to it’s citizens if it has control of everything in a society, Marxism is known in sociology as a ‘conflict theory’, which is usually interpreted as theory that addresses conflict within society. However, the effect of such theories (along with feminism) is rather to cause conflict, by creating a dualistic, black-and-white conception of reality where one set of ideas is intended to replace others, and so they simply function as secular religions. However, unlike a religion based in spirituality, this way of thinking sees humans as quantifiable and mechanized, acting like robots instead of children of Nature.

Nothing is more sacred than our bond with Nature, and as we can see when we study her laws, we see that there is no equality. The fate that befalls each organism is based on its inherent capabilities and there are clear winners and losers. Yet each one has its place and the world is less interesting without each of them. Morality is a human concept but also has its place, the only area where equality has any merit is in law, and it is telling that while equality is pushed in areas where people are not (such as in the differences between races and genders), one place that is made completely unequal by capitalism is the legal system. Let me be clear in saying that when applied outside of man-made laws ‘equality’ means ‘the same as’, ‘identical to’ or ‘indistinguishable’. When applied in legal proceedings, it is useful as an abstract concept to make sure that the outcome is fair, but in all other cases its purpose is to enforce uniformity and conformity, where differences of origin are ignored and differences of opinion regarding this are shunned. Even then, the law cannot consistently enforce equality, as it is simply common sense that foreigners have a different set of rights than natives (such as the right to vote) to ensure that the society remains in the hands of the people that created it, though this is now a concept that is increasingly discouraged by our society and seen as ‘xenophobic’.

Racial homogeneity in a society is essential to maintaining stability, as competing cultures will rip a nation apart. We can see that this only causes discord, as it is obvious that ills such as racism only occur when different peoples are forced to coexist within the same society, inevitably leading to conflict of interest. It is not because people are just stubborn and refuse to accept what is supposedly good for them, as our lying media and politicians try to convince us is the case, who of course try to make us feel guilty for not willingly giving away our land and our right to self-determination. The reason that traditionalist views are often considered ‘right-wing’ is because Marxism is based on being an adversary to a singular view of society, and so the aspects that characterized monistic societies (where society is seen as a complete whole) were cast in opposition to this, such as ideas about cultural and genetic distinctiveness and the sovereignty of individuals belonging to a nation.

The state is not something that can be relied on, it has become so tyrannical and hostile that we cannot trust those who uphold it anymore. To try and change the system is fruitless, as its sole purpose is to maintain its existence. Revolution is counter-productive, as the system is based on violence and coercion, so any attempts to violently replace the government will only result in a new tyranny. Anarchism is also not the solution, as it promises no order to replace the chaos that results from the collapse of a society. Troy Southgate’s ‘National Anarchism’ is an attractive idea at first, as he espouses the concept of autonomous racial communities that govern themselves on that basis is fundamentally a good idea. However it’s unfortunate association with an ineffective political philosophy that requires ‘no leaders’ means that it cannot be fully effective, though it is at least inspiring with the call to grow your own food and think independently.

The reason that ‘racism’ seems so prevalent is because it is often only framed from a negative perspective, which is defined as hatred towards or between different races. This occurs when a state has no racial basis and is defined purely in geographical terms, leading to competing cultures and mutual antipathy within a country. The term ‘racialism’ however, can be used to describe a more neutral or positive idea. ‘Racialism’ used to mean what ‘racism’ means now (a term coined by Trotsky), but can now be used to define something different. It solves the problem with the definition of the term ‘racism’, which, according to most definitions, means that races are considered distinct from each other and can be ranked into a hierarchy based on their attributes. The first part is essentially a correct assumption, but it only results in racism if applied to a state system, because the nation can only consist of one race in order to survive. If the idea of a nation is separated from the idea of the state, it means that no race has priority over another except in their own communities. The practice of racial hierarchy only occurs in societies which are imperialistic, while multiculturalism emerges later as a symptom of a collapsing empire and worsens racial relations, rather than resolving them as the imperial state struggles to maintain itself.

The main problem with the word ‘nationalism’ is that it implies support for the ‘nation-state’, paving the way for abusive ideologies such as fascism, therefore, we should simply dispense with this outdated concept and focus more on man’s natural state of organization; tribalism. The average human is only capable of knowing around 150 people well enough that they can trust them, and so it makes sense for societies to be organized based on a smaller unit. If millions of people are forced to act as if they are all able to work together, they end up not acting in their own benefit, but that of their rulers. The tribe (or clan) is based on kinship, which is one reason why family organization is so effective, it ensures trust and mutual interests among its members. Ideally, all members are of the same ‘folk’, which means that they share a mutual genetic and cultural heritage and will therefore be more likely to act in each others interests voluntarily and have a common understanding with each other.

To the state, individual people are simply economic units; to their family, they are considered essential members of each others lives, provided that it is a healthy family. This is a system that works for all races and under such a system they will have more agreeable relations. It is also closer to the left-wing in other ways, as despite the fact that tribal members do own private property, including possessions that have been found, made by or been gifted to an individual; productive land is communally owned by a tribe, while marginal land is common to all people in the area. Though conflict is always inevitable, it is best when there is no threat of one people destroying another through conquest for the sake of extortion. We can see with the existence of ethnic enclaves that peoples do not naturally prefer to be with those of another kind (that is, the natives of the land they have migrated to) more than their own, and to deny this and act against it is only going to worsen the racial problems that we face today.

Unfortunately, because we live in a multicultural society, all of these ideas have been deemed too close to racism to be acceptable, and the conflict simply continues to the benefit of the rich. As a former socialist, I remember thinking such thoughts to be reprehensible myself, because I was deceived into thinking that my race alone was responsible for our society’s problems. All of the peoples of the world are suffering under the heel of selfish materialists, and much of this is caused by them trying to take away our inherent connection to each other and to our land. One reason why the need for racial and gender equality is pushed so hard these days is because they distract from the true, financial and legal inequality between people within all races. Our relationship to each other is horizontal, not vertical. We should not be ranked based on superiority and inferiority based on arbitrary reasons such as wealth or status. Each individual is the centre of a ripple that extends first to their family, then to their folk, then to their species, and then to Nature. We must not see our morality and our identity as being defined by someone else, but as something which is within us and a part of us.

Folkish Tribalism is an idea that favours true diversity by allowing all races to exist within their own space on the planet, and implies voluntary auto-segregation rather than the uneven segregation employed by a state that cannot favour two different groups equally by virtue of automatically belonging to one or the other (or even a separate group altogether that wishes to pit two sides against each other).  The sociopaths that run the world want us all to merge into one homogeneous ‘non-race’ because it means that we will have no reason to resist their control over us. We would have no basis on which to identify our own place in the world, and all of our personal sovereignty that goes with it would disappear. It’s about time we took the responsibility to take control of ourselves as a people and discover our purpose in the world around us through remembering our heritage.

Wulf Willelmson