What "Folk" means to you

[Lee]

I’ve been watching the threads here recently which go into great detail about whether one should be allowed to call themselves an Odinist with any sincerity in regard to ethnic background. The following sort of carries on from that but to me personally is equally as important as getting overly concerned with the minutiae of someone’s ethnicity, whether their Celtic roots outweigh their Germanic or if they really can’t say whether they’re a Slav or maybe acceptable as they might be Rus.

The word “folk” implies an affiliation with a particular ethnic or cultural group, which if fine obviously. But how far are you prepared to take that affinity? I do not blindly feel affinity with someone simply because they were born in a Northern European country and somewhere along the line we might have shared some ancestors.

I feel Odinism goes a lot deeper than that. Odinists have values which they uphold, and in this day and age, the idea of being honourable is viewed as being quite quaint and a bit laughable. So I only associate with people who have the same outlook and same values as myself.

This to me is the idea of “folk”. People of a similar outlook, with shared cultural backgrounds, wanting to be shining beacons of everything that made their culture worth celebrating in the first place.

However I don’t extend the privilege of considering someone to be my folk to everyone who happens to be white and of largely Northern European heritage. Someone who mugs a pensioner in not part of my folk. Someone who lives on benefits whilst being totally capable of getting a job is not my folk. No anti-social “chav” is part of my folk! (Chav is an English expression but the concept of this sort of person is universal: A youth who plays loud music to the determent of others, has no respect for anyone but themselves, is rude, swears, lives on benefits and engages in petty criminality.)

Obviously Odinism can reach out to people and give the switched on a wake up call in regard to their heritage and the collective wisdom of their folk. But how far do you extend the concept of “folk”? What people, or parts of society, who happen to be of Northern European extraction, would you exclude from being part of your personal folk? Or because they are of Northern European heritage, do you see them as being your folk, come what may?

[userpl2286]

I can see this discussion going off in places I don't want to be, but I do have a definate opinion on this one, and to answer I need to define the context of Folk. I think regarding Asatru, one would be more or less right to classify Folk as people of a northern european heretage. Its an ancestral path, and if this is not one's ancestral path, it doesn't make alot of sense for one to be here. Of course, that desicion is not mine to make. I've got other responsibilities, so I'll let someone else be the heretage police.

In a more immidiate, and for me real, sense my Folk are limited to a very few. They are my family and a small close group of friends. My Folk are not those of northern european descent, or Asatru simply because they are northern european or Asatru. My Folk are those who are connected to me by blood or have proven themselves worthy of my friendship and trust. Yeah, it so happens that these people are generally of northern european descent. You live in certain parts of the world or certain parts of different countries and that's the way it happens, but regardless of where their ancestors came from, these are my tribe and my Folk.

[Fenris]

I personally define folk in terms of two sub-categories, kith and kin. I'll explain both separately.

Kith: My kith are fellow walkers on the path of the gods, or genuinely good people with whom I share friendship, mutual respect and understanding with. If we meet in a bookshop and discuss the finer points of runecarving or I see you wearing a Mjollnir in a bar and we start chatting and strike up a friendship, then you are my kith. Even people on such wide-reaching media as these forums or other similar forums, if we share ideals, beliefs and a mutual camaraderie and respect, then we are kith; we have made a connection, we are folk, we are of one people.

Kin: Kin are those I consider true family, people I am either bound by birth and blood to, or with whom I feel a particularly strong familial affinity regardless of the fact we are not technically related. Close personal friends of mine are as kin to me, just as surely as my birth-brothers, my niece, my uncles, aunts, and mother and father, for a true, strong friendship where in you would go to the ends of the earth for one another is far more like a familial relationship than the simple camaraderie and allegiance of ones kith.

External to those two principles, which are at the core of my belief regarding folk, are other distinctions.

Race: While you may be north-west European or even Indo-European, that doesn't mean we're folk, if you hold ideals, beliefs and philosophies that I - or others of the folk - see as detrimental, all we share is a common racial origin, there are no appreciable ties of tribe or folk. Take for example, Lees example of "Chavs," an all-too-common sight amongst disenfranchised white youth these days, they'd steal from their own grandmother to buy a dimebag of marijuana, and steal your car just so they can joyride around in it then crash it for a good giggle. These people are not my folk, in fact, they are a detriment to the folk, and thus I feel no bond of loyalty, brotherhood or respect for them - and they hold none towards me, or anyone else but themselves. It takes a lot more than sharing a few chromosomes and a phenotype to make someone folk. The principle of folk is as much in the soul as it is in flesh and blood. I love my folk, I do not love those people that are a detriment or an enemy to it.

Enemy: Well, without turning this post into a national-socialist white power rant, I think we all understand the basic principle of enemies of the folk - those people who seek to see our folkway, our culture, our heritage, our birthright stripped from us and destroyed, left to disappear into antiquity. You do not have to be a jew or a negro to be an enemy of the folk, you could be a perfectly good physical specimen of a Nordid, Borreby or Alpinid and be more damaging to our folkway than aforementioned jews or negroes.

In the position we're in though - constantly on the ropes and ridiculed for our "barbarian" beliefs, it is not the enemy that we need worry about, it is our folk. We should be our only concern: The preservation of our heritage - whether you're Norwegian, British, Austrian or whatever else - is the important thing. Our faith and our heritage have survived thus far, a testament to the strength of our folkway and the strength of our people, our fire will never burn out, regardless of the enemies that beset us.

I'm proud of my folk to the very core of my being, I love my folk with all the strength my heart can muster, and I would gladly die in defence of my folk.

[Liffrea]

You do not have to be a jew or a negro to be an enemy of the folk, you could be a perfectly good physical specimen of a Nordid, Borreby or Alpinid and be more damaging to our folkway than aforementioned jews or negroes.

I know where you are coming from with this, but to clarify. Any person of any race who supports the traditional beliefs of their ancestors is an ally. They become opponents when they seek to destroy our heritage and folk ways. In my experience many who support the folkist beliefs of their people are generally upstanding. It is mostly those who support universalist ideologies, or religions who are the greatest threat to all indigeneous cultures.

Back on topic though, a good post Lee. For me folk comes in different grades. The kin-folk, my family. Fellow Odinists. The ethnic-folk, the English. And beyond that peoples who I have some affinity for such as the Irish, Danes etc. I suppose with odinists you could include Celtic reconstructionists and other similiar creeds.

I agree as well that race and/or ethnicity does not necessarily make you a part of a folk. Who is folk is largely defined by who the folk accept. In the laws of our ancestors any who abused the trust of the folk by commiting a criminal act became outlaws, and no longer considered folk.

[Liffrea]

I can see this discussion going off in places I don't want to be, but I do have a definate opinion on this one, and to answer I need to define the context of Folk. I think regarding Asatru, one would be more or less right to classify Folk as people of a northern european heretage. Its an ancestral path, and if this is not one's ancestral path, it doesn't make alot of sense for one to be here. Of course, that desicion is not mine to make. I've got other responsibilities, so I'll let someone else be the heretage police.


Don't worry no one has broken any rules. The question is legitimate to our understanding of the folk community, and since we are folkists, not universalists, questions of race and ethnicity will arise. Just remember folks that we are here to honour our gods and ancestors, not discuss political ideology.

I think, for me, the definition of what defines folk is going to need to be a relatively defined guideline just for the sake of the forum.

[Fenris]

I know where you are coming from with this, but to clarify. Any person of any race who supports the traditional beliefs of their ancestors is an ally. They become opponents when they seek to destroy our heritage and folk ways. In my experience many who support the folkist beliefs of their people are generally upstanding. It is mostly those who support universalist ideologies, or religions who are the greatest threat to all indigeneous cultures.


I am pleased to see we're both thinking along the same lines, Liffrea. Universalism is devastating to our folkway, it's like blasting the beautiful, richly-detailed and unique cultures of our ancestors through a fine mesh along with the unique and detailed cultures of other races and folks until all that's left is an abortive mess of mixed panthea and beliefs that are more contradictory than a session in Parliament or the Senate.

Modern "wicca" is a prime example of this cultural homogeny, most simply use it as a vehicle for leftist, feminist, liberalist lifestyles that for the most part does nothing but lead to the further dissolution of our heritage. We are not all the same, we should not all believe the same thing. each race, each folk has their own system of beliefs, their own gods, their own cultural heritage, which should be exalted by them and preserved by them, not forced into a blender and mixed with a half dozen others and rammed down the collective throats of mankind.

If my post comes off as sounding vehement or angry, it's only because the thought of our ways and heritage disappearing and being cheapened into "lol horned helmets, rape, longships and big-breasted blonde valkyries lol" incenses me to the core.



Back on topic though, a good post Lee. For me folk comes in different grades. The kin-folk, my family. Fellow Odinists. The ethnic-folk, the English. And beyond that peoples who I have some affinity for such as the Irish, Danes etc. I suppose with odinists you could include Celtic reconstructionists and other similiar creeds.

I agree as well that race and/or ethnicity does not necessarily make you a part of a folk. Who is folk is largely defined by who the folk accept. In the laws of our ancestors any who abused the trust of the folk by commiting a criminal act became outlaws, and no longer considered folk.


I fully concur with your sentiments here, too, Liffrea, and it's good to be able to discuss these matters with people of similar mindset rather than consistently having to defend myself and my beliefs against universalist nonsense, the "equality" trump card, and the "diversity is good, individualism is bad" claptrap.

Edit: I do hope my opinion isn't seen as veering into political territory, because I genuinely do not want to get into a political discussion or feel as though I'm pushing anything. Politics aren't the topic here and I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable through reading my opinion, because I don't think religion and politics should mix.

[Fjorn]

Personally, I didn't want this sort of post to start up again - but the posters on here now have something between their ears. I am pleasantly impressed thus far with the comments made. :)

[userpl2286]

Edit: I do hope my opinion isn't seen as veering into political territory, because I genuinely do not want to get into a political discussion or feel as though I'm pushing anything. Politics aren't the topic here and I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable through reading my opinion, because I don't think religion and politics should mix.
I know that I don't see it that way. I think you made a valid point. My initial comment

I can see this discussion going off in places I don't want to be...
was sort of a knee-jerk reaction caused by my current working environment...i.e. politically incorrect to so much as recognize different ethnic backgrounds, let alone comment on those differences...
I spend way too much time in the office and I find that this place influences me more than I would like.

[Liffrea]

If my post comes off as sounding vehement or angry, it's only because the thought of our ways and heritage disappearing and being cheapened into "lol horned helmets, rape, longships and big-breasted blonde valkyries lol" incenses me to the core.

I understand what you mean. I went through a period where my response to the destruction of our culture was hatred of others and to use my fists to make me feel good. I realised that this is not the answer. We have to realise who is friend and who is foe, and like you said sometimes the greatest threat we face are from our own.


I fully concur with your sentiments here, too, Liffrea, and it's good to be able to discuss these matters with people of similar mindset rather than consistently having to defend myself and my beliefs against universalist nonsense, the "equality" trump card, and the "diversity is good, individualism is bad" claptrap.

That is why we are here. There is no PC gagging laws here. We will honour our gods and beliefs in the ways that our forefathers did. That is our right.


Edit: I do hope my opinion isn't seen as veering into political territory, because I genuinely do not want to get into a political discussion or feel as though I'm pushing anything. Politics aren't the topic here and I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable through reading my opinion, because I don't think religion and politics should mix.

Your posts are fine. Hel I can hardly accuse anyone of starting political discussion. I get confused myself! The general rule is that we don't post anything that is just politically minded or ideological. And don't apologise for your oppinion, everyone is entitled to their say. If others don't like it they are free to counter it, or ignore it.

[Fenris]

Ah yes, the ugly beast of PC rears its mighty head. I can understand now the caution you felt at the direction it may have seemed as though the thread was headed. Political correctness is - though I said I would avoid political subjects in this thread - just another tool in the arsenal that's slowly trying to crush the ways of the folk, forcing everyone to be ostensibly the same while granting privilege and preference to those it deems "minorities."

Anyway, methinks that's a topic for another thread, so I'll shush about it :D

[Schwarzesonne]

For my 2 pfennings…

I don’t see this all too differently from Fenris.

There is my kin—either blood related, one of my 2 blood brothers, or my kindred. This is self-explanatory.

There is my mannerbund (or, to use a foreign but more familiar term, “comitatus”) in the Irminen-Gesellschaft. Others may find this in the Odinic Rite or whomever…

There is my kith: This would include friends, usually part of the alleged “greater Heathen community” but not always.

I say “alleged” because I’m really not convinced that there really is a “greater Heathen community,” but maybe a “Heathen scene” considering that we don’t all even agree on what it means to be a “Heathen”. But that carries us to a different topic & perhaps a different thread.

Kith, Kin, and union (mannerbund) all have their place. Sometimes, as the Icelandic sagas demonstrate, this can lead to conflicts in loyalty and heavy decision-making. But there is one very good reason for knowing the place of all 3—you know your Volk, and to Hellaheim with what anyone would tell you who ought to be your Volk!

[Fenris]

I understand what you mean. I went through a period where my response to the destruction of our culture was hatred of others and to use my fists to make me feel good. I realised that this is not the answer. We have to realise who is friend and who is foe, and like you said sometimes the greatest threat we face are from our own.


Ja, at first that was my reaction too, though I didn't quite shave my head and beat up foreigners, I was rabidly opposed to even casual contact with them unless absolutely necessary. Now, I'm a tad more sedate, let them be themselves, respect their culture and the worthwhile ones will do the same in return - I even know a few Muslims who are genuinely fascinated by my beliefs and think they're "cool." There are only a few examples where I flat out refuse to tolerate or abide groups or cultures - and those are the ones that actively work against the well-being and preservation of our folk.




That is why we are here. There is no PC gagging laws here. We will honour our gods and beliefs in the ways that our forefathers did. That is our right.


I'm glad there's no political correctness here, because damn it to Hel we've a right to believe in whatever we want, our culture is something I won't let people take from me, regardless of consequence to myself. Everyone else can say and do as they want with regards to their faith and culture, and we deserve places such as this where we can too.




Your posts are fine. Hel I can hardly accuse anyone of starting political discussion. I get confused myself! The general rule is that we don't post anything that is just politically minded or ideological. And don't apologise for your oppinion, everyone is entitled to their say. If others don't like it they are free to counter it, or ignore it.

I've approached this site as a place to recuperate and be amongst folk and simply enjoy being in contact with people whose beliefs mirror my own. If I want political discussion, I can discuss that elsewhere without dragging politics into the cleansing waters of this folkish oasis. :)


SchwarzeSonne: It's heartening to see that my ideas regarding folk have corollary amongst my peers, and the distinction "mannerbund" which from your description could also be accurately - in my opinion - termed a "society" or fraternity (no offence, ladies, couldn't think of a gender-neutral version of that concept) is definitely one I'm inclined to agree with too, though as I've been out of the loop with regards to contact with other Asatruar for a long while, it's not one I've had the joy of exploring.

[Liffrea]

I say “alleged” because I’m really not convinced that there really is a “greater Heathen community,” but maybe a “Heathen scene” considering that we don’t all even agree on what it means to be a “Heathen”. But that carries us to a different topic & perhaps a different thread.

Good point. I would argue though that the scatterdness of Heathens may bind us together more. That would be the role of the Hearth/kindred to bring the folk together in a more communal atmosphere. Despite our differences I see all Folkist Heathens as kin.

[Liffrea]

I'm glad there's no political correctness here, because damn it to Hel we've a right to believe in whatever we want, our culture is something I won't let people take from me, regardless of consequence to myself. Everyone else can say and do as they want with regards to their faith and culture, and we deserve places such as this where we can too.

Exactly. Our forefathers were not ashamed of their beliefs or gods, or timid about expressing them. Freedom is one of the highest values amongst our people.


I've approached this site as a place to recuperate and be amongst folk and simply enjoy being in contact with people whose beliefs mirror my own. If I want political discussion, I can discuss that elsewhere without dragging politics into the cleansing waters of this folkish oasis.

This forum is my only contact with people who share my beliefs. It can be a lonely existance out there. There are some good people on this forum with a lot of knowledge. Many of them have helped me. And some, although I have yet to meet them, I consider friends. Of course they are not as brilliant as me, but we can't expect miracles here. :D

[Lonnie]

Kith, Kin, and union (mannerbund) all have their place. Sometimes, as the Icelandic sagas demonstrate, this can lead to conflicts in loyalty and heavy decision-making. But there is one very good reason for knowing the place of all 3—you know your Volk, and to Hellaheim with what anyone would tell you who ought to be your Volk!


Totally agree with you Steve... Nicely put...
I would add that for me things tend to radiate out like a wheel. Kin, Kith, Mannerbund, and people I consider of worth... All are various levels of my Innangard...

[Fenris]

Exactly. Our forefathers were not ashamed of their beliefs or gods, or timid about expressing them. Freedom is one of the highest values amongst our people.



This forum is my only contact with people who share my beliefs. It can be a lonely existance out there. There are some good people on this forum with a lot of knowledge. Many of them have helped me. And some, although I have yet to meet them, I consider friends. Of course they are not as brilliant as me, but we can't expect miracles here. :D


I know, *sigh* it's a hard life being perfect :D

I don't know anyone where I'm currently living other than myself who holds faith such as I, everyone else is either agnostic, indifferent or follows one of the many desert faith's schisms.




Totally agree with you Steve... Nicely put...
I would add that for me things tend to radiate out like a wheel. Kin, Kith, Mannerbund, and people I consider of worth... All are various levels of my Innangard...


That's an extremely good model to use for describing the position of the various elements of the folk, like a "Circle of Loyalty," wherein loyalty to your kin is closest to the centre, then the other elements radiate outwards to encompass the folk entirely, with non-folk being "outside the circle."

[Schwarzesonne]

I'm glad there's no political correctness here, because damn it to Hel we've a right to believe in whatever we want, our culture is something I won't let people take from me, regardless of consequence to myself. Everyone else can say and do as they want with regards to their faith and culture, and we deserve places such as this where we can too.

I’ll be the first to say that I love the exotic! I really enjoy travelling through a Chinatown, shopping the Mexican districts with the mariachi music playing and guys barbecuing corn in the parking lots, usw.

OTOH, like going on a vacation, as much as we may enjoy the trip there’s always something very good about coming back home when it’s over.


SchwarzeSonne: It's heartening to see that my ideas regarding folk have corollary amongst my peers, and the distinction "mannerbund" which from your description could also be accurately - in my opinion - termed a "society" or fraternity (no offence, ladies, couldn't think of a gender-neutral version of that concept) is definitely one I'm inclined to agree with too, though as I've been out of the loop with regards to contact with other Asatruar for a long while, it's not one I've had the joy of exploring.

I think that an important distinction when considering the value of the mannerbund today is one’s involvement and commitment. Any clown can send in their membership fee and collect a magazine in the mail. Doing this one doesn’t really get much out of it except for their magazine subscription. But really being involved and contributing as one can, well, there’s a certain pride that goes with that as well as the building of a camaraderie among the ranks. You get out of it what you put into it.

[Schwarzesonne]

Good point. I would argue though that the scatterdness of Heathens may bind us together more. That would be the role of the Hearth/kindred to bring the folk together in a more communal atmosphere. Despite our differences I see all Folkist Heathens as kin.

I disagree. I think that it’s the bonds of effort--usually, though not always made manifest by geographical & social closeness—that makes this significant. Because of this there are fólkish Heathens that I find myself close to and those that I do not. There are those for whom I hold in very high regard and those I do not. And there are those that I just don’t know and all I can go by is what they wrote in an article or whatever… But at least I know that our goals are similar and we have a good jumping off point if/when we do get a chance to meet in person.

[Liffrea]

I disagree. I think that it’s the bonds of effort--usually, though not always made manifest by geographical & social closeness—that makes this significant. Because of this there are fólkish Heathens that I find myself close to and those that I do not. There are those for whom I hold in very high regard and those I do not. And there are those that I just don’t know and all I can go by is what they wrote in an article or whatever… But at least I know that our goals are similar and we have a good jumping off point if/when we do get a chance to meet in person.

Yes I suppose it would depend on individual cases. I think what I was trying to say is what you said in your last sentence. It is the shared goals and values that brings a sense of community. Obviously those Heathens we know will be more kin than those we don't.

[Heimdal]

I belive there are some pretty simpel answers to the questions raised in the opening post, but people are so afraid of being "nazi" (as if that`s a bad thing) that they seem a bit afraid of calling a spade a spade.

Folk: An ethnic group.
All members of an ethnic group are members of the same race, speak the same language and have the same cultural background (although the culture might change somewhat from one geographical location to the other and from one social class to another).

Enemies of the folk: Everyone who threatens your ethnic group in one way or another.
Non-whites who are aiming for settlement in Europe are per definition enemies simply because them living and breeding in our homelands represent a treath to the purity and survival of our folk. They might outbreed us (like negroes tend to do), infiltrate powerful positions in our society and rule without having the best interest of our folk at hand (like certain jewish supremacists are doing) etc.

Whites can also be enemeis of the folk by aiding non-whites against our best interests or by sacrificing their folk and/or kin for money or other bribes.

I don`t have a really good description of the word kin, but I guess its a member of your race with whom you share an extra strong bond such as a family member, a close friend or a another believer of odinism.

[Schwarzesonne]

For the most part I agree with your assessment of folk. But neither folk nor kin are racial demarcations—at least not as the word race is used today. Race, up until about the WWII era, referred much more to what we would today call nationality than to one’s colour. Thus we would see politicians, religious leaders, anthropologists and philosophers speak of “the German race” or “the Irish race” as opposed to “the white race” which would have been considered much too much of a broad term to have any real use.

One question that I think is hitting Odinists very profoundly today is a reassessment of that racial concept; one of either accepting or rejecting our own alleged diaspora. Are the English, Dutch, Germans and Swedes all pretty much the same thing because we’re Germanic? Maybe because we’re all white? What about the Italians and Portuguese, the Slavs, and others who are white but are not Germanic? What about that guy who’s half Germanic and half something else? I’m not trying to raise a political issue here, just trying to demonstrate that different people’s dividing lines fall in different places.

As for kin, again, this has nothing to do with “race.” “Kin” means family, pure and simple. From the level of “kin” we may broaden our perspective to band, to tribe, to nation, and then on to race if that’s where we want to go. But your brother is your brother because he has the same mom and dad (or he was adopted), and not for any other reason.

[Heimdal]

For the most part I agree with your assessment of folk. But neither folk nor kin are racial demarcations—at least not as the word race is used today. Race, up until about the WWII era, referred much more to what we would today call nationality than to one’s colour. Thus we would see politicians, religious leaders, anthropologists and philosophers speak of “the German race” or “the Irish race” as opposed to “the white race” which would have been considered much too much of a broad term to have any real use.

One question that I think is hitting Odinists very profoundly today is a reassessment of that racial concept; one of either accepting or rejecting our own alleged diaspora. Are the English, Dutch, Germans and Swedes all pretty much the same thing because we’re Germanic? Maybe because we’re all white? What about the Italians and Portuguese, the Slavs, and others who are white but are not Germanic? What about that guy who’s half Germanic and half something else? I’m not trying to raise a political issue here, just trying to demonstrate that different people’s dividing lines fall in different places.

As for kin, again, this has nothing to do with “race.” “Kin” means family, pure and simple. From the level of “kin” we may broaden our perspective to band, to tribe, to nation, and then on to race if that’s where we want to go. But your brother is your brother because he has the same mom and dad (or he was adopted), and not for any other reason.

We don`t have the word "kin" in Norwegian, so I was just thinking out loud there :o

When it comes to folk I know that norwegians regarded themselves as norwegians and not swedes (for example). I read "the saga of the kings" which is a saga of the kings of Norway and back in the days of Olaf the Fat (aka "the Holy") there was a dispute between him and the swedish king regarding a territory that they both claimed belong to their land (Jämtland and Herjedalen). It said that the people living there would like to see the area returned to Norway and one of the reasons were that they "were norwegians, not swedes".

In short I think we can say that the original meaning of the word folk was indeed a 100% biological concept, but that it was way more narrow than todays concept of race. From what I`ve read of the stories of the old ways there was a sort of hierarchy:

1) You were most loyal to your own family, close family before distant family.
2) If there was a dispute between your region and another region you were loyal to your own.
3) You supported your nation even if the struggle was against a neighbour with the same blood and cultur as your own (for example danes vs. norwegians and so on).
4) You supported your close neighbours more than distant neighbours. I`ve never heard of norwegians supporting romans against fellow germanic germans for example; I have however heard that the viking era started when christians massacred 5000 odinists outside of Bremen (the germanic tribe was lead by king Widikun). Norwegian odinists then raided the Lindisfarne monestary in 793. The germanics were closer both in blood, culture and religion.
5) You supported white skinned people and didn`t trust non-whites.
In Rigstula it is said that the first slave, he who gave birth to all slaves, was the child of a poor couple with low abilities and the first of the slave people was called Thrall (Trell in Norwegian, which was in fact the name of a slave).
He was hunched, had black skin, long heels and a crooked nose.
When describing the farmer and the nobility Rigstula said they had red and light blond hair and nordic racial features.
This shows that the odinists regarded race and heritage (genetics) as being of great importance in forming a man or womans character and abilities (how many thousand years did it take before the rest of the world knew?)

The reason why many south europeans are blacker in skin than germanics and slavs is because of the constant attacks and raids by turks and arabs.
For several centuries huge parts of Spain was muslim land. There`s a political movement who wishes to seperate the northern and southern parts of Italy today (Lega Nord) due to the fact that the southern part is race mixed.
Back in the 1400s Vlad Tepes drove the arabs out of Romania and so on.
2000 years ago all of Europe was probably white.
We also know that there was a lot of germanics who moved to Russia, it was called Svitjod and Gardarike (the reich of Gardar). There`s actually a theory that Russia got is name from swedes from the swedish province of Rus. I`ve met some russians who feverently disagree.
The point is that there was a lot of scandinavians in slavic nations so there was definitely not a general anomosity between slavs and germanics.

So far my conclusion is that the three great demarcation lines were:
1) Family
2) Nation
3) Race in a brood, white vs. non-white sense.

[Liffrea]

I belive there are some pretty simpel answers to the questions raised in the opening post, but people are so afraid of being "nazi" (as if that`s a bad thing) that they seem a bit afraid of calling a spade a spade.

Its not the fear of being labelled Nazi, I have been called such, and am vocal in my politics. Most on this forum know my views. It is the fact of keeping politics out of our discussions on Odinism. Sure sometimes a relevant point can be made to a particular thread. But we are not here to discuss the merits, or lack of, of any political system. We are here to discuss the gods and our Odinist faith.

[Hengest]

4) You supported your close neighbours more than distant neighbours. I`ve never heard of norwegians supporting romans against fellow germanic germans for example; I have however heard that the viking era started when christians massacred 5000 odinists outside of Bremen (the germanic tribe was lead by king Widikun). Norwegian odinists then raided the Lindisfarne monestary in 793. The germanics were closer both in blood, culture and religion.

Well I was with you up until this point. Are you suggesting that the raid on Lindisfarne was some kind of revenges attack for what happened in Germany? Ithink that is stretching things a bit.




5) You supported white skinned people and didn`t trust non-whites.
In Rigstula it is said that the first slave, he who gave birth to all slaves, was the child of a poor couple with low abilities and the first of the slave people was called Thrall (Trell in Norwegian, which was in fact the name of a slave).
He was hunched, had black skin, long heels and a crooked nose.

Here it appears you are suggesting that Rig/Heimdall fathered black people?? In the translations I have read the son born to Edda is described as swarthy/dark haired. Which translation refers to black skin?



When describing the farmer and the nobility Rigstula said they had red and light blond hair and nordic racial features.
This shows that the odinists regarded race and heritage (genetics) as being of great importance in forming a man or womans character and abilities (how many thousand years did it take before the rest of the world knew?)

No, what it shows is that the nobles of the North had the features of folk from the North and, not surprisingly, the slaves had features of foreigners which is what many of them were. Even the celts were often described in terms such as swarthy and black (a reference to their hair).

[Schwarzesonne]

When it comes to folk I know that norwegians regarded themselves as norwegians and not swedes (for example). I read "the saga of the kings" which is a saga of the kings of Norway and back in the days of Olaf the Fat (aka "the Holy") there was a dispute between him and the swedish king regarding a territory that they both claimed belong to their land (Jämtland and Herjedalen). It said that the people living there would like to see the area returned to Norway and one of the reasons were that they "were norwegians, not swedes".

In short I think we can say that the original meaning of the word folk was indeed a 100% biological concept, but that it was way more narrow than todays concept of race.

I agree. This is precisely why, in my opinion, we are seeing so many forms of Odinism on the rise that focus much more on nationality than on “race”. Irminenschaft, Hedenskap, Ealdriht…


From what I`ve read of the stories of the old ways there was a sort of hierarchy:


3) You supported your nation even if the struggle was against a neighbour with the same blood and cultur as your own (for example danes vs. norwegians and so on).
4) You supported your close neighbours more than distant neighbours. I`ve never heard of norwegians supporting romans against fellow germanic germans for example; I have however heard that the viking era started when christians massacred 5000 odinists outside of Bremen (the germanic tribe was lead by king Widikun). Norwegian odinists then raided the Lindisfarne monestary in 793. The germanics were closer both in blood, culture and religion.

This was not necessarily true. Consider, for example, the Jomsvikings or the Franks fighting for Rome against their own Germanic cousins.


You supported white skinned people and didn`t trust non-whites.
In Rigstula it is said that the first slave, he who gave birth to all slaves, was the child of a poor couple with low abilities and the first of the slave people was called Thrall (Trell in Norwegian, which was in fact the name of a slave).
He was hunched, had black skin, long heels and a crooked nose.
When describing the farmer and the nobility Rigstula said they had red and light blond hair and nordic racial features.
This shows that the odinists regarded race and heritage (genetics) as being of great importance in forming a man or womans character and abilities (how many thousand years did it take before the rest of the world knew?)

I don’t think that surviving texts really support this either. If one considers, for example, the Vinland Sagas we see Leif the Lucky’s crew didn’t have a problem with the Scræling because of his skin colour, but because they attacked the ship in hope of gaining the Viking weapons.

What other völkisch culture wouldn’t do the same?

[Liffrea]

There`s actually a theory that Russia got is name from swedes from the swedish province of Rus. I`ve met some russians who feverently disagree.
The point is that there was a lot of scandinavians in slavic nations so there was definitely not a general anomosity between slavs and germanics.

It is most likely that the name Rus does come from Swedish sources. What is often forgotten is that the Swedish Vikings were quickly absorbed by the Slavic peoples. Ibn Fadlan was probably describing these Slavic "Rus" in his account, rather than any distinct Viking group. Think of it in the same way that the Normans within a generation lost most of their Scandinavian/Viking heritage and adopted Frankish customs.

[Heimdal]

Well I was with you up until this point. Are you suggesting that the raid on Lindisfarne was some kind of revenges attack for what happened in Germany? Ithink that is stretching things a bit.

That`s exactly what I`m suggesting. I must admit that I haven`t done a lot of research on this myself, but the leader of my odinist group (Vigrid) is a guy named Tore Tvedt. He has spent many years reading tons of history and extremely well-read and intelligent (I think he speaks about seven languages so that he can study historic text in their original language). He was the one who told me.



Here it appears you are suggesting that Rig/Heimdall fathered black people?? In the translations I have read the son born to Edda is described as swarthy/dark haired. Which translation refers to black skin?

http://vigrid.net/vaarreligion_rigstula.htm

What Rigstula says is that Rig (Heimdal) got in bed with a poor couple.
He stayed there for three days. Nine months later the woman gave birth to a boy. "svart i huden, fikk hete Trell": "His skin was black, was named Thrall".
He had long fingers, an ugly face, hunched back and long heels.
Then came the woman Tir with whom Thrall had intercourse resulting in many children. "Fra dem kommer alle trelle-ætter" = "From them comes all the thrall-families".

In an english translation I`ve read Thrall is refered to as a "swarthy-skinned one". This document held both an icelandic, swedish and an english version and they refered to Thrall as black in skin (can`t seem to find the link now I`m afraid).



No, what it shows is that the nobles of the North had the features of folk from the North and, not surprisingly, the slaves had features of foreigners which is what many of them were. Even the celts were often described in terms such as swarthy and black (a reference to their hair).

That could be, but the fact is that you won`t find any genetic traces of a non-white population in Scandinavia which would be if the slaves were primarily non-whites. Unless there was some sort of sexual segregation going on and slaves dying out. This seems unlikely as there are several accounts of freed slaves and owners having sex with their slaves.

We know that vikings traveled to Africa, North-America and the Middle-East. They were likely saw the poor standard of living in the blackest areas and saw the negroes being used as slaves by arabs and concluded that this was their achievment level while whites were farmers and nobility.

[Heimdal]

It is most likely that the name Rus does come from Swedish sources. What is often forgotten is that the Swedish Vikings were quickly absorbed by the Slavic peoples. Ibn Fadlan was probably describing these Slavic "Rus" in his account, rather than any distinct Viking group. Think of it in the same way that the Normans within a generation lost most of their Scandinavian/Viking heritage and adopted Frankish customs.

I agree.
I think that at some point swedes were given some land and powerful positions as a gift for helping some king win power or something like that. Perhaps a russian king wanted to strengthen the ties to Scandinavia and married a swedish girl and gave her family land areas etc.
You can still se a lot of germanic looking people in Russia though, especially in Siberia,but all in all the country is mainly slavic.

[Heimdal]

This was not necessarily true. Consider, for example, the Jomsvikings or the Franks fighting for Rome against their own Germanic cousins.

Of course, this were general rules held by most of the population. There are strong laws forbidding raping and killing in todays society, that doesn`t mean we don`t have rapists and killers among us :(
I also guess odinists could be swayed, loyalty is not a constant factor.
In general you saw germanics sticking togheter more often than not.




I don’t think that surviving texts really support this either. If one considers, for example, the Vinland Sagas we see Leif the Lucky’s crew didn’t have a problem with the Scræling because of his skin colour, but because they attacked the ship in hope of gaining the Viking weapons.

What other völkisch culture wouldn’t do the same?


What the skrælings did is another matter all togheter, they weren`t odinists. I was refering to odinists attitudes, not the attitudes of all people in the old days (although all organisms have racial instincts, some to a greater degree than others).
Also, the skrælings eventually threw the nordics out of America. This show that there was indeed a "us" and "them" mentality.

[Liffrea]

Also, the skrælings eventually threw the nordics out of America. This show that there was indeed a "us" and "them" mentality.

Well it can be difficult to understand just what the Norse and Skraelings thought about each other. Certainly there would have been an acknowledgement of racial difference, although I doubt there was any of the superiority complex of later Christian-Amerindian relations.

The way I percieve it is one of largely misunderstanding coupled with land rights. The Norse had, unknowingly, settled on Indian land. There is also the theory that they may have inadvertently poisoned the Skraelings by giving them milk. Being lactose intolerant, you can imagine the results. The Greenlanders gave up the colony because they knew there would never be sufficient numbers to defend agiants the Skraelings. Although there is evidence that the Norse continued to log in Labrador until the end of the Greenland settlements.

[Lonnie]

Well I was with you up until this point. Are you suggesting that the raid on Lindisfarne was some kind of revenges attack for what happened in Germany? Ithink that is stretching things a bit.



I think I would place that story alongside the "Burning Times" as some pagans preach it... :rolleyes:

[Sigurd]

Late to ask this, but

What is an Alpinid???

[Heimdal]

Late to ask this, but

What is an Alpinid???

Its a sub-group of the germanic race.
You have whites. Whites can be defined as mediteranians, slavs and germanics.
You can then divide the germanics into sub-groups such as typical nordic (blond hair, blue eyes etc.), dalian (broader hips, brownish hair, often broad shouldered. Comes from Dalarna in Sweden), alpinid which is germanics adapted to the alpine regions of Europe etc. Celts are, as far as I can see, the british branch of the germanic race. I have never seen antropologists use the term though (there was a lot of classification work done on this up until 1945 all over Europe. Germany led the way (of course) from 1933-1945). You can search the net, there should be a whole bunch of info there.

[Sigurd]

Yes, if an Alpinid is a Germanic that settle in the Alps, why, would that fact be "threatening our folk" (somebody posted this at some point...)

A statement which I feel quite disturbing... seeing that many of my ancestors came from Austria (and yet so did I), Austria being a place that had never actually been Roman in belief! But only Germanic and Celtic,yes.

[Heimdal]

Yes, if an Alpinid is a Germanic that settle in the Alps, why, would that fact be "threatening our folk" (somebody posted this at some point...)

A statement which I feel quite disturbing... seeing that many of my ancestors came from Austria (and yet so did I), Austria being a place that had never actually been Roman in belief! But only Germanic and Celtic,yes.

They must have misunderstood something. The germanic part of the white race developed and adaptet do many different areas. Some germanics lived in woods and adapted to that. Some lived in mountains (like alpinids) and adapted to this, others to plains and so on. They are all germanics though, and to seperate is absurd. I can see the need to have a certain degree of seperation between germanics, slavs and meds simply because I don`t want white ethnic group to "devour" another, but to seperate germanics from each other seem downright absurd to me.

[Mike_76]

...big-breasted blonde valkyries lol" incenses me to the core.


Hey, I happen to like big-breasted blondes, valkyries or not.

[Son Of Odin]

Hey, I happen to like big-breasted blondes, valkyries or not.


don't we all.....don't we all :D:D:D:D:D
anyway back on topic

[Mike_76]

don't we all.....don't we all :D:D:D:D:D
anyway back on topic

I myself consider anyone, who is "white" (excluding Jews who are sometimes referred to as whites) to be kinsfolk in these troubled times, not out of any scientific reason, but because I believe if we don't stick together, we going to end up going extinct together - without getting into politics any deeper. I always naturally feel most at ease with those of German background, even here in America, because they are most like me, but that's almost immaterial.

America was supposed to be a "melting pot" of "whites" or folk ONLY, NOT every race under the sun. But we were lazy and cowardly and we let this get away.

On the other hand, I have the greatest disgust for the universalist type "whites" or folk or whatever you want to call them. They are the cancer that is rotting the body, in my opinion and are the greatest danger to the rest of us.

I'm not sure how to reconcile this conflict.

[Lee]

I put up the original post in this thread. I thought I make it obvious that this wasn’t intended to be the usual nit-picking post about race and ethnicity. I did specifically say this at the start of my post but after some very interesting initial posts, it seems to have degenerated to the usual racial naval gazing.

I don’t want to point fingers, but the post that started the rot was by Hemidall:

“I belive there are some pretty simpel answers to the questions raised in the opening post, but people are so afraid of being "nazi" (as if that`s a bad thing) that they seem a bit afraid of calling a spade a spade.”

You totally misconstrued what my original post was about. I specifically said that this was not a post about race. The original posters until you commented didn’t mention race because they has the intelligence to see that the thread wasn’t about race at all. It was about who, once you’ve defined the concept of folk to everyone’s agreement, you consider to be our folk based on their individual actions.

Your definition of the word folk was this:

“Folk: An ethnic group.
All members of an ethnic group are members of the same race, speak the same language and have the same cultural background (although the culture might change somewhat from one geographical location to the other and from one social class to another).”

Ok, I wouldn’t argue with that. But my post was about who you would associate with within this given framework. It’s a broad spectrum, so obviously there is scope for discussion and this is what I wanted to touch upon.

"I don`t have a really good description of the word kin, but I guess its a member of your race with whom you share an extra strong bond such as a family member, a close friend or a another believer of odinism.”

This last bit, which was the crux of my post, you pretty much skipped over, almost as an afterthought. But this was what I was asking in my post. You should have addressed that or not answered at all. I specifically wasn’t asking for a discussion on white supremacy.

So, could we perhaps get back on topic?! Who, amongst your folk, do you consider to be your folk? It is a catch all term, so do you put restrictions on who consider you folk within the accepted folkish framework? Are criminals ok? What are the boundaries of anti-social behaviour? It is simply family and friends? Fellow Odinists?

So no more about Alpinds, Jews, Negroes, Slavs, meds et al. This is not what I asked.

[Heimdal]

I myself consider anyone, who is "white" (excluding Jews who are sometimes referred to as whites) to be kinsfolk in these troubled times, not out of any scientific reason, but because I believe if we don't stick together, we going to end up going extinct together - without getting into politics any deeper. I always naturally feel most at ease with those of German background, even here in America, because they are most like me, but that's almost immaterial.

I totally agree. If you`re pro-white you`re all right, that`s my rule *lol*.
I`ve spoken with people who have said that they wouldn`t want to fight alongside a christian because christians might be meryful towards the enemy because of the pacifist parts of the religion. I really don`t think we can get where we want (which is to secure the existance of our folk) by excluding. We must seek out all allies in the struggle for survival, then take advantage of our new found freedom to carve out an odinistic future for our folk.
No matter how you look at it: if the west turns all white there will be more odinists simply because the amount of potential odinists (the amount of whites) will increase. Also we will probably spearhead the revolution and people will see that the only religion who will ALWAYS stick up for white rights is odinism.


America was supposed to be a "melting pot" of "whites" or folk ONLY, NOT every race under the sun. But we were lazy and cowardly and we let this get away.

Excactly. Its just like that quote by Thomas Jefferson "all men are created equal". What the rulers of the JewSA (ops, I mean USA *lol*) are "forgetting" is the next part of that quote:
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [Negroes] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be . . .pari passau filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human Nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

The establishment is purposly taking quotes out of context, lying and cheating our away our heritage, our past, our present and our future.



On the other hand, I have the greatest disgust for the universalist type "whites" or folk or whatever you want to call them. They are the cancer that is rotting the body, in my opinion and are the greatest danger to the rest of us.

I'm not sure how to reconcile this conflict.


Most of these people are simply the product of propaganda and brainwashing. They`ve been told lies and because nobody could set them straight and help them understand nature and the truths of this world they simply continue to live in a false fantasy world.
Those who side with the enemy must be punished accordingly.
Treason is the worst of crimes.

[Heimdal]

I put up the original post in this thread. I thought I make it obvious that this wasn’t intended to be the usual nit-picking post about race and ethnicity. I did specifically say this at the start of my post but after some very interesting initial posts, it seems to have degenerated to the usual racial naval gazing.

I don’t want to point fingers, but the post that started the rot was by Hemidall:

“I belive there are some pretty simpel answers to the questions raised in the opening post, but people are so afraid of being "nazi" (as if that`s a bad thing) that they seem a bit afraid of calling a spade a spade.”

You totally misconstrued what my original post was about. I specifically said that this was not a post about race. The original posters until you commented didn’t mention race because they has the intelligence to see that the thread wasn’t about race at all. It was about who, once you’ve defined the concept of folk to everyone’s agreement, you consider to be our folk based on their individual actions.

Your definition of the word folk was this:

“Folk: An ethnic group.
All members of an ethnic group are members of the same race, speak the same language and have the same cultural background (although the culture might change somewhat from one geographical location to the other and from one social class to another).”

Ok, I wouldn’t argue with that. But my post was about who you would associate with within this given framework. It’s a broad spectrum, so obviously there is scope for discussion and this is what I wanted to touch upon.

"I don`t have a really good description of the word kin, but I guess its a member of your race with whom you share an extra strong bond such as a family member, a close friend or a another believer of odinism.”

This last bit, which was the crux of my post, you pretty much skipped over, almost as an afterthought. But this was what I was asking in my post. You should have addressed that or not answered at all. I specifically wasn’t asking for a discussion on white supremacy.

So, could we perhaps get back on topic?! Who, amongst your folk, do you consider to be your folk? It is a catch all term, so do you put restrictions on who consider you folk within the accepted folkish framework? Are criminals ok? What are the boundaries of anti-social behaviour? It is simply family and friends? Fellow Odinists?

So no more about Alpinds, Jews, Negroes, Slavs, meds et al. This is not what I asked.


It seems to me that YOU should be more precise when asking a queston. Folk IS a biological term so you can`t ask what folk and then pout when someone gives you the answer. You can`t define a black person as "folk" when you yourself is white. You can`t define a white ******* as not of your "folk" no matter how much you want to.
What you want to know is how to define the word KIN, but you didn`t ask for that, now did you? You asked for folk and that`s another story all togheter.

I suggest you start all over with a new post devoted to the question you want answered, and in the future you should be more precise if you are looking for answers on one perticular subject.


You totally misconstrued what my original post was about. I specifically said that this was not a post about race. The original posters until you commented didn’t mention race because they has the intelligence to see that the thread wasn’t about race at all.

Its ironic that you are questioning my intelligence when you can`t even construct a simple question. To get the answers you want you must first ask the right question.

P.S: White supremacy is the idea of white world conquest or white subjugation of other races. To define a biological term is NOT white supremacism. It seems that your level of knowledge and deductive skills are lacking, not mine :D

[Katia]

This thread has unfortunately turned in an ugly direction. Closed.