Right to Rebel, Duty to Resist

Modern Heathens take great pride in personal independence, refusing to bow before distant authorities or divine masters. This is not surprising, many who follow Heathen practices do so out of personal choice full well knowing their decision will push them to the fringes of modern Western society. The choice to follow any polytheistic practice, in an age when monotheism is the norm, is a small yet fundamental act of rebellion. For whatever reason the initial decision is made those who continue on a path that guarantees social marginalization at best do so because their existential needs are not served by modern, conventional spirituality. This same spirit of defiance sounds out strongly in Heathen lore. The duty to resist oppressive circumstances is a powerful theme in Germanic Lore.

To first understand the importance of resistance and rebellion one must first examine the cyclical nature of Germanic cosmology as presented in the Eddas. In the beginning of the sagas there was nothing but fire, ice, and a great void. One day the fire and ice boiled out into the gap, collided, and from the primordial void and chaos a new order emerged centered on Ymir. When Odin and His two brothers, Vili and Ve, struck down Ymir They used his body to create a new order where the Gods and humanity would flourish. Throughout the sagas They do battle with destructive giants and monsters like Fenris and the Midgard Serpent to keep Midgard and the Nine Worlds safe. In the Final Battle of Ragnarok the Gods take the field against their old foes one last time in spite of their pre-ordained doom. From the destruction of Ragnarok, as it was when fire and ice collided and Ymir fell, a new bright world will come from the ashes of the old.

In each cycle of destruction and rebirth new, more prosperous worlds are built from the bones of the old ended in chaos and destruction. The new worlds are born because of an upset of the existing status quo. The great yawning void, which had existed for time unknown between the realms of fire and ice, had been the center of the existing order until the great elemental forces poured in and filled it. Ymir and the frost giants had lived in relative prosperity unchallenged until Buri's grandsons Odin, Vili, and Ve struck him down and used the body to create a new world(1). Ragnarok begins with a three year ice age ending with Surtr's immolation of the World Tree. Every great cosmic change is catalyzed by disruption of the existing order. These changes are used as the means to initiate greater, more meaningful transformation.

Cosmic change does not come about for its own sake in the lore. While the lore is silent on the Gods' motives for slaying Ymir we can make some inferences from the lore. The primordial world in which the sons of Buri lived is described as extremely bleak. All that existed was Ymir, the cow Audumla who fed the giant, and a lot of salty ice(2). The new order built from Ymir's body is lush, fertile, and full of promise for the Gods, humans, and wights(3). Whatever the motive the end result was replacing the old, stagnant order with a new, more beneficial one for the Gods and the inhabitants of the Nine Worlds.

Beowulf's saga shows the same theme of liberation from oppressive circumstances. Following Grendel's first attack on the hall of Hereot the Ring-Danes did whatever they could to fight back and repel new attacks4. Conditions became quite grim:

"All were endangered; young and old

were hunted down by that dark death-shadow

who lurked and swooped in the long nights

on the misty moors; nobody knows

where these reavers from hell roam on their errands."(5)

In spite of all this they never stopped their war with Grendel, who "ruled in defiance of right"(6). When Beowulf left Geatland he did not come seeking wealth or riches but to volunteer for the battle with Grendel(7). He came with the blessing of the Geats(8) only requesting of Hrothgar that he do it himself with his men(9). The same theme re-asserts itself at the end of the saga when Beowulf, in the twilight of his years, personally seeks out and slays a dangerous dragon menacing his people at the cost of his own life.

The history of the people of the Old North is rich with stories of resistance and defiance of the mighty. The first and best examples come from the days when Rome ruled the world. In the first century AD Hermann of the Cherusci organized a coalition of tribes in defiance of Roman colonization of their lands. At Teutoburg Forest they destroyed the Roman army ending the first and only serious attempt by the Empire to conquer Germania. In the centuries that followed the Germanic tribes refused to let Rome rest fighting a series of bloody wars with the Empire. These were wars fought not by wealthy warrior-aristocrats or professional mercenaries but farmers, artisans, and merchants defending their homes and families. It is doubtful they had any serious hopes of destroying the Empire, a monolithic entity that cast a long shadow over the Rhine and Danube for centuries. What is clear is the fallout of the Empire's presence in the form of forced tribute, slave raids, punitive expeditions, and Rome's proxy wars reached a point where they could not be tolerated. In the face of deprivation, war, and slavery the Germanics consistently chose the risks of resistance over the certainty of submission.

The same defiance of oppression stands strong from the Empire's fall to the final Christianization of Scandinavia. Germanic tribes, facing conversion by force and coercion, refused to give up the old ways. With the exception of Iceland's conversion in 1000 AD every attempt to impose the Cross on the people was met with dogged, bloody resistance. From the Saxons' defiance of Charlemagne's invasion to Svolder when a coalition of Danes, Swedes, and Norse brought down the Christian tyrant Olaf Tryggvason and Stiklestad when an army of free common folk ambushed and slew the Christian king Olaf II the folk never gave up without a fight. When "conquered" they rebelled fiercely and often.

The message of resistance and rebellion is a powerful theme in the lore of the Northern world. When faced with oppressive conditions heroes, Gods, and ancestors alike pushed back, refusing to submit in the face of near-certain defeat. Many times when they made this fateful choice it was not with the certainty of victory behind them but as a challenge of impossible odds. Whether it is the Gods at Ragnarok, Beowulf facing the dragon, or the Cherusci at Teutoberg they chose defiance over submission and surrender.

Also published at Occupy-PNC

1. Gylfaginning V, trans. by Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur

2. Gylfaginning VI

3. Gylfaginning VIII-IX

4. Beowulf 170-178, trans. by Seamus Heaney

5. Beowulf 159-163

6. Beowulf 144

7. Beowful 194-201

8. Beowulf 415-418

9. Beowulf 431-432

Ayn Rand and Asatru

As an American Asatruar I have met a lot of Heathens whose philosophy is strongly influenced by the writings of Ayn Rand. Rand, the founder of the Objectivist movement, railed against traditional morality and altruism arguing these ideas hold back human potential. The Heathens who cite Rand and Objectivism as influences argue the romanticizing of the rugged individual is a solid understanding of how the ancient Germanics saw the individual. They cite the sagas of heroes as proof. I think that is all based on a very narrow and selective reading of the lore. A more comprehensive understanding of the facts shows how thoroughly incompatible Rand's ideas are with the lore.

The best example of conflict comes from comparing the apocalyptic struggles in both works. In Rand's Atlas Shrugged we have Galt's Strike. Led by John Galt the strikers organize against being forced by law or guilt to give up any of the fruits of their labors. Strikers deliberately sabotage their businesses and sneak off with their most fabulous inventions. They work menial jobs to further deny “the looters” the fruits of their efforts and recruit others for the strike. When the strike collapses society they escape to the fantastic Galt's Gulch to ride out the end of the world in luxury free of the demands of “the looters.”

In stark contrast is the Norse Ragnarok. To prepare for the Final Battle Odin does everything He possibly can resorting to whatever means necessary to stave off the end. Thor regularly does battle with giants to keep them in check and out of Midgard. Valkyries prowl the battlefields of the world plucking up the most worthy to join the Einherjar and fight in Ragnarok. When battle comes the Gods lead the charge against the legions of Surtr in spite of certain and unquestionable doom.

The actions of the Gods and Galt's strikers are fundamentally in conflict with the other. Odin works to delay Ragnarok as much as possible while His son Thor risks life and limb keeping rampaging giants in check. Tyr, instead of cheating Fenris, upheld His oath knowing it would cost His hand. These deeds do not show the naked selfishness of Galt's Strike. If the Gods only cared for Their own skins They would seek a way to escape Their demise even if it meant the other worlds must burn. They would not seek risky battles that offer little gain. Instead the Gods fight to delay not just their end by the end of all the Nine Worlds. They march into battle against enemies of Asgard and Midgard rather than run and hide in an impregnable fortress while all the other worlds burn.

Galt's role in the crash widens the intellectual chasm. John Galt doesn't just build a life boat for the rich and talented, he actively works to bring society down. The strike was his idea and the aftermath the end goal. Instead of working to subvert or replace the corrupt system of the “looters” he chooses to burn it all down regardless of the consequences. The most he does to “help” the people condemned to die in the collapse is lecture the entire world by radio broadcast for three hours telling them why they deserve their fate.

The root of the conflict lies in the differing solutions to the question of suffering and its cause. Rand argues that suffering is caused by the unproductive members of society leeching off of the producers. She says the best solution is to break the bond and let the “looters” get what's coming to them. Suffering, in Rand's view, is bested by disengaging from its source and leaving it alone.

In the Germanic view such inaction is unacceptable. There is not a single example of a God or a hero defeating an adversary or besting a threat to their people by leaving it alone, ignoring it, or walking away from it. When facing danger the lesson of the sagas is clear: find the cause and fix the problem. Historical sources like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Jordanes, Saxo Grammaticus, and Sturluson affirm this attitude with a plethora of examples. Kings and warriors who beat their foes are praised while avoidance and denial are roundly denounced as cowardly.

Rand's ideas on individuality at first blush may look in tune with the Germanic perception of the individual. On closer examination this conflation encourages excessive emphasis on the self at the expense of others. Objectivist thought which argues self-interest rules all encourages one to disengage from threats to self or community. This is in direct conflict with the consistent theme in Germanic lore of confronting danger directly and decisively. The two are actively dissonant and argue for responses that are inherently opposed in reasoning and execution.

Hi everybody!

So first off apologies for my somewhat sporadic posting pretty much everywhere lately. I'm kind of terrible about making myself stay to a particular schedule for this blog and life hasn't been helping. That said this blog is far from dead. I've got a few things planned that will be coming out soon (hopefully I can make myself do something every week)

Speaking of stuff planned a few months ago I said I would be ripping Atlas Shrugged apart one chapter at a time. At the time I thought I would be able to plow through the book in a decent amount of time then turn around and do my chapter by chapter breakdown. I thought this was perfectly reasonable; I've been able to chew through doorstoppers as big and bigger than Rand's yellow brick in a couple of weeks without a problem.

My mistake was grossly underestimating how head-splittingly bad this book is. Four months later I'm barely 200 pages in. Before anyone says, "Keep an open mind" or something like that I'm not even talking about the ideas Rand expresses or how she presents them. From a literary perspective this book is terrible. It reads like it was a first draft that was never reviewed. The characters are at best two-dimensional, the descriptions are ripped out of 30s pulp fiction, and there is probably not a single thing I feel any interest in.

Leaving all that aside what makes this book so hard to slog through is the righteously spiteful tone oozing from the pages. Regardless of whatever else was motivating Rand to write this book she was writing it from a place of some serious hate. Sometimes it gets downright painful to hack through the bile. Once I finish the thing (I'm hoping for some time in September. Maybe) I'll get started on the series.