Conservative Revolution: Reflections on “Men Among the Ruins”

I have recently been reading Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist by the Italian philosopher, Julius Evola, and have myself been reflecting on some of the concepts expressed in the book, particularly with regards to authority and the nature of the ‘nation’ and the ‘state’. I wish to explore what it means to be a member of each group and in what context the individual is required to identify with the collective. I also want to elaborate on the nature of institutions that may be functional in their purpose, but prove to be dysfunctional due to corruption and lack of direction from above. The main difference between society as viewed from a Traditionalist perspective, as opposed to ‘progressive’, is that there is seen to be a need to preserve what works and to base institutions and societal roles on a spiritual basis rather than on the notion of utopianism and goals founded on material concerns. It is for this reason that confusion may arise with regards to what the purpose of each component of society is for and how they are meant to interact with the individual and serve the nation as a whole. I also wish to outline the problems we face because our society lacks a spiritual foundation and some suggestions for how to remedy this, with reference to Evola’s book.

First of all, let us define what is meant by ‘nation’ and ‘state’. As far as I am concerned, the nation is an organic entity which is based on shared blood and soil, an association between a folk and the homeland which they inhabit. One can be born into a nation and have no further requirement than to continue to uphold the traditions and well-being of the nation through producing offspring and co-operating with other members of the same nation, as there is a shared interest based on similarity of values and principles. The nation corresponds to the feminine principle and comes out of our connection to the Earth and Nature, which is expressed through culture. The state, on the other hand, is defined by Evola in terms of the männerbund, a Teutonic concept related to the Latin term comitatus, or a ‘warband’ in which a man pledges allegiance to a liege lord. This forms the basis of the state, and has more to do with the idea of ‘all for one and one for all’, which is rooted in the masculine principle and the need for heroism from those who participate in it. To contrast it with the nation, of which the customs and folklore are traditionally held by the women of a nation, the state exists to form the protection of the nation and to provide direction for the society as a whole.

Therefore, Evola relates the formation of the state to that of an ‘Order’, or of a society of men which is entrusted to hold and wield power for the sake of allowing the spiritual development of the individuals within its ranks. This is the main difference between the state and the nation in a functional sense; the nation requires the collective to act as one entity, while the ‘Order’ which forms the basis of the state is made up of men who can excel as individuals in their own capacity, though they follow the guidance of their superiors in order to ascend the hierarchy and to develop spiritually. Thus, while hierarchy is necessary to maintaining a cohesive and functional society, it is dependent upon the law of reciprocation and on the obligations between a lord and his follower. An example of this in a historical context would be the clan system in the Scottish Highlands. While each clansman was obliged to obey his chieftain as part of his warband, these requirements were contingent on the agreed upon contracts and the chieftain was not seen as superior to the clansman in a literal sense, as they were both of the same kin and therefore part of the same ‘nation’ or tribe. Thus, the ‘Order’ existed within a nation to act as a guiding force and to protect the tribe or clan through either military or spiritual means, though both aspects were usually present. Each clansman was expected to excel both in his own capacity and also alongside his brothers-in-arms.

Why this structure is missing in Modern society is due to the fact that it has no basis in spirituality and therefore is driven by material motives. It is not, as Evola says, “directed from above” (that is, the cosmic and divine plan of the Creator), but rather “from below” (the selfish and egoistic needs of the individual). It is this deference to the divine that pushes Traditionalism as a philosophy beyond the narrow confines of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’, which both find their political expressions in liberalism and socialism respectively. After the merchants took control of society from the medieval warlords who became indebted to them, the West lost its spiritual centre and devolved into a state whereby individual whims and desires formed the motives behind political action.

Instead of being rooted in either valour or wisdom, the desire for wealth and material comfort dominated the actions of the Western nations and, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, formed the social class which became known as the bourgeoisie; a way of living which was loathed by Evola for its rejection of heroism in favour of liberal values. Industrial society also gave rise to the proletariat, who consisted of the have-nots and underlings of such a materialistic society and eventually provided the forces of Marxism with their footsoldiers. It is these conditions of dysfunctional and conflictive tendencies which have given rise to a confused and muddled mob of consumer slaves, whose sole purpose in life seems to be to satiate as many desires as possible before death and to strive for conditions in which struggle is absent and definition and distinction lose meaning.

It is for this reason that the state has morphed from a paternalistic and protective force into one which routinely abuses and infantilizes its subject population for the sake of maintaining control. This is achieved through collaboration with corporations to provide distractions in the form of mass media, while at the same time applying censorship and suppression or manipulation of information in order to maintain the structure that already exists. This, however, is a dangerous method, for the state can only maintain itself through being a dynamic and spiritually strong entity; as opposed to a cancerous bureaucracy which makes life more difficult, not in the sense of comfort, but in terms of allowing both the individual and the collective to achieve their full potential.

Subsidizing certain businesses over others and allowing regulation to run rampant only strangulate the economy of a nation and make it difficult for private enterprise to flourish without government support. Though I am not necessarily advocating free-market capitalism (which is one of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place), it is clear that the current economic structure relies too heavily on government intervention and prioritization of certain businesses over others. There is also a sense of lost purpose following de-industrialization of Western countries, and many who struggle with unemployment or lack of fulfilment in their jobs feel resentful of a system which seems to favour foreigners and the elites over the native inhabitants of Western lands.

It is the definition of human motivations purely in economic and material terms that lead people to adopt the mantras of capitalism and communism, for these ideologies lack an integrated understanding of society as a living entity, which has needs beyond purely the sensory. It is because of the quest for maximum comfort that we are expected to accept all lifestyles and behaviours no matter how degenerate and perverted, even if they do not extend beyond the individual. The reason that such passive acceptance of ‘individual rights’ is such a problem is because this leads to everything becoming defined in terms of subjective experience, and so the society as a whole loses all meaning beyond the individual.

Such conditions are exploited by those who have the intelligence to manipulate, but lack the empathy and appreciation for cosmic order that is required of those who hold power. This is because we have been convinced that there is no divine realm, as in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche: “God is dead, and we have killed him”. Spiritual values are seen as ‘abstract’, ‘vague’ and lacking the utilitarian application in which to achieve ‘realistic’ objectives. Because of its transcendent nature, spirituality can only be understood and utilized by certain people, which goes against the notion of ‘equality’, and so is spurned by most Modern ideologies. If there exists a natural hierarchy that is necessary for existence, then what need is there to erase distinctions between people in order to advance ‘social justice’?

The situation is now becoming tense, because there is a welling up of energy from those who wish to restore the natural order and resist attempts to remove distinctions between nations and peoples, while at the same time there is strong resistance from those who hold liberal or socialist values and wish to preserve the present course. Any attempt to reverse the downward trend into rampant egoism is met with responses which accuse proponents of Traditionalism of “backwards-thinking”, “bigotry” and associating with ideas relating to National Socialism or fascism. While Evola acknowledges the facets of these ideologies which correspond with Traditionalist thinking (such as the acknowledgement of natural hierarchy and the need to exalt the state and nation beyond the individual), he also criticizes them for appealing to populist sentiment and for placing too little focus on the spiritual realm in favour of realpolitik. Indeed, he criticizes both nationalism and totalitarianism, because both attitudes take the concepts of the nation and the state literally and see such things as imbued with some sort of divinity in and of themselves.

In this way, even perspectives that are usually seen as ‘right-wing’ come under scrutiny from a Traditionalist perspective, because they may place too much emphasis on social or economic concerns while ignoring the spiritual element, and so become no less an impediment than liberalism and socialism. For a society to function properly, there needs to be an acknowledgement of the divine as a guiding force and for that force to be invested in particular individuals, such as kings, priests and warriors. However, because people may easily confuse the divine attributes of a particular role with the individual who fulfils that role, it is necessary for there to exist an Order whose motivation is to find not only the best and most capable person for the job, but also one who is ‘pure of heart’; whose intentions are based on recognizing their spiritual being as a driving force behind their actions and not to use their position to fulfil selfish motives, as is so often the case today.

Indeed, there exists no state at present that is based on such principles, and so I caution against attributing any authority to any state existing today, as authority is something which can only be invested in those who are doing what they do for more than self-interest and who strive towards a higher purpose. It is also for this reason that I do not place too much importance on the principle of liberty, which is an oft misunderstood concept. While civil liberties are necessary to be maintained in order to prevent abuse by so-called authorities and malicious individuals, it is not a license to do whatever one wants as long as it “does not harm anybody else”. Each action has a ripple effect that radiates outwards, and so everything that you do will set an example for others around you, especially impressionable beings such as children and adolescents.

The promotion of such principles is described by Evola as “reactionary”, though not in the sense of existing solely in opposition to something else, but as a way to mitigate the destructive tendencies of progressive thinking and to form a basis from which to act. This constitutes a “conservative revolution”, which has its antecedent in Germany after the First World War and was largely extinguished under the Third Reich; a movement based on opposition to the rising tides of liberalism and socialism which threaten the cohesion of a nation by splitting it into competing factions in the form of ‘class warfare’ (though such narratives are now more commonly framed on perceived conflicts based on race or gender).

However, this ‘revolution’ is not meant to be taken in a political sense as is touted by Marxists, but is based on the concept of a spiritual revolution whereby a new society is formed by those who choose to embody these principles. This can only be achieved through individual efforts in conjunction with a collective will and must operate outside of the framework of the current political paradigm, as engaging in such a system will only taint our movement and open it up to infiltration by deep-state operatives. We can see how the Neo-Marxists have achieved their objectives by infiltrating our institutions and corrupting them from within. Because of this, I do not believe that we can retake these institutions, but rather create our own outside of the established systems and build a parallel society which is based on conservative values and spiritual ideals. A system built on lies and deceit will eventually fall, while one centred in eternal truths will withstand the test of time.

Wulf Willelmson

On the Power of Words and Thoughts

One of the ways in which mankind differs from the animal kingdom is in the ability to use verbal communication in the form of language. Animals do have the ability to communicate through sounds and gestures as we do, but they lack the capability to form abstract concepts that may have no immediate relevance to daily life. The fact that we can assign meaning to things which do not actually exist in the physical world means that we can create social structures and beliefs around ideas rather than simply what we experience trying to survive. This is the gift that we have been given by Wotan, and it is intended to allow us to work God’s will on Earth in accordance with our own ways of being. Both stories and theoretical concepts allow us to communicate to others how we can go about enacting divine order in our societies and think about how we can better ourselves and the world around us. Unfortunately, this gift may also be used to mislead and confuse, and not only is this the case with others who propagate certain ideas, but we can also confuse ourselves when we adopt a set of values or beliefs that are not based in reality and exist only within our minds.

It is for this reason that it is important not to attach too much significance to ideas and treat them as if they are physical things, for then they can become more significant in society than actual issues in life. For this reason, I do not fear the ideas of others, though I may fear them for what they do as a result of those ideas. It is in this sense that the action is to be distinguished from thought, as one’s own set of beliefs and values may change as do the actions which are a result of those. However, a set of behaviours and actions cannot be changed so easily, and if a negative pattern has been established in one’s life or in society as a whole, it requires physical effort rather than simply a change of focus, although that is an important first step. Though I myself like to use various ‘isms’ to describe certain beliefs and thought-patterns amongst certain groups of people, they are only there as a collection of related concepts and not fixed entities. Words may change their meaning depending on the context, and this is one way in which those trained in verbal parlance may use them to influence others.

No one person has a monopoly on the meaning of an idea, even if they coined the term themselves. It all depends on a mixture of common understanding and personal interpretation. For example, the term ‘libertarianism’ is generally agreed upon to represent a belief in the preference for a state of individual liberty and freedom, and emphasizes individual rights which tend to override governmental authority. While the government is deemed necessary, it should ideally be there to safeguard the rights of the people that it governs and to function with minimal levels of interference with personal freedom. However, things get a little more complicated if you consider ‘libertarianism’ as an ideology. It does not have any fixed approach to an economic system (though many self-proclaimed libertarians favour free-market capitalism) and neither does it promise a specific model for how to run a society. It is simply concerned with the interaction between the individual and the state, and represents a general set of principles based on this. This is in contrast to ‘authoritarianism’ where the rights of the state override the rights of the individual and also to ‘identitarianism’, where the ethnic identity of a nation is deemed more important than either the individual or the state.

Despite the less rigid concepts applied to these terms, they can still be moulded into specific forms and used as an ideology. In several Western countries there are political groups known as the ‘Libertarian Party’, though they may have different policies and approaches to the libertarian worldview. In this way, such a concept refers to a general attitude rather than a specific set of ideas which are exclusive to libertarianism. It works the same way with any sort of ideology, since they are all open to individual interpretation and understanding, even if they attempt to form a solid form for the sake of promoting a specific set of ideas. It is worth not getting too bound up in attaching inflexible ideas to a particular concept and understand that the meaning of a word may change over time. A good example would be the term ‘gay’, which originally meant something like ‘giddiness’ and changed its meaning to refer to homosexuals. Even more recently, it has come to mean something more akin to ‘weak’ or ‘disappointing’, which shows how a word may change its meaning when applied to something that shares some of the same qualities as the previous meaning.

If you were to ignore the more recent change of meaning of the word ‘gay’ and would only take it to refer to a homosexual (or even the earlier meaning), this may be at odds with the understanding of the word that was held by somebody else and could potentially lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Thus, it is more important to understand an individual’s own definition of a label if they apply it to themselves rather than one’s own definition. Many religions and political ideologies have variation of definition within their own circles, though they will maintain their cohesiveness if they are based on shared interests rather than individual preferences. To get the gist of what somebody else says is more important than one particular word or idea that they use to describe something. Similarly, if we attempt to stick to one particular set of principles without considering whether it actually suits our authentic self or not, then this can cause us to become confused and do things which we would rather not. The most important thing is what something means to you, though you should make sure that it is appropriate and not liable to be misunderstood at the same time. Labels are merely signposts to describe the contents of a set of ideas, but the labels themselves do not exist in physical reality.

Though there is probably a place from which we derive our inspiration and ideals, those ideas can only manifest in the material realm with willpower and a sense of being grounded in reality, though not so grounded that we lose touch with the transcendental reality from which we derive our thoughts. It is my belief that thoughts exist in the mental space, but that they derive from each of the Nine Worlds, thereby opening up mankind to influence from divine, natural and demonic entities. Our own intuition can help to guide us to know what voices should and should not be listened to. Some of these voices may come from others who have either inspired or abused us, but it is necessary to distinguish between one’s own inner voice and those from outside, even though it is good to be open to other people’s ideas. Words should be used to enlighten rather than enslave, and it is better not to expect that they may be relied on in the place of action. Likewise, they should never be seen on the same level as actions, as words are only effective if they can influence the will of a man and thus cause him to act, but in such an instance it is the action which is more important.

Wulf Willelmson

Yule: Festival of Light on the Darkest Day

Merry Yuletide to you all, whether you choose to celebrate the most important European holiday on the Winter Solstice or on Christmas Day, this festival marks the return of light and the sun during the cold and dark winter. The warmth and light of the hearth provided a focus for almost all activities at this time of year, and so families would be engaged in close contact for much of the winter season. In our busy, Modern lives it can be difficult to make time for our families, which is why it is important to make the effort to spend time with our loved ones at some point during the festival.

However, there is also a side to this holiday that has a dark and sinister aspect. Cailleach Beira, the Winter Queen, is most powerful at this time of year, and with this comes the dreaded plagues of disease, hunger and despair. Though we do not have to worry so much about foraging and storing food as our ancestors did, it is still the case that various diseases, particularly the cold and flu, can affect us most strongly at this time of year. Aside from these physical ailments, seasonal depression resulting from a lack of sunlight can cause us to feel a sense of hopelessness, as if the sun can never return into our lives.

Therefore, it is important not only to maintain a nutritious diet for oneself (since what is healthy for one person may be detrimental to another within traditional medicine), but also to continue to exercise and keep occupied. Though the cold and dark outside drives many of us indoors and onto our electronic devices, we must also take care not to become too distracted by this, because this is the best time of year to do important inner work and examine our present situation in our lives. Do you have something that must be done in the coming year? Is there something that needs your attention and focus in order to move forward? Though the slow and sluggish atmosphere at this time of year makes it difficult to take action, it is still worth preparing and planning for the future ahead.

In mythological terms, Yule is when Wotan (as Hermóð) descends to Helheim to petition to Hel, ruler of the Underworld, to release Balder (the Norse ‘Krist‘) and Nanna from death. She refuses, but allows him to accept gifts from Balder and Nanna to take back to Ásgarð. This is where the tradition of gift-giving comes from, but it is only possible if Wotan ventures into the Underworld to retrieve them. In an allegorical sense, this means that we must journey into the darkest depths of our psyche in order to gain a fuller understanding of ourselves, and face that part of us which is weak and reluctant to move on into the new year. What is holding you back in life? Can something be done about it and, if so, how should you go about it? These are all things worth considering while we are not spending time with our loved ones around a warm fire (even if not in a literal sense, but rather the fire of our hearts).

The bareness of the trees and the grey colour of the sky can make things seem hopeless and forlorn. As Western civilization enters into its darkest hour, it can make the future ahead appear frightening and full of uncertainty. Yet, if we manage to cultivate within ourselves that light that has been handed down to us, then we can endure the darkness and live to see a brighter future. The growing awareness of our place in this world that emerging after the severing of our roots means that we must strive to plant the seeds of a a new civilization. However, this will take time, and we must be not only strong, but patient and willing to shed those parts of us which refuse to move on and accept the change that is happening. Yule is celebrated to remind us winter never lasts forever.

God Géol!

Wulf Willelmson

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

Reducing Consumption in a Technocratic Society

Distractions, distractions, distractions. Our Modern lives are full of them, especially since we have become so immersed in the use of advanced technology on a daily basis. Our ancestors never had to deal with such a high level of stimulation, and so they were able to focus on what needed to be done. It is because we have access to so much stimuli that we have less willpower when it comes to thinking about what our true purpose is and how to go about fulfilling our needs. Though access to the internet has the potential to massively broaden our horizons, the fact that so much information is present also means that it can be difficult to discriminate effectively through what is worth spending time on and what is draining our energy and time. Websites and apps and television and video games are designed to constantly grab our attention and keep us returning to them, keeping us in a state of trance as we become mesmerized by the amount of options available that satiate our brain’s reward system. This is done primarily to gain exposure and revenue, and though it is not harmful to browse or use these things occasionally, habitual usage is leading to a decreased amount of personal time in our lives that could be put to better use.

It is not so much a matter of abstaining from such habits altogether, since depriving ourselves of things we crave as a result of regular use only strengthens our sense of attachment, making it more difficult to succeed in reducing our usage. This will be different depending on what particular website or program is being overused, and some will require simple steps towards gradually reducing our usage, while others will require restriction to occasional use and some must even be abandoned altogether (such as excessive consumption of psychologically harmful material). If there is a website that is addictive but also provides us with useful information, then it is useful to sort through one’s subscriptions or followed newsfeeds to see what is offering us worthwhile content and what is merely taking advantage of what we respond to. By separating the wheat from the chaff and retaining what contributes to our lives and discarding the rubbish, we will find that we have not only more time to spend consuming worthwhile content, but also that we don’t have to spend as much time on our devices as we have been. Additionally, having a vast range of options to choose from has the effect of shortening our attention span, and so it becomes difficult to have the patience to focus our attention on acquiring skills.

We currently live under a technocracy, and so control over online content and consumer products has become a way of manipulating what people think and how they behave. Therefore, it is important that we ourselves determine what we consume rather than having it decided for us. The psychological manipulation that goes into hooking our minds into thinking that we need a product is the result of increasingly sophisticated marketing strategies, and so it is becoming more and more difficult to resist what’s on offer to us. Having the discipline to know when you are being tricked into wasting your time or buying something you don’t need is part of becoming sovereign and autonomous. We are not forced to participate in a destructive society, we are merely persuaded to. Multinational corporations take advantage of our laziness and cravings in order to sell rubbish to us, and this is no different online. It is worth remembering that most companies do not have our best interests at heart, and so it would not be below them to convince us that something is as good as they say it is when it is in fact not, and even that something that is true is false. There is no fair play when it comes to competing for people’s time and money, as the corporatist system succeeds on this basis.

As a consequence of being told or convinced what is worth our time both in our occupations and during our free time, we are left with less options when it comes to personal fulfilment. The feeling of existential emptiness is what drives consumerism and keeps us enthralled to a market economy that has become centralized and corrupt. Therefore, it is necessary to decide as an individual what should be given one’s time and attention and what is detrimental to one’s well-being. Many of us work jobs that involve being in a state of overstimulation as a result of constant exposure to technology, which can cause us to feel like we need to continue this stimulation at home in order to escape boredom. Others may spend most of their day away from this sort of thing, but it is often the case that this makes folk more eager to use their devices in their spare time or during work breaks because of understimulation. Either way, resisting the urge to spend too much time on our devices is needed to make sure that we are able to achieve our potential and be less reliant on technology.

However, I am not necessarily proposing minimalism (though that might suit some), it is more about allocating the correct amount of time and energy into our actions. Regulating our exposure through time limits or treating indulgences as rewards for achievements rather than rewards for very little effort is a good way to reduce the time we spend online even while being able to enjoy it. Reducing online consumption can also combat fatigue and lead to less consumption overall, as spending too much time on our devices can affect our diet and cause overeating or junk food addiction; especially if our life is so cluttered that we don’t feel like we even have time to cook because we are so drained.

Our dependence on advanced technology and convenience is also the cause of excessive waste, because when we become reliant on technology to provide us with our basic needs, we are increasingly depleting the world’s resources in order to meet the high demand for more technology. Though it is a gift to be able to utilize such advanced resources for one’s personal benefit and use, it is also the case that our society cannot sustain itself without it, and so we are being driven by the need to consume more and more rather than make use of what we have already. Having control over our intake of technology requires time allocated to abstaining from it little at a time, and by doing so we can eventually become less dependent on it to fulfil our needs, leading in turn to less demand for more of it.

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

What is ‘Wotanism’?

The Creed of Caledon is based on the belief system known as ‘Wotanism’, which is a modern-day expression of the European peoples’ 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 the Teutonic culture, the path is open to all those of European descent and one may refer to deities from other European pantheons. 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, the most important text in Wotanism. 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 Wotanism 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 Gnosticism, 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” (“sacred-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 threat to the regime. Heinrich Himmler’s spiritual advisor, Karl Maria “Weisthor” Wiligut, declared Wotanism to be a false religion that 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 differ slightly form one 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 come from, but on who your ancestors were and on your value as an individual.

Much of the work done by Wotansvolk, in the 1990s and early 2000s was involved in prison outreach, which is now made difficult 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’ in an effort 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 changing seasons. The latter refers to folk-binding rituals which are less formal and include recounting one’s ancestors and past deeds and pledging oaths so as 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 filled with 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 one’s chosen archetype. Remember who you are and where you came from, and honour yourself, your ancestors and your descendants.

Wulf Willelmson