All-Father, I feel you stirring the flock of the stagnant!

Stir, O Master of Winds : let a fresh breeze blow!

How cower the timid in a storm ; how fresh the fresh blast

Of gust in the blow of men that fires the inspiration!

Lift the too-long-staid to whirl within the wild mob,

And find upon their feet the fleeting wind of wisdom!

Errors made within the midst of rising up

May sure be cured within the rile of mobilization!

Standing still is not a life ; the crowd invokes a mobile tribe

That mocks the stolid giants, truer looters,

From whom stealing is but recompense.

Wod-Wielder, ward this upgust mob

To find its inner wisdom, sort the grain from chaff,

Set fire to the giants’ burgs, and not their fellow villagers!

Someday, like a sprouting grain, the gain

Of free associations, guilds again, shall Frodi-welcome

Back, and chase the giant thieves away! For now,

Let Robin Hood be life to stir

The wod you wield to lift the weight of dead stagnation!

Whenever I see a riot, something alive stirs inside me. My ancient tribe was a riled kind, who found their breath not in still air, but in wild gust, and pledged storm against the stagnant. It is all too philistine to knee-jerk shake one's head and voice one's disapproval. One might even say cowardly, for so conformist ; timid, for refusing to stand out ; hypocritical, for a heathen, for our ancestors were raiders, with barbarian hearts, that seldom ceased to riot against the binding nets of towns, the web of graveyards and deathly stillness. One need not give all one's approval : yet let awaken some viking spirit that finds its life in living defiance!

And will one nod one’s head at talking heads who speak for Gullveig? Will one ape the voice of banks, and shake one’s finger, filthed within the ink that stains the fiat bills? Or will one see a fist upraised, a rising stalk of grain, that only lacks for guildship to become a chasing-out of giants? Someday such as these may sense their freemen solidarity, and with newfound wisdom fight back against the bankers’ minions and their pseudo-noble hosts! The Normans still stand on Saxon soil, but Robin claims all who come to the forest. May the fires light the way to freedom!

Can demons create? Do they put hateful ideas into the minds of criminals, writers, and other human agents? Or are evil and creativity fundamentally incompatible?

Can demons create? Do they put hateful ideas into the minds of criminals, writers, and other human agents? Or are evil and creativity fundamentally incompatible?

In reply to the preceding article, "Is Filianism a Real Religion", Lady Aquila writes: Religion does not have to be opposed to "this world". In traditional societies the religious perspective and that of society in general form an unbroken whole. The real point, as this article makes clear, is that current Western society is inherently non-religious if not anti-religious. It espouses a "philosophy" (pop-scientism) dedicated to explaining the world with no reference to its spiritual roots, and culturally it encourages - and enforces - a degree of coarseness, vulgarity and immorality that no genuinely religious person can participate in. This necessarily raises the question of so-called "role-play". Religious people, at least those like Filianists, who understand that coarseness is not "morally neutral" but that mental and verbal impurity is as damaging as physical filth (if not more so) are obliged to live and act in ways that are different from those of the surrounding culture. Filianists are by no means the only religious people in this position. Coarseness, sexual delinquency (and I am not talking about the "gay" question or any other minority question - I am talking about the mainstream), cynicism and harshness are deeply embedded in current Western culture at every level. A sincerely spiritual person cannot live in the manner of such a society: therefore, on some level, she has to opt out. Therefore she and her community of fellow believers necessarily engage in "role-play", if by that term you mean anything that is not "mainstream culture". The attack on "role-play" is really the self-policing of the mainstream's lackeys. The attack on "escapism" speaks for itself. Who regards "escape" as a crime? Why, the prison guards, of course.

In reply to the preceding article, "Is Filianism a Real Religion", Lady Aquila writes: Religion does not have to be opposed to "this world". In traditional societies the religious perspective and that of society in general form an unbroken whole. The real point, as this article makes clear, is that current Western society is inherently non-religious if not anti-religious. It espouses a "philosophy" (pop-scientism) dedicated to explaining the world with no reference to its spiritual roots, and culturally it encourages - and enforces - a degree of coarseness, vulgarity and immorality that no genuinely religious person can participate in. This necessarily raises the question of so-called "role-play". Religious people, at least those like Filianists, who understand that coarseness is not "morally neutral" but that mental and verbal impurity is as damaging as physical filth (if not more so) are obliged to live and act in ways that are different from those of the surrounding culture. Filianists are by no means the only religious people in this position. Coarseness, sexual delinquency (and I am not talking about the "gay" question or any other minority question - I am talking about the mainstream), cynicism and harshness are deeply embedded in current Western culture at every level. A sincerely spiritual person cannot live in the manner of such a society: therefore, on some level, she has to opt out. Therefore she and her community of fellow believers necessarily engage in "role-play", if by that term you mean anything that is not "mainstream culture". The attack on "role-play" is really the self-policing of the mainstream's lackeys. The attack on "escapism" speaks for itself. Who regards "escape" as a crime? Why, the prison guards, of course.

In reply to the preceding article, "Is Filianism a Real Religion", Lady Aquila writes: Religion does not have to be opposed to "this world". In traditional societies the religious perspective and that of society in general form an unbroken whole. The real point, as this article makes clear, is that current Western society is inherently non-religious if not anti-religious. It espouses a "philosophy" (pop-scientism) dedicated to explaining the world with no reference to its spiritual roots, and culturally it encourages - and enforces - a degree of coarseness, vulgarity and immorality that no genuinely religious person can participate in. This necessarily raises the question of so-called "role-play". Religious people, at least those like Filianists, who understand that coarseness is not "morally neutral" but that mental and verbal impurity is as damaging as physical filth (if not more so) are obliged to live and act in ways that are different from those of the surrounding culture. Filianists are by no means the only religious people in this position. Coarseness, sexual delinquency (and I am not talking about the "gay" question or any other minority question - I am talking about the mainstream), cynicism and harshness are deeply embedded in current Western culture at every level. A sincerely spiritual person cannot live in the manner of such a society: therefore, on some level, she has to opt out. Therefore she and her community of fellow believers necessarily engage in "role-play", if by that term you mean anything that is not "mainstream culture". The attack on "role-play" is really the self-policing of the mainstream's lackeys. The attack on "escapism" speaks for itself. Who regards "escape" as a crime? Why, the prison guards, of course.

A reader quotes a recent blogger on the view that the worship of Our Mother God "does not feel like a real religion". We examine this question.

A reader quotes a recent blogger on the view that the worship of Our Mother God "does not feel like a real religion". We examine this question.

A reader quotes a recent blogger on the view that the worship of Our Mother God "does not feel like a real religion". We examine this question.

"Mommy and I are one" is said to express the fundamental desire of the human heart. But is it a regression to childhood, or the innate presence of the first Faith - the worship of Our Mother God?

"Mommy and I are one" is said to express the fundamental desire of the human heart. But is it a regression to childhood, or the innate presence of the first Faith - the worship of Our Mother God?

"Mommy and I are one" is said to express the fundamental desire of the human heart. But is it a regression to childhood, or the innate presence of the first Faith - the worship of Our Mother God?

It is clear that “the good mother of early childhood” is not one’s actual mother. It is either an inbuilt intuition of the Divine Mother or an idealization of our own mothers that for some reason we all possess. Modern psychology, which is committed to explaining all things in terms compatible with a fully materialist universe, can only opt for the latter. However, whichever way one takes it, it is clear that there is no equivalent “good father of early childhood” hard-wired into the fundamental workings of the human psyche. It is surprising, then, that modern patriarchal academics are so hostile to all the evidence of the universality of the Religion of the Mother in ancient times. Even if one wishes to “psychologize away” religion as a phenomenon of the human mind, the historical primacy of Our Mother God is the only thesis that makes sense.
____ I find it fascinating that the phrase that emerged from this research was "Mommy and I are one". Union with Godhead is the aim of religion. From a humanist point of view the wish to re-merge with the Mother, to negate one's own individuality and move to a point of pre-separation would seem a very strange one. On the other hand, from the Filianist perspective, which sees our separation from the Mother as the fundamental problem of human existence: the real nature of "original sin". "Mommy and I are One" from a secular humanist standpoint can only be seen as a strange, world-denying wish for the individual non-existence that preceded our birth. From the Filianic perspective "Mommy and I are one" is a concise statement of the goal of the individual and, indeed of the cosmos, when all creatures shall return to Dea "even to the last blade of grass". So it is either a psychotic death-wish, or the supreme aim of the world's first Faith. It seems to be the root desire of the human mind, so it would seem to be that at its deepest level the mind is either mad - in the sense of wishing to negate its own existence - or devoted to Our Mother God. I would tend to believe the latter.

It is clear that “the good mother of early childhood” is not one’s actual mother. It is either an inbuilt intuition of the Divine Mother or an idealization of our own mothers that for some reason we all possess. Modern psychology, which is committed to explaining all things in terms compatible with a fully materialist universe, can only opt for the latter. However, whichever way one takes it, it is clear that there is no equivalent “good father of early childhood” hard-wired into the fundamental workings of the human psyche. It is surprising, then, that modern patriarchal academics are so hostile to all the evidence of the universality of the Religion of the Mother in ancient times. Even if one wishes to “psychologize away” religion as a phenomenon of the human mind, the historical primacy of Our Mother God is the only thesis that makes sense.
____ I find it fascinating that the phrase that emerged from this research was "Mommy and I are one". Union with Godhead is the aim of religion. From a humanist point of view the wish to re-merge with the Mother, to negate one's own individuality and move to a point of pre-separation would seem a very strange one. On the other hand, from the Filianist perspective, which sees our separation from the Mother as the fundamental problem of human existence: the real nature of "original sin". "Mommy and I are One" from a secular humanist standpoint can only be seen as a strange, world-denying wish for the individual non-existence that preceded our birth. From the Filianic perspective "Mommy and I are one" is a concise statement of the goal of the individual and, indeed of the cosmos, when all creatures shall return to Dea "even to the last blade of grass". So it is either a psychotic death-wish, or the supreme aim of the world's first Faith. It seems to be the root desire of the human mind, so it would seem to be that at its deepest level the mind is either mad - in the sense of wishing to negate its own existence - or devoted to Our Mother God. I would tend to believe the latter.

It is clear that “the good mother of early childhood” is not one’s actual mother. It is either an inbuilt intuition of the Divine Mother or an idealization of our own mothers that for some reason we all possess. Modern psychology, which is committed to explaining all things in terms compatible with a fully materialist universe, can only opt for the latter. However, whichever way one takes it, it is clear that there is no equivalent “good father of early childhood” hard-wired into the fundamental workings of the human psyche. It is surprising, then, that modern patriarchal academics are so hostile to all the evidence of the universality of the Religion of the Mother in ancient times. Even if one wishes to “psychologize away” religion as a phenomenon of the human mind, the historical primacy of Our Mother God is the only thesis that makes sense.
____ I find it fascinating that the phrase that emerged from this research was "Mommy and I are one". Union with Godhead is the aim of religion. From a humanist point of view the wish to re-merge with the Mother, to negate one's own individuality and move to a point of pre-separation would seem a very strange one. On the other hand, from the Filianist perspective, which sees our separation from the Mother as the fundamental problem of human existence: the real nature of "original sin". "Mommy and I are One" from a secular humanist standpoint can only be seen as a strange, world-denying wish for the individual non-existence that preceded our birth. From the Filianic perspective "Mommy and I are one" is a concise statement of the goal of the individual and, indeed of the cosmos, when all creatures shall return to Dea "even to the last blade of grass". So it is either a psychotic death-wish, or the supreme aim of the world's first Faith. It seems to be the root desire of the human mind, so it would seem to be that at its deepest level the mind is either mad - in the sense of wishing to negate its own existence - or devoted to Our Mother God. I would tend to believe the latter.

Research on the effectiveness of subliminal messages shows that while the popularly imagined ability of subliminals to implant ideas is of very limited effectiveness, if any, there is a certain message - only one - that does have a real effect:

A couple years ago researchers Lloyd Silverman and Joel Weinberger published a paper summarizing numerous experiments, the gist of which was that if you flashed a certain message before and after some other, more conventional training technique (e.g., antismoking therapy), you greatly enhanced the therapy's effectiveness. Now things start to get weird. The most effective message is said to be "Mommy and I are one." This is supposedly because "there are powerful unconscious wishes for a state of oneness with `the good mother of early childhood' … and gratification of these wishes can enhance adaptation," according to Silverman and Weinberger. S&W pointed out the following facts: (1) psychologically neutral messages, such as "people are walking," have no effect; (2) disturbing messages, such as "Destroy Mother," have a negative effect, at least on psychiatric patients; and (3) in areas such as the south where the usual term of affection is "Mama" rather than "Mommy," "Mommy and I are one" has no effect.

Interestingly the "key message", the true hidden desire of the human soul, has nothing to do with "sex" despite what modern western culture would lead one to expect. The real desire is to return to Mother. As the researchers say "the good mother of early childhood". Of course this part rests on the materialist assumption that our motivations are all based on this-world experiences. Looking at the matter more realistically from a spiritual perspective, we would say that the One True Desire is for THE Mother, the eternal, all-good Mother worshiped by all cultures before the artificial religions of patriarchy. We cannot help but note that after millennia of "Father God" propaganda, the message "Daddy and I are one" has no effect. A few millennia of heresy has no effect on the eternal human heart.

Research on the effectiveness of subliminal messages shows that while the popularly imagined ability of subliminals to implant ideas is of very limited effectiveness, if any, there is a certain message - only one - that does have a real effect:

A couple years ago researchers Lloyd Silverman and Joel Weinberger published a paper summarizing numerous experiments, the gist of which was that if you flashed a certain message before and after some other, more conventional training technique (e.g., antismoking therapy), you greatly enhanced the therapy's effectiveness. Now things start to get weird. The most effective message is said to be "Mommy and I are one." This is supposedly because "there are powerful unconscious wishes for a state of oneness with `the good mother of early childhood' … and gratification of these wishes can enhance adaptation," according to Silverman and Weinberger. S&W pointed out the following facts: (1) psychologically neutral messages, such as "people are walking," have no effect; (2) disturbing messages, such as "Destroy Mother," have a negative effect, at least on psychiatric patients; and (3) in areas such as the south where the usual term of affection is "Mama" rather than "Mommy," "Mommy and I are one" has no effect.

Interestingly the "key message", the true hidden desire of the human soul, has nothing to do with "sex" despite what modern western culture would lead one to expect. The real desire is to return to Mother. As the researchers say "the good mother of early childhood". Of course this part rests on the materialist assumption that our motivations are all based on this-world experiences. Looking at the matter more realistically from a spiritual perspective, we would say that the One True Desire is for THE Mother, the eternal, all-good Mother worshiped by all cultures before the artificial religions of patriarchy. We cannot help but note that after millennia of "Father God" propaganda, the message "Daddy and I are one" has no effect. A few millennia of heresy has no effect on the eternal human heart.

Research on the effectiveness of subliminal messages shows that while the popularly imagined ability of subliminals to implant ideas is of very limited effectiveness, if any, there is a certain message - only one - that does have a real effect:

A couple years ago researchers Lloyd Silverman and Joel Weinberger published a paper summarizing numerous experiments, the gist of which was that if you flashed a certain message before and after some other, more conventional training technique (e.g., antismoking therapy), you greatly enhanced the therapy's effectiveness. Now things start to get weird. The most effective message is said to be "Mommy and I are one." This is supposedly because "there are powerful unconscious wishes for a state of oneness with `the good mother of early childhood' … and gratification of these wishes can enhance adaptation," according to Silverman and Weinberger. S&W pointed out the following facts: (1) psychologically neutral messages, such as "people are walking," have no effect; (2) disturbing messages, such as "Destroy Mother," have a negative effect, at least on psychiatric patients; and (3) in areas such as the south where the usual term of affection is "Mama" rather than "Mommy," "Mommy and I are one" has no effect.

Interestingly the "key message", the true hidden desire of the human soul, has nothing to do with "sex" despite what modern western culture would lead one to expect. The real desire is to return to Mother. As the researchers say "the good mother of early childhood". Of course this part rests on the materialist assumption that our motivations are all based on this-world experiences. Looking at the matter more realistically from a spiritual perspective, we would say that the One True Desire is for THE Mother, the eternal, all-good Mother worshiped by all cultures before the artificial religions of patriarchy. We cannot help but note that after millennia of "Father God" propaganda, the message "Daddy and I are one" has no effect. A few millennia of heresy has no effect on the eternal human heart.