Murmerings in the White Halls

The term 'Aryan' is used variously - sometimes as a synonym for 'Nordic', other times to mean merely Caucasian. It also adverts to the view that the Germanic, Latin, Slavic cultures etc., all share an Indo-European basis. Lane only uses the term "Aryan" twice in the eighty-eight precepts.


The Nine Noble Virtues are vague and not specific. Nor do they refer to race in any way:


9 NV:

courage,
truth,
honor,
fidelity,
discipline,
hospitality,
industriousness,
self reliance,
perseverance.


They do not state whether one should tell the truth at all times or whether we should tell the truth only to our fellows. Nor do they tell us whether we should be hospitable to all and sundry or only to our fellows etc., etc.


There is no mention of the psychological, sexual, or religious life either [the gods are not even mentioned]. Nor is there anything to do with politics or metaphysics etc.,
Neither is there any guide on legal matters.
They are not racially specific because every culture on earth will lay claim to these virtues. There is also no mention in them of Preservation - an important ethical concept in my view.


In all, they are inadequate as a guide to life in any meaningful philosophical sense as they are unclear on what will happen to someone who is uncouragous, untruthful, dishonourable, infidelitous, indisciplined, inhospitable, unindustrious, unself-reliant, and unpersevering.

Also the inclusion of "industriousness" smacks of the Protestant owrk ethic and is quite ignoble in my view.


McNallen's version of the Nine just say that one thing is "better" than they other;


1. Strength is better than weakness

2. Courage is better than cowardice

3. Joy is better than guilt

4. Honour is better than dishonour

5. Freedom is better than slavery

6. Kinship is better than alienation

7. Realism is better than dogmatism

8. Vigour is better than lifelessness

9. Ancestry is better than universalism

So where is the imperative to live in a certain way? Can we tell a lie and say, 'I know it would have been "better" to tell the truth, but you know, I couldn't get it right that day'?
And aren't there times when it is "better" not to tell the truth? - I've just noticed, McNallen doesn't even include truth as a virtue!

I think we need to understand what David Lane in his 88 Precepts, means by Nature in his view. According to him:

30. The instincts for racial and specie preservation are ordained by Nature.


He therefore approaches all questions from this perspective, which is very different from the Puritanical objections to sex [and sexual mores are part of morality and ethics].
He is actually very un-puritanical:

34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature’s perfect mechanism for specie preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; its purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either.

Lane rejects race-hate [and therefore the Precepts are not 'illegal']:

27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race.


It is the implicitly relative nature of race which makes the need for separation.

The Precepts take a very relativistic [and fluxious] metaphysic:

81. Nothing in Nature is static; either the life force grows and expands or it decays and dies.

This shows the influence of Heraclitus and Nietzsche.


Right at the start of the Precepts he gives his views on religion - they are quite clear and relate to his Heraclitean outlook:

3...Religion is the creation of mortals, therefore predestined to fallibility. Religion may preserve or destroy a People, depending on the structure given by its progenitors, the motives of its agents and the vagaries of historical circumstances



The Precepts evoke the teachings of Plato's Republic [where the Guardians (philosopher-rulers) are to lead]:

50 ... He must be a guardian in his heart. He must be one who has shown that his only purpose in life is the preservation of the folk. His ultimate aim must be to restore the rule of Law based on the perfect Laws of Nature.

On a metaphysical level Lane thinks that Force is the motive behind the Universe and Nature [and so agrees with Nietzsche here]:
2. Whatever People’s perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature’s Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.

Consider the current economic recession, and then this Precept:

78. The simplest way to describe a usury-based central banking system is this: The bankers demand the property of the Nation as collateral for their loans. At interest, more money is owed them that they created with the loans. So, eventually, the bankers foreclose on the Nation.

This underlies Lane's rejection on an ethical basis of usury.




As I quoted above, Lane takes a relativist view of religion and the Universe. If he believed that racial purity was ordained by God [which is not said in the Precepts at all] then why would we need to take measures to preserve it?
The Precepts suggest that the trend is towards the mixing of races which will end the racial distinctiveness that Lane treasures. That is a rational view, rather than a religious one:

33. Inter-specie compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal.

Lane's precpets are imbued with an evolutionary natural Law:


26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

Another evolutionist view out of Ardrey.




27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.






There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.


To further elaborate on the question of preservation: we want to preserve that which we value, that is agreed.
We would not want to preserve something that could complete destroy us - that would be suicidal, as Lane says.

But we want might to preserve our enemies [especially if they are not able to completely wipe us out], as they keep us in good shape by their constant opposition.

Indeed, in Britain, there is the conflict between Celt and Saxon that almost has a familial quality to it. And if anyone form outside should interfere we would both turn on them together!

To keep this in the realm of Philosophical ethics, Nietzsche says, famously, 'what does not kill me makes me stronger'.

Particular groups [such as the Germanics] have needed their enemies in the past in order to define what they are themselves.

In ancient times German tribe fought against German tribe.

However, Lane's dictum still stands:
You should not hate your enemy as you should only have enemies who you respect.
You can tell the quality of a people by the quality of their enemies.










It is a good ethical principle to 'unite your friends and divide your enemies'.










But a friend in the noble sense - kin, allies, equals and lovers. Not a 'friend in need'.

A clever enemy will always seek to divide his enemy and leave them alone and friendless.

A very thin line between friends and enemies.

The Precepts are a good code for survival.

---------------------------------------

I make a distinction between craft - craft-work - and technology.


Craft is spiritual and Folkish: Technology is material and Humanist.


Craft is handmade by crafts-men.
A sword, a spear, a shield, war-gear, a wagon or a flagon are showings of craft.
Craft is a one-off thing; unusual and self-ly.
Moreover, all such craft-workings must be bless-ed to the gods before they can be used.
Suchly, craft-things are seen through from their birth to their making by one maker and made with love for their wights.


Technology, on the other hand, is created bit-bit-bit using specialisation where producers are cogs in a machine, the end-view of which they have no cogniscence.
Technology is not blessed by the divinities and therefore marches into the universe as profane, materialistic death-dealing automata.
Technology and mass-production crushes the small family makers.


Technology is impersonal and destroys Folk feeling.


Technology is produced using the theory of atomisation and so atomises the Folk.
Technology grinds down the manyness of Folk into one grey 'humanity'.
Technology is hubris - it seeks to usurp the deities.


The internet consists of this kind of technology which aims at the destruction of the Folk and the creation of a universal communication where all differences are levelled. Just because it is virtual does not mean that is it is spiritual - quite the other-face.


If modernity is a "state of being", then we are to view it ahistorically [i.e. it has always been around, haunting all ages and epochs, with its nexus of progessivism, souless materialism, individualism etc.,].


Whereas modern technology, is an historical phenomenon which makes modernity more possible and more pervasive.


Therefore modernity in the historical realm of the present is allied to technology, and the combination of the two makes for Modernity.


Technology is souless science.
Whereas Magic is soulful technology.


The diminuation of the soul leads to the growth of technology and the reduction in magic. Therefore there is a necessary link between modernism [soulessness] and technology.


A Chinese Proverb says:


He who rides the tiger
Finds it difficult to dismount.





Ragnoarok is an eternal truth. Incidentally, the Ragnarok is not an eschatology: it just marks the end of one cycle and the process of rebirth to another.


When I use the word 'magic' I am not using it in the modern usage to mean 'remarkable'. I am using it in the specific sense of magical techniques and magical knowledge such as that harnessed by Woden on the World Tree.
Magic can only take place in Nature.
The internet is Anti-Nature.


This is not a "personal" point of view: it is a view based on the authority of the ancient traditions which emphasised the importance of nature in all workings.


I don't say you have to "go back". I am just providing the proper frame of reference for understanding these things. The traditions are fairly definite on these matters.


So use the internet - but don't pretend that it has anything to do with the great Natural Traditions of the Folk: see it for what it really is!


There is a world of difference between working a spell out-of-doors amongst your own blood-kin, on your own soil, and to sitting in a room typing on a plastic key-board to anonymous others in vague geographical locations.


The former is good for the traditions and the latter is bad for them.


As the latter mushrooms so the former is reduced as the world becomes more corporate, more bland and more undifferentiated.


It's about being able to see these distinctions and understand differences.




The modern world is a blight on the gods - an evil winter.


There is no magic in the internet - indeed, the internet militates against magic.


Magic is only in Nature.


Likewise technology is completely profane and outside the 'purview' of the gods.


Nuclear power, mechanical travel etc., are all blaspemies against Nature and have all contributed to the pernicious modern world which has seen the gods fleeing this middle-earth leaving a degenerate Folk to its own miserable devices.


The only hope lies with a Few who are aware of the profound significance of Nature, the Gods and the Folk.


The gods have not "adapted" and nor should they. They offer a timeless example that is sadly ignored by the majority of the techno-loving Folk.


The invention of the gun put an end to noble warriorhood. It meant that a complete no-mark with a gun could kill the most skillful warrior. It meant an end to the English martial arts in this wolf-age.
--------------------------



Runes

I find that the runes rarely lie, if ever.


I usually throw a daily rune or three and find that they set me up for the day, keep me in contact with the gods.


Often they comment on what has been, othertimes on what is, and even sometimes on what will be.


They are like the advice of an old, wise friend.


I find certain bind-runes haunting, and for protection I am constantly confronted by the wolfs-hook; not a rune as such, I know, but then I believe that the runes can be extended by bind-runes and related symbols at will.

They are a good discipline.
They keep your wyrd in line.
They also keep in contact with the runic system itself, and you keep in contact with the gods which is no bad thing.


I use a wide range of sources, having runes in all kinds of media.


When using the Anglo-Saxon futhorc the Old English rune poems are invaluable, of course.


Llook at the dark side of the runes, the Uthark.


The runes are multiversial!

On the 'dark-side' of the runes.


The Anglo Saxon rune poem contains some dark meanings;Ear byþ egle eorla gehwylcun,
ðonn[e] fæstlice flæsc onginneþ,
hraw colian, hrusan ceosan
blac to gebeddan; bleda gedreosaþ,
wynna gewitaþ, wera geswicaþ.

In Modern English:

EarThe grave is hideous---to every man
When steadily---the flesh begins
The body cools---and chooses the earth black
To bed with---Fruits fall
Joys pass away---truths are broken

That the runes were used for divination cannot be doubted on historical grounds [Tacitus and Caesar et al have already beeen referred to]. That this is the case, then we would expect the runes to follow the same patterns of divination shared by other systems the world over. This would include taking notice of whether the runes fell in their stave position or were reversed. Divinatory systems find these things to be significant.
On the question of 'historical evidence' for such things, it is obvious that a lack of historical evidence does not always mean that an historical event did not take place. It can just mean that the evidence ... has not survived [sorry to state the obvious!] ... However, history is always combined with reconstruction.

The Rune School states:
Or is there a historical precedent [for reversed runes]? While there is no historical/literary material to suggest ancient runecaster paid attention to reversed runes, equally there is nothing to prove they did not. Since the rune glyphs are designs with symbolic and magical importance in their own right, it would arguably be strange if they gave absolutely no import to a rune displaying the opposite to its normal shape."http://www.runeschool.org/courses/intro_02/17_orientation.htm


The runes were used in all kinds of ways which depends upon an understanding of the right way up of the runes, and shows that reversals were taken into consideration:http://arild-hauge.com/esecreter.htm

http://www.beowulftranslations.net/glossary.shtml


http://englishheathenism.homestead.com/textrunemagic.html


More dark stanzas from the Anglo-Saxon Rune poem:


(Thorn) Thorn is extremely sharp,
Painful to any thane that grasps it,
Immeasurably fierce to any man,
That rests among them.

(Eolhx) Elk-sedge is usually found in the fens,
Growing on the water, Grimly wounding,
Staining with blood, any man who grasps it.

1.
First off, I believe that it is irrefutable that the runes were used in magical practice in ancient times [just as they are so used today].
The evidence is there in runic finds, amongst ancient historians and ancient literature.
The Eddas, Sagas and rune poems point to this, for example.


This magical practice took the form of [but was not exhausted by] divination.


2.
My "argument" as regards the specific use of the runes in divination is quite "critical" and "rational", and it was made in the above post.


To restate it in syllogistic form:


a) the runes are an ancient form of divination.


b) divination methods include reversals.


c) ergo (therefore) runecasters must have used reversals in divination in the past just as they do today.


Indeed, it is the stubborn and narrow-minded refusal to accept that reversals were used that stretches the credibility. Especially when you consider the evidence that the runes were used in complex codes, meaning that the level of runic sophistication was such that it could easily encompass reversals.
However, if you want to disbelieve that is your prerogative.


History always includes some aspect of reconstruction: indeed, it is impossible to see the past 'as it really was' just as we ourselves can never be the same as we were five years ago, nor can we recapture that in its totality.


Anglo-Saxonism therefore, and its related runic practice, is a living thing of today which follows the traditions by reliving them.


3.
As to the dark aspects of the runes, this too can be a syllogism:


a) life includes the positive and the negative, the dark and the light.


b) the runes are meant to reflect life


c) ergo (therefore) the runes have dark and negative aspects.


If you want to reject reversals for whatever reasons, that is up to you, but I have already shown that the Anglo-Saxon rune poem has dark stanzas [as do the Norwegian and Icelandic rune poems - the Eddas and Sagas also advert to this].

White Realm

A: The constant danger to the Higher White Man is actually
related to the White Woman; it is this - that the Higher White Man
may become extinct.

Q.How do you mean?


A:Thank you for the civil question, it makes a change from the
usual boorishness here.
Clearly there is a general lack of understanding of the nature of
Whiteness today[no insult intended].

Now, we know from Nietzsche that [White]Woman is a danger [immediate
image of the blonde blue-eyed Lou von Salome] to the Super-White-Man.

The Zarathustran White Man is told endlessly by Nietzsche that he
must seek solitude.
He takes his six solitudes [inbetween down-goings] before his final
seventh solitude which is [White] Death.

Can you not see what a danger to the *White Race* this Solitude is?

How can the White Race be reproduced by its finest speciemens
[SuperWhiteMen and Women] if the White Man has to flee the
sphinxations of the White Woman!

And also, by her Darkness, White Woman actually flouts her Whiteness.

Disgust, disgust.

So the Zarathustrian Whiteman is in constant danger of being
overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the mediocre, the prodigeous and
gregarious many-too-many. Hic niger est, as Nietzsche quotes from
Horace.

To that end, what he calls the "hope of a Pure European Race" must be
engendered by Eugenics.

The white radiance of eternity.


Nietzsche's philosophy looks at the terrifying spectacle of a White
Aristocratic order being overturned.

He sees the replacement of the radiant Master Moral by that of the
dark Slave Moral.

Thus he observes the rare European noble type disappearing in tragic
circumstances - engulfed by the sheer numbers of the many-too-
many ... the plethora of plebs.

To this end he ponders ways to make Nature's "lucky strokes" into a
more durable and consistent aristocratic caste [caste=colour (varna)].

This caste is the "pure European race" he "hopes" to produce in the
future.

*White*;
the undifferentiated;
transcendent perfection;
simplicity;
light;
sun;
air;
illumination;
purity;
innocence ....

The basis of his anxiety? is the constant threat of White
Aristocratic Extinction.

The Noble White is forever challenged by existential Nothingness,
which is part and parcel of the super-transcendental identity of
Whiteness.

White is "all and nothing".

In Fascism this noble angst meets the White Fears of the White Mass;
with the class barriers broken down by 'democratic' politics and
their attack on White Aristocracy, then White rulers and White ruled
find common cause: it is one thing and one thing only - to fight
against White Extinction.

A White Brotherhood is born in fascismo!


White is the colour of initiation, - the word "candidate" derives
from the Latin for "shining white".

Who are the enemy?

- Bad Whites who are intent on devolving and siding with racial
inferiors.
- Borderline Whites; those who are at the edges who betray/poison
Whiteness [e.g., the Jews].
- Non-Whites; the "rising tide of Colour" which threatens not only
Whites, but all higher humanity with Extinction!

Pale and wan, like men deceas'd.
[Arnold, Balder Dead]

We cannot create the Ubermensch unless White Aristocratic rule with
its attendant Master Morailty is restored in the coming War that is
the Revaluation of all Values!

Take up the White Man's Burden.


I beseech you all once more to (re)establish the White ORDER of Rank!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Triad

For me, Land, Blood and Kulture are all of equal and vital importance.
Like much in the Lore, this is a Triad.
Each 'wall' of the triad must be of equal strength.





If you diminish one at the expense of the others [or the others at the expense of one] then you dilute the totality and put the whole balance of the triad out.


Likewise, if you have the wrong land with the wrong blood or the wrong culture etc., then you have a monstrosity or an absurdity [or else something very liberal and 'multicultural' and 'diverse'].


The modern world wants to equalise everything into an 'anything goes' mentality which would have sickened our ancestors, who actually fought to the death to preserve the proper balance of land, blood and culture - and indeed, they drenched their own soil in their own blood in order to save their own culture.


National boundaries are rarely purely along tribal lines [although I'm not sure why you put heathen in quotes].


But the real question is this:


Does Anglo-Saxon heathenism extend beyond tribal boundaries?

The word tribe is interesting as it is based on the Latin for 'thirds', and I am suggesting that the three terms Land>Blood>Culture are an encompassing triad which needs to have internal balance.

The word 'tribe' can be used loosely [as is common in the 'modern world']; however, I like to aim for some precision and distinction.

The following dictionary definitions have;http://dictionary.reference.com/

Tribe:1. any aggregate of people united by ties of descent from a common ancestor, community of customs and traditions, adherence to the same leaders, etc.
2. a local division of an aboriginal people.
3. a division of some other people.
4. a class or type of animals, plants, articles, or the like.
5. Animal Husbandry. a group of animals, esp. cattle, descended through the female line from a common female ancestor.
6. Biology. a. a category in the classification of organisms usually between a subfamily and a genus or sometimes between a suborder and a family.
b. any group of plants or animals.
7. a company, group, or number of persons.
8. a class or set of persons, esp. one with strong common traits or interests.
9. a large family.
10. Roman History. a. any one of three divisions of the people representing the Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan settlements.
b. any of the later political divisions of the people.
11. Greek History. a phyle.

[From Latin tribus tribe, orig., each of the three divisions of the Roman people]

I have emphasised meanings 1 and 2 as they are - as their order suggests - the most precise in terms of the context we are using the word in.
Therefore tribe comes under the aspect of Blood in our triad.

'Tribal boundaries' then means Blood Boundaries.

However, as I have indicated, each aspect of the triad must support the other; so that we see in definition 1. that a tribe must share the same Culture.
Also, in definition 2. we see that a tribe must be aboriginal* - and this relates squarely to the Land and so completes our triad.

[*Aborigine: 1. one of the original or earliest known inhabitants of a country or region.]


The various Germanic tribes as described by Tacitus for example, were all very close and obviously evolved from out of a nucleus of Germanic peoples in prehistoric times. They were tribal branches of the great Germanic Theod [hence their shared blood-ties, shared tongue and shared gods].

This gives us a clear way to think about Blood and Culture.

Secondly, as a race of explorers and conquerors, the Germanic peoples will of course, come to other lands which they will make their own. However, we must always be ever mindful of the great sacred sites of our aboriginal homeland and make pilgrimages there and make sure that it is secured for the Folk into eternity and never humilitated by alien desecration.

Thirdly, then; you can see that I am not concentrating on one section, but on the three walls of the eternal triad of Theodism; walls that must be ever strengthened, not weakened by liberal and modern 'ideas'.

In my view the tradition insists that self-identity should be tribal.


This is preferred because the word tribe actually contains three important meanings within one word.


Tribe refers to Blood [i.e., to people of a common descent]; tribe refers to Land [i.e., an aboriginal people]; and tribe refers to Culture [i.e. a people of common beliefs, language and loyalties].


Tribe is all three rolled into one and so is a very complete picture of personal identity [whereas Race, Nation, Family, Religion etc., capture only a single or perhaps dual aspect].


This gives us great clarity in my view.


We are first and foremost tribal.


If we are not tribal then we are not Theodists!

Does anyone know what the Old English term for "racist" was, so that we can talk over this point in Englisc?


I think that the term "racism" [and its cognates 'racist' and 'anti-racist'] was invented by the left wing [or "left-win"] in order to discredit traditionalist and Folkish movements in the hope of creating the left-wing utopia of a materialist, anti-spiritual, and communist coffee-colored world.


Unless there is an Old English equivalent, I am tempted to call the whole notion meaningless and irrelevant to the Folkish struggle.
Let the enemies of the Folk worry about it.

According to Sweet, the Old English word for "race" is theod [as in Engla-theod]!

Sweet has theod mean - in various contexts - : nation, race, Gentiles, people, men; country; language.

Be proud to be a theod-ist!


---------------------------------------

Secrecy

It seems to me that secrecy is an important aspect of the tradition.

Whenever Woden walks the ways of Middle Earth,
He goes in disguise.
Clearly he wants some to know him and others not to know him.
Grim means masked.

The function of a mask is to hide the face, or to change it so that it is unrecognisable.

Similarly, the Armanen have secrets which are not available to all of the Folk.


Likewise, the runes are mysteries ['rune' means 'mystery' or 'secret'], and Guido von List wrote a book called 'the secrets of the runes'.


The word whispered in Balder's ear is secret unto men.


The doings of Asgard are not open to all the nine worlds.


The multiverse is a web of the hidden, the obscured and the clear - eternally shifting.


What is beneficial to some may not be benficial to others.


So it is not secrecy that is wrong - it is who is being secret. If our enemies are secretive, then we don't like it - of course. But this is not to say secrecy is bad - that throws the baby out with the bath-water. And anyone who thinks they can survive - in any walk of life - without keeping some things secret is naive in my view.
Life on Middle Earth will always be a struggle - there will always be enemies, both within and without.
And as I say, the tradition does not decry secrecy as such - indeed, it positively encourages it amongst the gods.


-----------------------

The Odin Brotherhood

This book, The Odin Brotherhood, is actually a very good read. I know it has been around for a while, but I have only just got around to reading it, and I am glad that I did.


Most importantly it links the Nietzschean philosophy [although Nietzsche is not mentioned therein] with that of the Eddas, and so gives us a startlingly effective Germanic Philosophy and Worldview in a very concise form.


To quote some excerpts:


"Time is an endless circle in which all possible destinies are repeated forever ... All that will happen has happened, and all that has happened will happen again ... the gods are characters in a vast drama that is replayed over and over on a cosmic scale ... The future must be a return to the past. It is 'The Law-of-the-Endless Cycle' ..."
[The Odin Brotherhood, M.L. Mirabello, Mandrake of Oxford 2003 p. 106]


Obvious comparison here with Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of the Same.


"Nature, in its various forms, has always existed. No god created it ... In the infinitude that is nature, innumerable universes are succesively produced and destroyed by periodic convulsions. Our universe is only one of many. Like all such universes, ours was formed from the wreckage of the previous cosmos ..." [ib. p. 43]


Likewise we are reminded above of The Will to Power.


A very straightforward parallel is invited with Nietzsche's Perspectivism here:


"Everything is perspective ... Consider a dove. To a man that bird is an exquisite, benevolent, and inoffensive creature. But to a worm that is mangled and devoured by that selfsame bird, the dove is a depraved monster of unparalled cruelty ..." [ib. p. 97]


There are many such comparisons throughout; also the book makes the claim that the Odin Brotherhood is a secret society that has remained intact since the 15th century.


Link:
http://www.runes-for-health-wealth-l...wikipedia.html




ODIN-BROTHERHOOD-WIKIPEDIA




The Odin Brotherhood is a secret society dating back to the fifteenth century that practices the ancient Germanic warrior religion now called Odinism. Members of the Brotherhood use the Eddaic Verses, also called the Poetic Edda, as a kind of scripture.






Members claim their pagan order was established in 1421 to protect the ancient religion during the persecution of the "Burning Times", and they insist it has existed in unbroken lineage to the present. If the claim is accurate, the Odin Brotherhood resembles the Tariquat, the secret brotherhoods in Islam that sustain the traditions underground in times of intense persecution.


In its current form, membership in the Odin Brotherhood is clandestine–as in the so-called Illuminati. The objectives of the Odin Brotherhood are stated publically, as in the legendary Rosicrucian's.Secret societies are still illegal in some countries. As Nick Harding points out in Secret Societies, for example, they are forbidden by the constitution of Poland.




Discovery and exposure of the Brotherhood today




Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism





Notable Advocates


Odin-Brotherhood-Wikipidea


Guido von List · Karl Spiesberger


Freya Aswynn · Andrea M. (Nebel) Haugen


Siegfried Adolf Kummer · Friedrich Bernhard Marby


Karl Maria Wiligut · Lanz von LiebenfelsHeimgest · Stephen E. Flowers · Ludwig Straniak


A. Frank Glahn · Peryt Shou · Nigel Pennick


Rudolf John Gorsleben · Werner von Bulow


Else Christensen · Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson


Alexander Rud Mills · E. Max Hyatt (Edred Wodanson)


Valgard Murray · Aleister Crowley


Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky


Adolf Schleipfer






Organizations




Odinic Rite · Odin Brotherhood

Asatru Folk Assembly · Armanen-Orden


Tempelhofgesellschaft. · Thule society


Vril Society · Ahnenerbe · Artgemeinschaft








Philosophies






Odin-Brotherhood

Nietzscheanism


Nazi mysticism


Theozoology · Ariosophy · Armanism


Runic Astrology · Völkisch movement · Pendulum


Astrology · Divination · Runic divination · Magick


Ouija · Sami religion · Neopaganism


Chaos magick










Sacred Places




White Horse Stone · Stone Circles · Stonehenge


Irminsul · Externsteine · Teutoburg Forest


Trollkyrka








Symbols




Black Sun · Fylfot · Swastika · Runes


Sig Rune · Sigel · Tiwaz rune · Algiz


Unicursal Hexagram · Armanen Runes












Sacred Texts




Havamal


Edda








Books




The Book of Blotar · The Odin Brotherhood

The Occult Roots of Nazism · The Secret King


Unholy Alliance · Reveal the Power of the Pendulum


Black Sun · Occult Reich · Zodiac and Swastika


Gods of the Blood · Invisible Eagle · Pagan Resurrection










The Odin Brotherhood's first expose into the general public came to light in 1992 with the publication of the book 'The Odin Brotherhood' by Professor Mark L. Mirabello, who is the professor of European History at Shawnee State University.


First contact was made when Mirabello encountered a silver-haired gentleman in a bookshop in Leith in Scotland while conducting doctoral research in history at Scotland's University of Glasgow.




The gentleman, whom called himself Lodur's Friend (in honour of the enigmatic god of the Eddaic Verses), was of eastern European ethnicity and was holding, according to Mirabello, a peculiar cane adorned with the images of the serpent and the ass, the two animals that speak in the bible. Both were examining occult books. The gentleman noticed that Mirabello was studying a book called the 'The Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross' by Arthur Edward Waite. During this encounter the gentleman pointed out that "The rose symbolizes secrecy" while pointing to an engraving in Mirabello's book on the Rosy Cross. The gentleman went on to say that "Since we speak sub rosa or 'under the rose', our discussion must remain forever secret."




The man asked Mirabello several details about his life to which the man responded to response pointing out "meaningful coincidences". See 'A Statement on the Odin Brotherhood' by Dr. Mark L. Mirabello for more details on these "meaningful coincidences".




Several months passed before Mirabello saw the old man again, which occurred at the Atlantis Bookshop [1], an occult emporium near the British Museum in London, England.


"Blind loyalty is a virtue in a dog, but it is an offense in a human being" declared the stranger, when he noticed Mirabello studying an obscure essay on faith.




Mirabello has stated that since he was interested in the stranger's knowledge they became friends and that they began to meet for dinner, usually in Edinburgh or London, at which time the stranger introduced him to a "circle of fascinating individuals". This gathering of friends for a meal (which only dined at night, during the time of the new moon), referred to itself as a conventicle, was by invitation only, and those that 'feared' or 'hated' authority were excluded. Mirabello states that those that 'laughed at' authority were welcome. The meals always adjourned before dawn.




Some years after the publication of Mirabello's book, the anonymous and privately printed Teachings of the Odin Brotherhood began to circulate. Copies of the latter are rare.






Theology, devotion, and ethics




Although Odinism never became extinct—hundreds of millions of people have honored the Eddaic pantheon (in its Vedic form) in the Indian subcontinent since Neolithic times--some scholars classify the movement as a neopagan revival.




Initiation into the Odin Brotherhood–which only occurs at the solstices–involves a diet of bread and ice, a dagger, a sacred fire, and small incisions on the body. From the beginning, the movement–in spite of its name–has included women.The Odin Brotherhood embraces polytheism. The gods, who include Odin, Thor, Frigga, Heimdallr, Baldur, Bragi, Vidar, Tyr, Freyja, and the other Æsir and Vanir beings in the Norse pantheon, are viewed as powerful entities that are finite in nature. Humanoid in shape--neither omnipotent nor omniscient--the gods are physical beings that inhabit hidden corridors in the universe. Often appearing on earth in disguise, they are known by many names in many languages. Odin, for example, appears also as Hermes and Rudra.










Believing in direct contact with the gods, the Odin Brotherhood teaches that the deities typically communicate with humanity through a system of "messengers and spies."




Devotionally, members of the Odin Brotherhood do not worship the gods on their knees. Refusing to be slaves, Odinists admire the gods but do not grovel before them.








Ethically, the Odin Brotherhood creates no laws, only virtues. It glorifies “thought, courage, honor, light, and beauty.” The Odin Brotherhood represents strength over weakness, pride over humility, and knowledge over faith.




A tradition for warriors, the Odin Brotherhood teaches that "when the gods made man, they made a weapon."










Death and afterlife




The Odin Brotherhood teaches that all beings ultimately experience death. In poetic terms, death is personified as beautiful females--called the valkyries--who exist "in an endless variety of exquisite forms."




Since death is not annihilation, the "transfigured life form" will go to one of three Other-Worlds. The most famous of these "Other-Worlds" is Valhalla.




In cosmic terms, death is described as Ragnarök, the final battle which destroys every universe. According to the Odin Brotherhood, Ragnarök is an "orgy of purification" from which a new cosmos is born. The cycle of destruction and rebirth--which will go on forever--is called the "Law-of-the-Endless-Circle."


Also called the eternal return, the "Law-of-the-Endless-Circle" teaches that existence never ends with destruction. “Nothing dies forever,” and all beings—and all things—will return.

Free Speech

'Oxford liberals stumped by free speech' - a headline inspired by the decision of the Oxford Union Society in November 2007 to hold a debate on 'free speech'. That the headline came from India's National Newspaper, 'The Hindu', demonstrates the debate's worldwide media impact (1). And this because two of the invited speakers to that debate - the historian David Irving and Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party [BNP] - are associated with unacceptable or controversial opinions, that of 'Holocaust denial' and 'fascism', respectively. The Oxford Union was "founded in 1823 as a forum for discussion and debate at a time when the free exchange of ideas was a notion foreign to the restrictive University authorities." (2) It should be mentioned that the Oxford Union is independent of Oxford University and its Student's Union, and "unlike other student unions, the Oxford Union holds no political views", but rather "believes first and foremost in freedom of speech", while its "guiding principles" are "diversity and outspokenness" (ibid.) Harold Macmillan had described the Union as "the last bastion of free speech in the Western world" (1), and yet when David Irving was invited to speak at the Union six years before on the motion 'this house would restrict the free speech of extremists', the debate was - somewhat ironically - cancelled. (3) At that time The Association of University Teachers threatened "to call for an academic boycott of the Union both in this country and from amongst the academic community and other trade unions throughout the world." (4) However, in November 2007 the Union held firm to its "guiding principles" in the face of similar pressure - which included the much-publicised resignation of the Conservative MP Julian Lewis from the Union in protest. (5) On the evening of the debate itself, noisy and 'abusive' demonstrations were held at the Union, while some protestors actually invaded the debating chamber in order to stop the debate. This forced the organisers to move Irving and Griffin into separate rooms for their own protection. (1) The Holocaust is defined by its advocates as "the systematic policy of genocide launched by the Nazis against the Jews during the Second World War." (6) 'Holocaust denial' is therefore regarded by the same as a form of 'historical revisionism' that "underplays or actually denies Nazi crimes" (7), and claims that the Holocaust was "scientifically and logically impossible ... accusing those who offer documentary proof that it took place of being 'establishment historians' bent on fabricating a legend" (8). While such Holocaust revisionists and deniers will claim they are merely searching for historical truth, their more outspoken critics say, that "those who deny the Holocaust today do so because they wish to repeat it" (9) In his book Hitler's War [1977], Irving "explicitly denies" that Hitler "gave the order for" the Holocaust, and "manipulates evidence to suggest that over-zealous henchmen such as Himmler organised the exterminations behind his back" (10) The same charge - this time in court - was upheld in 2000 by Mr. Justice Gray when Irving took out a libel case against an author who described him as an "Holocaust denier" (11). In 2006, Irving was jailed for a year in Vienna for denying in a speech that "Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews" (12). On each occasion, Irving claimed that it was always "a question of free speech" (11), (12), and at the Oxford Union in 2007, he stated that "freedom of speech is too important not to defend ... [as it] means the right to be wrong sometimes". Adding - "John Stuart Mill put it so much better." (13) It was no accident that Irving invoked Mill - but would Mill have agreed with Irving, or with the Viennese court who jailed him? Before going on, let us look briefly at the issue of fascism itself, as Holocaust denial is often regarded as an apologia for fascism. However, what is 'fascism'? Griffin's BNP has a "programme based primarily on hostility to immigration" (14). But is otherwise - it would say - a patriotic party, which firmly believes in democratic, values [including free speech]. Its critics, though, insist that there is a 'hidden agenda' here - a 'crypto-fascism.' This "refers to movements that have adopted broader right-wing or even conservative public images, while concealing a darker and fascist-like mode of operation ... These parties appeal to respectable middle-class conservatives with nationalist or traditionalist themes but also show tendencies toward violence, thuggishness and ambiguity about past fascist crimes as a palliative for their more hardcore followers." (15) The problem with the word 'fascist' is that it has become rather imprecise - and perhaps it always was. Writing in 1937, Shaw said, "there is nothing new in Fascism ... Julius Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon ... are the bygone Fascist leaders ..." (16) In 1933, the Communist International defined Fascism as "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of finance capital." (17) And yet many of the key figures in fascism - not least Mussolini and Hitler - "were socialists in their youth or claimed that their ideology was a form of socialism." (18) More importantly for our discussion, post 1945 the term 'fascism' has been used carelessly and inaccurately as "a pejorative term of abuse directed at people who are conservative, right-wing or authoritarian in the traditional sense. It can be used even more widely to refer to simply disagreeable people or opinions." (19) Let us return to Mill (1806-73), who even as a youth was an agitator for free expression. Some polemical letters and articles he wrote to newspapers and journals when he was between the ages of 16 and 19 years show uncompromising views we can relate to the debate: "Whatever might be the evils of freedom, they could not be worse than the evils of restraint." (20) Even if Irving and Griffin were as 'evil' as their detractors suggest, it would be a worse evil to restrict them, as "there is no medium between perfect freedom of expressing opinion, and absolute despotism." (21) And if Irving and Griffin are wrong on the Holocaust and on immigration, even here "false opinions must be tolerated for the sake of the true." (22) As for the ignominy of being a 'fascist', or a 'denier', Mill notes that 'despots' often try to "vilify" those they wish to oppress. (23) And when it comes to deciding who can and cannot speak in a debate, who are we to judge? "It is obvious that there is no certain and universal rule for determining whether an opinion is useful or pernicious; and that if any person be authorised to decide, unfettered by such a rule, that person is a despot." (24) Furthermore, "the evils incurred by permitting any person or persons to choose opinions for the people are evils of the greatest magnitude." (25) Mill was to maintain these core beliefs, refining them in the mature work, On Liberty (1859), a classic of libertarian philosophy. Mill sets out his position in the first chapter as "one very simple principle ... that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the ability of action of any of their number ... against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (26) This is restated in the last chapter as "the two maxims which together form the entire doctrine of this essay ... first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself ... Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment if society is of opinion that one or the other is requisite for its protection." (27) How should the limitation of "harm" apply to 'free expression'? It seems that Mill assigns it to the realm of actions at one end of the scale, while to the realm of thought at the other, it does not apply: "the appropriate region of human liberty ... comprises ... the inward domain of consciousness, demanding ... liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects." (28) So where does Mill locate the kind of 'freedom of expression' we are concerned with here - i.e., the expressing of controversial views at an organised debating forum? Clearly, he places such expression in the 'region of human liberty', it "being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself -" (ibid.) - "Liberty of Thought, from which it is impossible to separate the cognate liberty of speaking and writing." (29) While Mill is undoubtedly right to connect expression intimately with thought, it is hard to see how he cannot make a similarly intimate connection between expression and action. It is on this putative disconnection that he is able to limit the "harm" principle to actions alone. He would either seemingly deny that publications are able to influence the actions of people, or else he would regard those who are influenced by the words of others - to cause harm, for example - as weak and irresponsible, and so not allow them to use such supposed influence as an excuse for their own actions. This underlines Mill's view of the individual as an autonomous being [see the third chapter of On Liberty, 'Of Individuality as One of the Elements of Well-Being', passim], and which allows him to say that "there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." (30) On this basis, Mill would surely be on the side of the Oxford Union. Now let us look more closely at the protestor's arguments. They work under a broad umbrella concept they call 'No Platform', which policy "means excluding fascists from all debate." Moreover, if "fascists" are given a "public forum" by anyone else, then "other political parties and organisations should refuse to share it with them." The reason for this is that "fascists hold such detestable and disgusting beliefs, most people feel they cannot bring themselves to have dialogue with them." (31) But to Mill such an "attempt to exercise control would produce other evils," (32) and not only that, "but the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation - those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it." (33) For it is possible that the opinion could be right - and this brings in one of Mill's main reasons against the prohibition of free speech, that of human fallibility, which would surely lead him to reject a dogmatic position like 'No Platform' : "all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." (34) Human beings are fallible creatures who need to subject their opinions to constant discussion if they are to achieve knowledge and correct their mistakes. (35) Mill would regard the refusal of a forum as barbarous; indeed, he thinks that we compare badly with the ancient Greeks when it comes to the art of discussion, as the moderns " have lost those they formerly had ... [the] Socratic dialectics, so magnificently exemplified in the dialogues of Plato." (36) Socrates - one of the central figures in On Liberty - who "finally gave his life for his principles when, put on trial on a charge of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens, he refused to renounce." (37) The protestors describe "Fascism as an ideology ... inherently opposed to free speech," (31) and "call on the Oxford Union to withdraw its invitation to Griffin and Irving to speak and replace them with people who actually support freedom of speech instead." (9) Notwithstanding the rather paradoxical nature of that "call", it would make a deidedly one-sided debate! As Mill states, "if opponents of all-important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up." (38) No Platform "believes its policy denies fascists the opportunity to gain political credibility. If the BNP is allowed to share a stage with Labour, Conservatives, Liberal-Democrats and other responsible political parties, they will be seen as a legitimate alternative." (31) Nevertheless, Mill thinks that minority views need to be preserved: "if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." (39) In direct contrast, the protestors claim, "it would be impossible for the UK to develop as a multicultural and free society while the views of people like Mr. Irving were offered refuge by important institutions like the Union." (4) We might make a comparison here with Mill's defence of Mormonism, "this polygamous community", which to its critics seemed to be "a retrograde step in civilization." Mill scorns such talk, opining that only a civilization that had "become so degenerate" could be damaged by the "Mormonite doctrine" - and "if this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better." (40) By a similar Millian token, multiculturalism must be healthy enough to withstand the presence of an Irving speaking at the Oxford Union! The one argument of 'No Platform' that seems to offer a serious pause to libertarian thought is that of 'racist attacks', as it clearly appeals to the aforementioned Millian notion of 'harm': "Wherever the BNP is active, racist attacks and other hate crimes increase ... it is unacceptable to expose students and staff to the possibility of attacks and to give a platform ... to Griffin and Irving." (41) However, on closer inspection, it applies to BNP "activity" - i.e., their political campaigning, marches etc., - and not to Griffin speaking at the Union. In other words, it applies not to free expression, but to political activism and action. To Mill, Griffin should be able to speak freely on immigration, for example, in debate, but should he lead a group of supporters, chanting anti-immigrant slogans through an immigrant area, then he might be "controlled". Mill makes a concrete example that can serve as a parallel: "No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts, of whatever kind, which without justifiable cause do harm to others may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled." (42) For Mill, "freedom of opinion and expression" is "necessary" to the "mental well-being of mankind." Truth is also served, as incomplete truths can only be completed by on-going discussion, whilst truths - which are not open to the same rigour - can become dead dogmas, and the dogmatic adherence to truth can actually vitiate it. (43) All this will serve "utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being." (44) A type of being perhaps only previously glimpsed in the example of Socrates, that martyr to free speech - a mantle which policies like No Platform surely hands in this example to Griffin and Irving. NOTES & REFERENCES (1) Hasan Suroor, 2007, Oxford liberals stumped by free speech [online] The Hindu. Available at: http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/08/stories/2007120853501300.htm [Accessed 12 July 2008] (2) The Oxford Union Official Website. About Us [online] Available at: URL:http://www.oxford-union.org/about_us [Accessed 12 July 2008] (3) BBC News: Oxford drops Hitler historian debate [online] Weds 9 May 2001, 17:30 GMT. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1321775.stm [Accessed 12 July 2008] (4) BBC News: Oxford Union in Hitler historian row [online] Friday 4 May 2001, 10:12 GMT. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1312212.stm [Accessed 12 July 2008] (5) BBC News: Union debate row speakers arrive [online] Monday 26 November 2007, 19:17 GMT [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7112480.stm [Accessed 12 July 2008] (6) Davies & Lynch p. 294 (7) ib., p. 293 (8) Griffin p. 314 (9) Unite Against Fascism: No Platform for Fascists in Oxford Union. 05/11/07 [online] Available at: http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=71105 [Accessed 12 July 2008] (10) Griffin pp. 335-6 (11) BBC News: Hitler historian loses libel case. Tuesday 11 April 2004, 14:17 GMT [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709128.stm [Accessed 12 July 2008] (12) BBC News: Holocaust denier Irving is jailed. Monday 20 February 2006, 20:19 GMT [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm [Accessed 12 July 2008] (13) David Irving, Focal Point Publications 2007: Transcript of speech at Oxford Union [online] Available at: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/11/Oxford_Union_transcript.html [Accessed 12 July 2008] (14) Davies & Lynch p. 260 (15) Ib., p. 5 (16) The Intelligent Woman's Guide To Socialism etc., Vol 2, Bernard Shaw, Pelican 1937 p. 442 (17) Griffin p. 263 (18) Davies & Lynch p. 6 (19) Ib., p. 2 (20) Mill [1959] p. 109, The Westminster Review, April 1825 (21) Ib., p. 108 (22) Ib., p. 119 (23) Ib., p. 113 (24) Ib., p. 108 (25) Ib., p. 42, The Morning Chronicle, January 1823 (26) Mill [1859] p. 68 (27) Ib., p. 163 (28) Ib., p. 71 (29) Ib., p. 74 (30) Ib., p. 75 (31) N.U.S.: No Platform [online] Available at: URL:http://www.nusonline.co.uk/campaigns/antiracismantifascism/11534.aspx [Accessed 12 July 2008] (32) Mill [1859], p. 70 (33) Ib., p. 76 (34) Ib., p. 77 (35) Ib., p. 80 (36) Ib., p. 106 (37) Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Mautner, Penguin 1997 p. 528 (38) Mill [1859] p. 99 (39) Ib., p. 76 (40) Ib., pp. 161-2 (41) N.U.S. On Line: NUS comments on the possibility that David Irving and Nick Griffin may speak at Oxford. 10/10/2007 [online] Available at: http://www.nusonline.co.uk/news/274787.aspx [Accessed 12 July 2008] (42) Mill [1859] p. 119 (43) Ib., pp. 115-6 (44) Ib., p. 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY Davies, P. and Lynch, D. [2002] Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge Griffin, R. ed. [1995] Oxford Readers, Fascism. OUP Mill, J.S. [1959] Prefaces to Liberty: Selected writings of John Stuart Mill, ed. Wishey. Beacon Press Mill, J.S. [1859] On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, Penguin 1974, ------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcript of David Irving's speech to the Oxford Union, November 26, 2007
[ALLOTTED a ten-minute time to speak, Mr Irving began by introducing himself, and went on to emphasize the importance of the written word. He proceeded to give an example of the power of the Word: In the 1980s he had researched several times in communist Hungary, a country still behind the Iron Curtain, at that time, and interviewed Miklos Vásárhelyi, one of the ministers in the doomed anti-Soviet Uprising of Imre Nagy in Hungary in 1956. Curious about what had motivated Vásárhelyi, who had spent years in prison as a communist, and would now spend more years jailed as a revolutionary, Mr Irving has asked him what had moved him to take such a mortal risk with his own life, and the lives of his family. A member of the audience seated forty or fifty feet away now switched on a camera phone and recorded the rest of the presentation. The resulting sound track is briefly obliterated by the chanting from outside the building. ]
DAVID IRVING: … his entire family and their lives. "What was it that persuaded you to take your life in your hands and join the uprising, the revolutionaries?" And he said, "Mr Irving, I read a book." Of course I asked what that book was that he had read, and he said, "It was George Orwell's Animal Farm".
Now, I have read that book, and most of you have probably read it too. You don't understand… The way that Orwell wrote it, you don't know whether it's fascists or Nazis or communists too. It is "cross-platform," that book. It doesn't target any particular group or ideology. It's against dictatorship. It's against repression. It's against the people who say, "Some are more equal than others."
Well, I've been more unequal than others in the field of writing books in the field of historians.
I started writing books in 1963. My very first book was a best seller. I've written thirty books since then. In fact last night I had a dream that I was in a ski lift -- this is true -- rising up into the mountains and beneath me were the titles of all my books, and I could see ahead the three books that are still to come, I suppose, before I die: The third volume of my Churchill Biography - the third volume of my Churchill Biography! How many of you even know that I have written volumes one and two. My Himmler biography. A biography of Heinrich Himmler, the mass murderer who thought ... [drowned in chants from outside]. An interesting question: what did he know, what did he tell Adolf Hitler? Who was responsible?
These are questions which I have researched in depth for the last ten or fifteen years.
The book will probably never be published, because I am "more unequal" than the other historians, because of the networking of the people who have paid for the demonstrators outside, who paid for the coaches to bring them here from across the country.
These coaches cost money. Who put up the money for the coaches to bring demonstrators here to Oxford today, to try and stop us speaking? Ask yourself these questions!
Then again, we have brave people in this country, like Mr. Michael Howard, who was Home Secretary of this country at the time when the question of "Holocaust Denial" laws were raised in Europe. The thirteen, then, ministers of the tnterior for Europe, all voted in favour, except for one, and that was Michael Howard. He said England is a free country, and historians and writers must be allowed to research, and write, and publish what they find to be true, without fear of the law.
Let us be ...[word lost in chanting]. A year ago, two years ago November the eleventh two thousand and five, I was on a motorway in Austria. I had been unable to address the University of Austria students in Vienna, on a very interesting subject. The subject was in fact, the negotiations between Adolf Eichmann and Joel Brand, and the British, uh, role of the British code breakers, who were following these extraordinary negotiations between Adolf Eichmann, the mass murderer, and Joel Brand, a leader of the Jewish community in Budapest; and we British, British Intelligence, were following what was going on [six words lost] to speak to that student body. [Several words lost.]
I drove south, towards Italy, to try and get out of Austria on time, because Austria is a dictatorship again, very similar to the Nazis in fact now. Similar ...
Within two hours my car was stopped on the motorway, and eight policemen jumped out, and held their nine-millimeter Glock automatics to my head, and I spent the next four hundred days in solitary confinement in a prison in Vienna -- which is why I limped from the bench over to here just now: being in solitary confinement twenty four hours a day, you don't get the exercise that your muscles demand.
But I still refuse to be bowed, and am not going to write what they want me to write. I will write what I find in the archives, and I will try and publish what I find in the archives, and my enemies will continue to try and stop me.
Not because it's a Jewish matter. It isn't &endash; and with respect to the previous speaker [Evan Harris], whose talk I greatly admired: I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said -- it isn't a Jewish matter. What people don't like about what I write about history is what concerns me as an Englishman.


I WAS born in 1938 into a great world empire. We saw that empire frittered away in a useless war, and I am convinced as a historian, from the records that I have read in Germany, and in Britain, that Britain was never at risk. We could have got out of the war cheaply in 1940. We could have accepted what was ... offered to us, had we wanted to, and there would have been no Holocaust, because it happened after 1940! The selfish British politicians decided to fight on, and the records show it quite clearly. The records of the German Naval Staff, the Naval High Command, the records of the British Public Record Office in Kew, show this beyond a shadow of doubt.
Well I've got the right to publish that. I published it in my Hitler biography, Hitler's War, I published it in the Churchill biography; people don't like this, because they don't like being told that World War Two, was a journey we shouldn't have taken. In World War Two the posters on the wall said, "Is your journey really necessary?"
We were bankrupt on the fifth of December 1940, when we were fighting in a war that damaged only Britain, and benefited only the United States.
And this was a very, very great shame, because I personally am proud of what we British did around the world - the Empire that we built over so many years.







[Mr. Tryl murmurs something]


I've been directed by the President to bring my remarks back to the motion being debated. The point I am making is that I am prevented from publishing these facts, which are so unpalatable to the English now, because it doesn't suit certain groups of people. It's not "the Jews," it's nothing to do with them, it's the establishment of this country, and the establishment has had it in for me for the last four decades.
Go to the Public Record Office, and you can see the records that are now coming out under the thirty-year rule, how they tried to have me arrested, and prosecuted, and put in prison, even in this country too.
Freedom of speech is too important not to defend. But as the previous speaker said, it must be hemmed in with certain conditions, and certain allowances. We mustn't confuse liberty with license -- Liberty with license. Liberty is important, that's what has to be defended -- Liberty for people like me to tell you things which aren't palatable.
Freedom of speech means the right to be wrong, sometimes. Because, when you see other people being wrong, then you realize what is right. And if you prevent other people from making mistakes, or propagating views that may be wrong, and even unpalatable to you, then you can not satisfy yourself about what is right -- John Stuart Mill put it so much better that I did -- and we have to have libel laws within that liberty to pursue people who use that liberty deliberately to smear.
The journalists, who are what I call Schmierfinken, using the German word, the Schmierfinken, [two words obliterated by audience cough], they say "David Irving the Holocaust Denier" -- but they've stopped saying it again now, they're more cautious and say "Holocaust Revisionist." Okay, a Holocaust Revisionist.
You don't have to buy the whole package. You're entitled to open it up at some point, [two words], and you must be free to read it and make up your own mind. The freedom to make up your own mind is as important as is the right for us to be able to speak freely, and the people outside would do anything to prevent us from speaking freely.
I wish I could invite them in, so that they too could join in and come back at me with their counter-arguments. Of course their minds are closed. It's shocking. They can't debate, they can't argue.
Every time they try to prevent me from entering a country -- the university of Rome, the countries around the world where I am now banned: in Australia, I can't even visit my own children and grandchildren in Australia; I can't visit Canada; I can't visit Germany; I can't go to Austria now -- every time that happens, I regard it as another victory! Its a victory, because it proves that in that country there is nobody ... somebody who hasn't shaken his own [word lost], somebody who's shaken the hands of all the members of Hitler's and Churchill's staff and done the primary research the way that I have.
Other historians hate me, because I have done the work that they haven't.
I must be free to publish and print, and research, and write, and distribute the truth, as I find it to be.







[Luke Tryl indicates to speaker to finish there]David Irving: Thank you very much.


[No recording is yet available of the lengthy question and answer session that followed]
Transcript: Dave Catleugh