Hierarchy In European Paganism

Music by me

Art by me

Note: Yes I am aware Caesar’s accounts, apart from not being 100% reliable (like Tacitus for that matter), does refer to Gauls specifically, and that this is perhaps an unfair generalisation of all Celtic tribes during the iron age re. caste, hierarchy, slaves etc. I chose to use it as an example of a society inbetween the two extremes. Also, yes, some tribes were “Germano-Celtic”, and tribes like the Belgae Celtic with Germanic characteristics/influences, so the boundary between Celts and Germans is blurred in places.

Transcript:

We see the same patterns occur in any cult, any dogma.

Be it in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Religions like Scientology, or even some attempts at paganism, we see a strict hierarchy.

The more you are able to pay into these cults, the more you can rise up in the ranks, and enter the hallowed inner circle.

If you express any free thought, a hint of dissidence, disagree with any part of the established dogma, even with the best of intentions, and in the most respectful way, you will be shunned, ostracised, cast out, perhaps worse.

Christians will see you as a heretic. Conservative Muslims will want you executed as an apostate. Scientologists will treat you as a “suppressive person”.

Meanwhile the High Priest, the Grand Master, the Supreme Leader, will continue to build a cult of personality, misleading and corrupting people, and silencing criticism or debate without hesitation, with their followers serving only to fuel the cult leader’s narcissism.

Paganism involves the “science of patterns”, but you don’t have to be a pagan, or particularly intelligent, to see these patterns repeat themselves that define anything as a dogmatic cult.

So how did hierarchy work in European pagan societies? Did they have it? Is Ancient Rome a good example? Do modern notions of “class” and “aristocracy” have anything in common with the pagan social structure?

 

Celtic Barbarians:

Celts in Gaul were governed by a council of elders, as well as druids. We see fairly similar social structures in bronze age cultures that centred around a “priest-king” and similar (religious) council.

Gaulish tribes were fragmented, and rarely united under one leader except in desperate circumstances, e.g. under Vercingetorix.

According to Caesar two or more “pagi” formed confederations he referred to as “civitas” – “nation” or “tribe, in some areas tribes were ruled by the council or senate, some by a king, and in some a combination of the two.

“each man refuses to allow his own folk to be oppressed and defrauded, since otherwise he has no authority among them. The same principle holds in regard to Gaul as a whole taken together; for the whole body of states is divided into two parties.”

– Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars, Book VI, Chapter 11,

“Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves, never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves. Of the two classes above mentioned one consists of Druids, the other of knights.”

– Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars, Book VI, Chapter 13

“it is the Gaulish scriptures and inscriptions that attest to the true nature of the Celtic religion – no pantheon, but rather localised deities with localised functions; and this accords with what we know about the Celts politically, for they had little tolerance for centralised authority, even their own.” – Jeffrey Gantz, Early Irish Myths and Sagas, page 14

In Caesar’s accounts we see evidence of the Celtic attitude towards authority, imperialism and subjugation of other tribes, a barbarian practice of smaller local government not limited to the authority of a king or an emperor. We do, however, see a strict and rigidly defined caste system, and a social structure that clearly led Caesar conclude that Gauls, unlike Germans, could be conquered and ruled over.

 

German Barbarians:

p.xvii – “In his Gallic War… his whole treatment of the Germani is meant to emphasise their wildness and ferocity; he presents them not as potential subjects of Rome, like the Gauls and even the Britanni, but rather as a threat that must be kept back on their side of the Rhine.”

– J. B. Rives, Introduction to Tacitus’ Agricola and Germania, p. xvii

Xi – “Another theme in Agricola that also comes to the fore in Germania is that of civilisation and its corrupting influence… Tactitus depicts the Germani as a kind of “noble savage”, free from the vices that civilisation brings. Greed and luxury are virtually unknown among them: they have no interest in precious metals, they know nothing about legacy-hunting and usury, they eat plain food and have plain funerals.”

– J. B. Rives, Introduction to Tacitus’ Agricola and Germania, p. xl

“They choose their kings for their noble birth, their leaders for their valour. But even the power of the kings is not absolute or arbitrary. As for the leaders, it is their example rather than authority that wins them special admiration – their energy, their distinction, or their presence in the front line. Moreover, no one is allowed to punish, to flog, except the priests, and not as punishment or on the leader’s orders, but as though in obedience to the god who they believe presides over battle.”

– Tacitus, Agricola and Germania, p. 38

(Roman authority was absolute by definition, one of many comparisons between Germania and Rome made by Tactitus)

“Tradition has it that armies wavering and even on the point of collapse have been restored by the steadfast pleas of the women, who bared their breasts and described how close they were to enslavement – a fate that the men fear more keenly for the women than for themselves…they believe that there resides in women something holy and prophetic, and so do not scorn their advice or disregard their replies.”

– Tacitus, Agricola and Germania, p. 38-39

“On matters of minor importance only the leading men debate, on major affairs the whole community; yet even where the commons have the decision, the matter is considered in advance by the leaders”

“It is a defect of their freedom that they do not gather at once or in obedience to orders, but waste two or three days in their slowness to assemble. When the crowd so decides, they take their seats fully armed. (priests have authority here) …Then such hearing is given to the king or leading man as age, military distinction or eloquence can secure; it is their prestige as councillors more than their power to command that counts”

– Tacitus, Agricola and Germania, p. 40

“On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the leader to be surpassed in valour by his companions, to the companions not to equal the valour of their leader”

– Tacitus, Agricola and Germania, p. 41

In Tactitus’ Germania we also see a stark contrast between the way slaves were treated in Germania compared to Gaul with them owning their own households, people generally carrying out their own household chores and flogging and punishment of slaves not being common practice. He does, however, comment that freed slaves barely rose above the social rank of the slaves themselves.

Overall, Germanic social structure was much less civilised than that of the Gauls, with the social structure and customs being so drastically different from those in Rome that Caesar himself thought it would be a waste of time attempting to conquer Germania at all. Here we also see mention of the prominent role women played in Germanic tribal society, but this is a topic I will save for a future video.

The social structure of less corrupted, less civilised “barbarian” communities was what many today might consider to be “anarchist”.

 

They expected their people to prove themselves, prove their strength, prove their bravery, prove their honour, prove their intelligence, prove their fidelity, their loyalty. Anyone who showed clear weakness, cowardice, degeneracy, dishonesty or stupidity was left behind, or in many cases killed by the tribe.

Originally the “kings” were our ancestors – the crown was the horns of the stag. These pagan societies expected everyone to embody these “Kingly” or royal qualities, the qualities of their ancestors, the qualities of the gods.

A civilisation needs a strict hierarchy in order to function properly. Abrahamic monotheism is a political tool intended to conquer and control people, so likewise it also requires a strict hierarchy in the areas it conquers.

In a healthy, pagan culture and community, people – men and women alike – expect much of each other, empower each other, inspire each other, support each other. This is what modern movements – nationalism, feminism, Marxism, so-called “anarchism” and many attempts at neopaganism  – lack.

Modern equivalents of “goði”, “druids”, “seers”, “sybils” etc. should know better than to silence any reasonable disagreement or expression of free thought. People who don’t and can’t say what they are really thinking aren’t being honest. Liars were loathed and punished by pagan societies. Self-appointed leaders, scholars, prophets etc. that enforce this cult of personality and dogmatism are not embodying the pagan values of our wild, pagan forebears, and are corrupting others by instilling cult worship, rather than free thought, strength and independence.

Modern religions and ideologies are more concerned with enforcing a strict hierarchy instead. These same ideologies and movements also, unsurprisingly, reject man’s wild traits, his true nature, they shun and mock those who want the simple life, want to retreat from a city that doesn’t belong to them in order to live a simple life, focus on what really matters and protect their natural habitat.

We must keep in mind how the Germani treated each other, what they enforced and never felt the need to enforce, what mattered most to them and how uncluttered and minimalist their culture and lifestyle was.

Real pagan tradition – our original pagan traditions – was not concerned with the absolute authority, riches, luxuries and social division that we see in Rome. Real paganism was wild, untamed, free and, dare I say it, “equal” in many aspects. People didn’t command respect, enforce authority or inherit it – they earned it, they exuded it.

 

“Civilised men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing”

“Barbarianism is the natural state of mankind. Civilisation is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarianism must always ultimately triumph”

– Robert E Howard

 

Reject centralised authority, castes and all trappings of civilisation – return to the wild.

Thanks for watching. Sources in Video Description.

Sources:

Early Irish Myths and Sagas – Jeffrey Ganz (ed., transl.), 1981, Penguin Books
Agricola and Germania – Tacitus; Harold Mattingly (transl.), J. B. Rives (introduction), 2009, Penguin Books
Gallic War, Julius Caesar, Loeb Classical Library, 1917
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Caesar/Gallic_War/6B*.html

Early Celtic Social Structures

Advertisements

Why Pan-European?

In age of aggressive and divisive identity politics, it is important to know our place in the world, where we stand in relation to others.

Where do we stand in relation to other Europeans? What is our identity?

The “European Vision” – the vision associated with the European Union – reasonable freedom of movement between countries, alliance with fellow Europeans, a common European identity – is something many of us can relate to, and what many in favour of the European Union appear to embrace. Unfortunately this is not at all what the crooked, unelected bureaucrats of the EU elite stand for, they have divided Europe, not united it, and will eventually seek to erase what is left of regional languages, such as Irish and Basque, perhaps most languages in favour of a “lingua franca” eventually. They want to build an “EU army”, they want to pave the way for a “United States of Europe” that will remove any real regional culture or diversity.

So what use does Pan-Europeanism have in these dark times? Is “nationalism” worth saving? What is our real identity, what is most logical and productive, more unifying?

The reality is all modern nationalism has roots in divisive 19th century nationalism and artificially constructed national identities that mostly consist of art, clothing, musical instruments etc. borrowed from other countries. It is rooted in meaningless Christian nationalism – the notion of which is a glaring contradiction in itself, as the Bible’s stance on distinct nations (most nations that is…) as opposed to a united globalist “nation “of God is pretty clear.

Even when we try to rescue it and guide it in an “ethno-nationalist” direction with pagan leanings, it’s still rooted in this outdated, 19th century “patriotic” mentality. It is still divisive, and it hinders us.

There is of course the debate about what parts of Europe, even if we accept them as European, are just “too different”, with distinctions here being commonly made between North and South.  There is this idea still that there are distinct “phenotypes” even, and European “sub-races” that must be preserved.

Is it really that simple, however?

I will share my personal experience with an “identity crisis” of sorts; I embraced paganism in my mid-teens, having been deprived of any history lessons in school relating to Saxons or Vikings, listening to black metal and folk metal and reading the articles by Varg Vikernes immediately awakened something. I knew it was something real, something instinctive, something heartfelt – I knew this attachment to Norse history meant something, I began to understand it as an ancestral homeland. I also began to feel the same way about Germany to a degree, having some German ancestry.

I kept this identity in mind, and kept returning to it, this “Nordic” identity. I was perhaps less concerned with Anglo-Saxon heritage for quite a long time, perhaps because the myths  and folk tales were more fragmented and less conveniently packaged than those in the Eddas, or perhaps for no reason other than “they were converted to Christianity first, so they are less interesting”…

More importantly, however, for many years, though not disliking or disowning it as such, I simply lacked interest in Celtic identity, Celtic myths, Celtic culture and pride. I just didn’t feel it – because I don’t think I really wanted to. Despite several Celtic ancestors, I simply found it a lot more convenient and more straightforward to identity as “Germanic” and “Nordic”. Perhaps it was anti-English sentiment of modern Celtic nationalism, perhaps I just didn’t like the traditional folk music as much, perhaps I convinced myself the myths would be overly Christianised and not worth bothering with (more on this in a later video), or perhaps it was simply because I haven’t travelled in these places.

I suppose because of a combination of the toxic nature of resentful, divisive anti-English Celtic “nationalism” these days and the acceptance of the genetic makeup of the British Isles, I did eventually overcome this, and saw a need for a common, British identity, the need to embrace a shared heritage and history. Norse myths are important, but they aren’t everything. It is just another European pantheon.

Britain’s “Anglo-Saxon” roots:

30-40% (depending on region)

The traditional narrative states that the Anglo-Saxons essentially committed genocide against the Celts, claiming England as their own. Ælle of Sussex, for example, is said to have brutally massacred the Britons he defeated. Some still support this theory. The revisionist theory argues that Anglo-Saxon England was more of an “apartheid” state, with an elite of Anglo-Saxons ruling over the Briton majority. Both extreme narratives are incorrect, as a recent 2016 study shows. It does not “prove we are Anglo-Saxon”, but it does prove they contributed a significant amount to our ancestry and population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735688/

Iceland:

“62% of Icelanders’ matrilineal ancestry derives from Scotland and Ireland (with most of the rest being from Scandinavia), while 75% of their patrilineal ancestry derives from Scandinavia (with most of the rest being from the Irish and British Isles).”

“One study found that the mean Norse ancestry among Iceland’s settlers was 56%, whereas in the current population the figure was 70%.”

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/1028

Celts:
“Sardinian like Neolithic farmers did populate Britain (and all of Northern Europe) during the Neolithic period, however, recent genetics research has claimed that, between 2400BC and 2000BC, over 90% of British DNA was overturned by a North European population of ultimate Russian Steppe origin as part of an ongoing migration process that brought large amounts of Steppe DNA (including the R1b haplogroup) to North and West Europe.”

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/135962v1

Recent studies have also indicated origins in the Ukrainian and Russian steppe of both Germanic and Slavic people. We must understand that Celts are essentially the same people, with the main differences being a language family more closely related to Latin than the Germanic languages and trace Mediterranean ancestry. Origins of proto-Celtic culture place them in central Europe around what is now Austria and Czechia.

Countries like Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria and Britain have both Celtic and Germanic ancestry. These were both Celtic and Germanic territories in ancient times. Furthermore, the Viking Slave Trade further dispersed Celtic genes throughout northern Europe.

Do we need to have an “identity” crisis just because we have such a mix of European ancestry? Do we really need to “simplify” things as I once chose to by fixating on one pantheon and identifying as simply “Germanic”, “Norse” or “Celtic”? We are European, we share the same roots, the culture is the same, for the most part the language is at its root the same. We have gone through too much to be divided by stubborn regional pride and nationalism. Accepting a less “homogenous” European ancestry helps us understand other Europeans better.

 

The True Meaning of Tribalism

fidus

Tribalism is usually only seen in one light these days, and is by default associated with notions of racial supremacy or even with a more “mystical” or cult-like philosophy built around the alleged superiority of one’s group. It is largely used as a derogatory term, predominately by the left and by liberals taking a stance against far right “nationalist” groups of the West and the Israeli government, for example.

Yet in an age when many nationalists are too cowardly, or just inconsistent with their worldview, or both, preferring to embrace terms like “alt-right” and “reactionary” instead, the idea of grass-roots “tribalism” should be providing us with a more optimistic yet cynical perspective, and when approached and promoted in the right way may even convince (some) people on the left that people who just want to protect their heritage really are not all that bad.  What does tribalism mean? What does nationalism mean? Are they the same thing? The word “nation” once just meant a people or folk, but it has for centuries, since antiquity even, in practice amounted to an expansionist, urbanised form of Statism. Despite the civic pride, continuation of pagan symbols and tradition, and the rhetoric being laden with apparent patriotism, this early model of nationalism served to strengthen the power of the state, further centralise it while devouring foreign “lebensraum”, under the false pretence of protecting the people and their city. This is the case with both Ancient Rome and 20th century fascism. Despite the appealing romanticism of the Third Reich and the preceeding völkisch movement, the Reich was primarily concerned with expansionism, industry and increasing the power of a heavily centralised and supremacist government, at the expense of both the native and neighbouring common populations.

In an age – this “Kali Yuga” – when both left and right want to keep feeding the system that keeps us in debt, keeps us dependent, keeps us domesticated and keeps us enslaved and sedated, we need to understand the nature of a “tribalist mentality” or a tribalist psyche, in both individuals and groups, and recognise these patterns among other tribes that are scarce seen in the modern West. With an increasingly fragile and uncertain economy, endless conflict in the middle east, endless guilt-tripping in the west, mounting tensions in the far east, what makes this or that nation more successful in the 21st century? Perhaps we can look to China for an example, and ask ourselves how they have overtaken us with such ease, despite experiencing mass starvation under communism just decades earlier. Much of this boils down to common interest, common values, shared cultural norms and a tribalist outlook.

Tribalism’s core component is paganism. Any kind of “traditional” Christianity is completely incompatible with tribalism, because without ancestor worship paganism is worthless, without this authentic paganism with ancestor worship as a core component, tribalism is also worthless. Pagan traditions have many meanings, multiple symbols and patterns observed throughout nature, human and non-human, but most if not all of them ultimately relate to both childbirth and the rebirth of the ancestor as a part of this, and we could theoretically explain the nature of consciousness and the belief in reincarnation in all pagan cultures as something that gradually crystallises and reassembles itself further down the generations. Realistically speaking, we are less likely to be the reincarnations of our grandparents or great-grandparents, but of these more distant ancestors, and when we embrace this primal ancestor worship, of distant ancestors we know nothing about, or have just completely forgotten about, we are talking  also about a shared tribal ancestry the further back we go in time. This at least in part explains the sanctity of marriage within the tribe, as both spouses should share the same ancestors further back in their family tree, and it also explains why Germanic tribes for instance all named Woden/Óðinn as the father of their tribe, because far back in time they all shared the same ancestors, or some of the same ancestors at least.

Another crucial aspect of tribalism we must grasp to understand both the practical purpose it serves and how it differs from any modern “nationalism” is that real tribalism should seek to preserve both ancient, pagan traditions and the sacred natural environment of our ancestral homeland(s), and to embrace our animal nature and recognise ourselves as part of nature, not above it. Civilisation is on its way out, the economy is ultimately doomed, fuel is running out, rare earth minerals are running out, some form of extreme climate change – be it another “mini-ice age” or global warming – seems to be approaching and will force us to adapt one way or the other. Now more than ever, now that urban expansion, industry and the monster that is capitalism have spiralled out of control, we must strive to remember, to learn and become self-sufficient as our ancestors did when oral tradition was the norm and essential life skills and folk traditions were passed down the generations.

This is for our benefit, for the environment’s benefit, and for the benefit of other tribes, and it’s important to care about what’s in the interest of other tribes, to apply a common standard and recognise what’s in the best interest of every group in order to secure their survival and protect their heritage. Because we all share the same enemy, and we need to not unite necessarily but see and accept this common ground and common interest, and fight and resist our mutual enemies among the elites of government, banking, the media and academics. The elites of the west want us to forgot our heritage and identity, and want to westernise (or globalise) everyone else, because it’s profitable to do so, or at least it appears to be. Despite the race-baiting and fear mongering in the media about Islam and the deeply repulsive and destructive nature of the likes of (western armed and funded) groups like ISIS, most Muslims are indeed just peaceful and normal people, not people we should be expected to welcome here en masse by any means, being at odds with our culture in so many ways, but in migrant communities we see enclosed, peaceful self-serving communities for the most part. The alt-right/modern nationalists are indeed reactionary in falling for this distraction, and show a glaring double-standard in their acceptance and support of western imperialism and its “benefits”, and the alleged superiority of western nations. I am not one to downplay the malevolent nature of any of the Abrahamic religions, and there are no doubt plenty of so-called refugees that are somewhat unsavoury characters not to mention cowards for abandoning their homeland in times of need, but these people are being used, lied to. If and when they cause problems over here and Europe it is likely upon realising Europe is far from the haven it was made out to be. We present ourselves in a better way if we find common ground with immigrants who are ultimately also being manipulated for political and financial gain into abandoning their heritage, as we are into abandoning ours.

Real tribalism is the opposite of imperialism, real tribalism recognises what is in a tribe’s best interest and that a tribe lives most happily and closer to their heritage when living the simple life, embracing primitivism and rejecting modern civilisations and its many luxuries and temptations. Jordan Petersen has been in the news a fair bit lately, he makes me more optimistic about modern (Jungian) psychology, and provides a good cynical, genuinely liberal perspective without being “libertarian”. However one issue he keeps returning to is that of the alt-right and as much of a joke this phenomenon is, he is rather preaching against “tribalism” and calling for its eradication. Peterson is right about ideologues, the cult-like tendencies, their tendency to dehumanise others, but he makes a sweeping generalisation about tribalism as if it will always lead toward some degree of Nazism/fascism. For him also it seems to be an issue of collectivism versus individualism, which is something I can relate to a lot more. Jordan Peterson and those like him who are against the left but also stress individualism will argue we aren’t successful or worthy because of our tribal background, and that our race means nothing essentially. But the point of tribalism isn’t that you worship your ancestors because you love your tribe, it is that you love your tribe because of its connections to your ancestry.

Individualism has been rather tarnished by its association with excessively egocentric libertarians or just selfish, apolitical and apathetic “centrists”. But tribalism places a lot of value on individual worth, high standards. A real European, and a real pagan, demands a lot from himself and others, and this applies to other traditional cultures worldwide as well. When likeminded individuals focus on individual worth, achievements and on following their own path to greatness and enlightenment, they are effectively working toward the same goal as a collective. We shouldn’t let geographic isolation bother us or distract us, and we shouldn’t be tempted to waste time with the collectivist, herdlike mentality of the alt-right instead. Tribalism doesn’t need to be a dogmatic cult of drones who can’t think for themselves, fend for themselves or survive by themselves. There is good individualism that can benefit the tribe as a whole by having high standards. It’s about self-improvement rather than self-indulgence, which is how many interpret individualism these days.

So what should we be doing in order to become worthy Europeans, to be able to call ourselves tribalists? To be able to call ourselves pagan, and to not even need to justify our worldviews? The alt-right reactionaries and nationalists make themselves easy targets, not having the honesty to just label themselves as nationalists, flirting with national socialist and fascist imagery, slogans, memes etc., and doing a lot of talking, ranting and protesting, but actually doing very little if anything at all to benefit their tribe, their local community, their family, their children (if they have any, which they rarely do). Our focus in the current climate should be on two things: Worthwhile, productive pursuits and making good use of our time, and working on becoming more self-sufficient. We need arts and crafts in our lives, we need beauty, we need spirituality, and we need knowledge and skills. Feed your mind, body and soul, aim to to a good job of balancing all three, gradually build on your understanding of the true nature of European religion, work on useful hobbies, join a martial arts or shooting club, or both. By all means pursue social circles, but try to make sure that at least some of those social circles relate to areas of interest. Become the hero you were in a past life, and you will attract a worthy spouse sooner or later. Don’t waste time on ideologues and cults that are just as bad as malevolent far-left movements.

Winter is Coming – The Invonvenient Truth of Anarcho-Primitivism

snow edit

Al Gore famously referred to global warming as the “inconvenient truth”, but like all wishy-washy soft environmentalists he was telling us to focus on a red herring, a phenomenon that probably is not happening, and which even if it is happening, is the least of our concerns. In a worst case scenario, if it is happening, then it is not necessarily man-made and simply further proves the need to adapt to changes in nature in general.

It is indesputable that we are wrecking the environment on a massive scale, and heading towards mass extinction, but climate change activists refuse to address the bigger issues, the brutal truths, such as overpopulation, the endless denand for housing, mass immigration, the dependence on modern medicine and the damage caused by modern farming practices, both organic and non-organic.

If we wish to rise from the ashes of the “Kali Yuga”, or “Ragnarok” if you like, after our current cycle of civilisation reaches its dramatic end, we must accept these harsh realities, learn to prioritise and to reduce our needs. We need to force ourselves to make do with less, and know how to make do with nothing. We need to reject weakness, mindless consumerism and hopeless dependance on governments and corporations to provide us with all our needs, and instead learn not only all the skills necessary to survive, but also the skills necessary to achieve our maximum physical, intellectual and spiritual potential.

Many potential causes of a complete collapse loom on the horizon – depletion of fuels, depletion of rare earth minerals, epidemics (potentially all the more disastrous due to adaptation and immunity to antibiotics), crop failures (again, now an alarming possibility due to the senseless destruction of bird and insect habitats, and in particular the declining bee populations), “World War Three” (which could happen as a direct result of any of the aforementioned reasons), huge solar flares that could affect or even completely knock out electricity, or a combination of these. Within a tiny fraction of our history, most rapidly within the last one hundred years, or even the last fifty years, we have seen a decline in our survival skillset, our knowledge of traditional crafts, our knowledge of our native religion, interest in and care for our natural environment, the ability to physically defend ourselves and the ability to find, hunt, fish and forage our own food. Prometheus gave man fire; in the twenty first century you are lucky if you can find someone who knows how to light a fire, without using modern lighters and dousing it in fuel. The “advanced” and “progressive” modern man, the civilised and domesticated man, can rarely master the simplest and most essential skills.

We need to revive and teach ourselves these skills, our cultural practices and the oral tradition that passes them down the generations. We need to live a simple life. We need to retreat from the rotting cesspit that is modern civilisation (which civilisation will literally be in the event of collapse – a starved, filthy graveyard breeding disease). We need to know how to adapt to changes in nature, and though it would be foolish and fanatical to reject all the good and truly beneficial technology and tools we have gathered over the centuries, we should know how to survive with literally nothing.

Following posts will be focusing on book reviews, reconstructing (and remembering) true paganism and bushcraft/survival skills and foraging to begin with. More articles will follow soon.

 

– S. 02/01/2018