The JQ: Republished


This was published several months ago.  I took it down because I was worried it would be thought anti-Semitic.  On re-reading it I honestly don’t know how someone would construe criticism of a particular variety of tribalism as anti-Semitic.  NO group is, or should be, above criticism.    And on the other hand, Jews tend to be exceptionally intelligent, particularly in the verbal intelligence areas.  So anyone who thinks this is anti-Semitic in nature is very sadly, very badly mistaken.  Or has a chip on their shoulder.  Nuance, people.  Nuance.  

I belong to a group on FB dedicated to folkish heathens.  Most are folkish to the point that they would not allow a person of obviously black ancestry to participate.  I would, but with the codicil that they understand and practice the culture and mores of the group – something that many would not be able to comprehend let alone practice.

The most recent conversation concerns the JQ however.  Basically, one member is saying that if you have one drop of Jewish blood you cannot possibly be a heathen and can’t participate in heathenry.  This was brought up due to the strong Jewish membership of TAC.  (you can’t brag about your Jewishness and your bar mitzvah and then say you’re a heathen)  And also due to Matt Flavel apparently writing in response to an inquiry that the AFA doesn’t check the ancestry of their members nor refuse people as long as they don’t tout their Jewish ancestry.  As I’m in the middle of reading The Culture of Critique by Kevin McDonald I found it serendipitous and decided to read more before formulating a response.

ETA and BTW I’ve been black pilled in the last 6 months or so regarding Jewish involvement in Soviet Russia as well as in the Weimar Republic after WWI among other other things.  I’m truly appalled that anyone would have thought these were good ideas or not realized that they weren’t going to turn out badly.

The basic message I’m getting from the book is that Jews are basically pretty self destructive and always have been.  They apparently currently think that by destroying Western Culture it will enable them to survive and prosper, but based on Germany 1920’s/30’s and Russia / USSR it appears more like they always go too far and get slapped down. They appear to be responsible, at least at this point, without a deeper look into history, for their own discrimination. It’s a natural response to their actions.  Look at the ejection of Jews from Spain in the 1500’s, or the ejection of them from England in (I think?) the 1200’s.  I realize that some of the charges were probably trumped, and a lot of innocent people may have suffered along with a small contingent of actually guilty people, but it’s important to note that there were no innocent Jews calling out the misdeeds of their fellow tribesmen.  They were complicit by their silence though they may have been innocent of the charges.  It seems to be an endless circle with no end in sight.

I am, as I’ve pointed out before, NOT a universalist.  I don’t think the N. European Gods are for everyone.  And I do think that if you’ve been chosen by these Gods they tend to be very incompatible with YHWH, Allah, and other monotheistic Gods.  In my opinion, having studied the histories and some of the sacred writings related to those Gods, they are not examples that any sane person should wish to follow.  As a woman I cannot accept a position of being less than a man merely due to the fact I have a vagina rather than a penis, nor can I accept that this is ordained by a Deity.  That alone prevents me from following any desert cult, though I tried in the interest of trying to combat social isolation in my youth.

So here’s my take on the one drop theory of anti-Semite heathens:

There’s a hierarchy of in-group/out-group that needs to be cultivated if Heathenry as a tribal, religious culture is to succeed, and if Western civilization as it was formerly known is to continue. Kevin McDonald spends a great deal of time talking about how N. Europeans are evolutionarily based as more individualist than Jews. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, at least not in pre-historic times. Especially when he brings up the spying that used to take place to ensure adherence to the group mores and ethics even in the middle ages and early modern periods. I do agree that N. Europeans tend to be less ethnocentric in some contexts.

I believe that we have a strong history as tribal peoples. If you read Tacitus, you can plainly see that. They don’t marry outside their groups – intertribal marriages, not marriages with Romans. Hermann very probably never married, because he was viewed as too Romanized for a Germanic wife and too Germanic for a Roman wife. I think that if we look at tribal behavior as a whole this is a given. When the Norse went a-viking, they generally didn’t come home with foreign wives (though some did, it wasn’t the norm). I believe that’s because in the end, they wanted the comfortable and familiar to surround them. They didn’t want endless conflict between their own group customs/mores and their spouse’s and didn’t want the spouse’s to dilute their own. The children should grow up in a unified cultural milieu.  There are always exeptions, which is why this blog post is being written.

So there are gradations of in group vs out group. The Swabians are a group. They likely viewed themselves as the in-group, and the Saxons as an out group. However, when it came to fighting a common enemy, they both were then the in-group and the Franks, for example, were the out group. Franks, Goths, Swabians, Saxons….all were both in group and out group depending on the context. On a family level, you have the ultimate in-group versus the rest of the tribe as the out-group.

This is an important characteristic of tribal behavior, and one which would behoove us as heathens to adopt and cultivate assiduously. Presently, Islam and Judaism have effectively conquered Europe and North America. This is because of their tribal behavior. They behave now as our ancestors once did, until the advent of the desert cult encouraged universalism and those who held to the old ways died out. We have no feeling for the unity our ancestors once had.

This has also been made easier by industrialization. Uprooting people from their families, transporting them to cities where they have no roots and no strength, the universalism of the desert cult is the only bulwark against isolation and eventual suicide for those ‘rootless cosmopolitan urbanites’ as I’ve recently read “city people” termed.  In The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity this is precisely the premise:  that Christianity succeeded because of its appeal to those who were uprooted from their home and traditions.

We maintain the idea of hospitality, and cultivate that value strongly, in our heathen identity. This is a value that has been largely lost in our greater society, in no small part due to our loss of tribal identity and traditions. In this we are different from and superior to both Islam and Judaism, and the larger culture, all of which have forgotten the importance of feeding the stranger. In ancient times, prior to the monotheism of YHVH and Muhammed, this value was a very strong cultural imperative for them as well. In this we also differ, from the current wider culture of unrooted cosmopolitan urban values, that presently dominate our Western societies.

We must look to our ancient societies, to cultures that maintain some of the values we value, in order to save our own. If one does not want to look at ancient history, for which we have too little accessible history, or to Judaism, for some of whom this may be repugnant, we can look to Mormonism.

Mormonism has taken the cultural imperatives of Judaism – chosen group, moral superiority, religious imperative against the world – and assimilated them.  They’ve created a new thing out of the skeleton of a very effective group strategy for survival.

When one is Mormon, one has access to the entirety of the Mormon culture and religious life. One shops at Mormon stores, hires Mormon craftspeople, eats Mormon grown food, worships at a Mormon church, befriends and hosts Mormon neighbors. One shuns, as much as possible, the non Mormon. The in-group (Mormon) and the out-group (not Mormon) is very clear. This is why it succeeds. It has learned the lessons well of the importance of tribal unity in the face of a hostile world. “…[A]s indicated in PTSDA (Ch. 6), Jewish ethics is fundamentally a tribalistic ethics in which there are major differences in how individuals are treated depending on whether or not they are Jews” (McDonald, loc. 5292 of 16375). One could substitute the word Mormon for Jew and Jewish and not change the meaning a single bit.

Judaism has fostered the radical individualism in Western society that so hampers the ability of heathens to return to a tribalist society (it has – Freud made that pretty clear.  Read his private correspondence if you don’t believe me).  We MUST realize that our radical individualism is NOT an intrinsically American nor Western value, is NOT an intrinsic part of American nor Western culture, and quit worshipping at the altar of Individualism. We MUST return to a more tribalistic society. We MUST sacrifice some individualism for group cohesion and group support. We MUST quit the fighting amongst ourselves regarding who may or may not have a drop of Jewish blood as the boogeyman of the day – which I realize is all the more frightening to some because it’s so much harder to recognize – and understand that we are an in-group fighting against out-groups dedicated to our death, not only as heathens but as Western peoples in general.

The person who has a drop of Jewish blood, who continues to promote Jewish identity and culture at the expense of Western or heathen culture is not a heathen. The person who has a drop of Jewish blood, who has renounced, repudiated, or holds it of no special value –  in favor of their European identity –  can be. That person is perfectly capable of being a good heathen. They are abiding by the call of the blood no less than someone without Jewish blood at all. Orthpraxy must triumph over orthodoxy as we have all insisted at one time or another: “We are our deeds.” Right action. No heathen would insist that “the sins of the father will be visited onto the children to the 4th generation” (Exodus 34:7) (though their orlog might have some knots).  Do we value our deeds or do we value thought police, and ruthless authoritarianism as Bolsheviks and cultural Marxists do?

And what about those who didn’t even know about it until they did something like Ancestry or a DNA test?  I’ve asked about whether we were going to get to the point of cheek swabs as a mechanism of entry before, but it appears that may be the way it’s going.

Are we seriously going to say that one family line outweighs all of the others in determining who can be heathen?  Are we going to invest that line with superhuman ancestral power to overcome any and all European blood lines?  That seems pretty paranoid and frankly crazy to me.

We must use nuance and hierarchy in dealing with fellow Heathens as well as with people who may be allies. Or we will be a blip on the radar of human history, and the return of secret heathenry at the risk of torture and death may indeed be in our future.

ETA an important point which I took to be implicit must be stated explicitly.  Jews allow intermarriage, though they frown on it.  The difference is that Jews don’t continually hold it over the descendants heads that their great great grandfather was a converted gentile as some heathens do when it comes to Jewish ancestry in Heathens.  Jews view their Jewry as superior to any dilution of the ethnic heritage, because they retain their Jewishness.  Jews are unique in the history of the world in having no land for a thousand years yet still maintaining a sense of their own superiority and uniqueness.  Why can we not learn from that?

For crying out loud, it’s a little ridiculous to deny someone membership in a religion due to one of their ancestors having been born in the “wrong” tribe and having the impulse to convert to the “right” one. We could take lessons from that.  And we should.

MacDonald, Kevin. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Kindle Locations 5293-5295). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

 

Advertisements

Random thoughts


Odin and Loki are two sides of the same coin.

You can choose the path of pain, and growth, by choosing the path of Odin.

Or.

You can have it forced upon you, without being able to have any control in the process, by choosing to remain stagnant.  And by doing so, offering yourself to Loki.

Either way, there is pain.  And growth.  But in one you are an active participant.  And in one you are the victim.

Choose wisely.