|Back to Common
On Who Is "Allowed In" The Innangardh
I see it this way: whatever the group, from a kindred/sippe to the Alliance
to a tribe to a family, an innangardh is a band of people bound by
They commit to the law, to a common purpose, as a family does. For that
reason, both "kindred" and "sippe", and
"hearth" for that matter, as well as "tribe" are all
useful terms, and quite accurate.
It used to be simpler. It used to be kindred, out there in the
forests or steppes, loosely related to the next band down the valley. There
were ties of blood, marriage, and the commitment to the law of kin.
That made an innangardh. Tribe was more remote, but still largely based on
kinship and loyalty. As in Tacitus, where one moved to another tribe or
village to run with a more active or aggressive (and hence more profitable)
crowd, you'd still be making a leap of commitment.
To use a popular word, this Folkway is "asa-tru", troth or pledge
or commitment -- actually co-commitant -- with the Aesir. The example may
not directly translate to the Irminenschaft, but you see my point.
This needs to be documented in discussions of the law.
I don't know if I'd style it "allowed in...". I'd style it
rather "recognized as belonging to...".
We're not gatekeepers. That's a common criticism -- and, with some
reservations, valid criticism by the universally minded and
racially/ethnically neutral crowd -- of ethnically-minded and folkish
heathens, that we're trying somehow to "preserve the purity" of
What I am trying to do is get people to recognize their duties in and to the
Innangardh to which they claim to be a part. I'm trying to get people to see
that it's more than just running one's mouth.
It's a commitment.
As I've said before, we've not got the luxury our fur-clad, forest-bound
ancestors had. They had tribes, we're trying to reconstruct
them. Things are no longer as simple, on many levels (when the top rapper in
the country is a redneck white kid, things are really no longer that
So, we must reestablish the relationship of individual-to-the-whole, and
chieftain-to-the-Innangardh...and reestablish respect for the whole, for
kindred and tribe, and for the chieftain.
Working against this are valid and trumped-up personal and collective
experiences in life, post-1960's and post-Clinton, and with some pretty bad
chieftains. A bad chieftain or a misused law weakens the body of the law.
I wouldn't try, at this point, to define or regularize the Althing, but
rather define and refine the Law. We aren't building an organization here,
after all. We are hopefully addressing the Law, which will later
necessitate addressing how people align with it.
So long as we pursue this subject with the assumption that respect for the
Law is paramount in maintaining peace and minimizing noise and disorder, we
can't go too far wrong.
For foreigners, it is better to say "those who are not in the
Innangardh", meaning that they're not recognized as being part of the
common peace or commonwealth. This class of people is everyone -- Christian,
non-aligned heathen, everyone -- who owes us no loyalty and to whom we owe
no loyalty. Foreigner or foreign is not and should never be a pejorative term.
It is simply a statement of fact.
We may deal with them by alliance, as one would with any
foreigner, making them a friend.
Living In The Innangardh
I think that we need to look at it from the standpoint of "being in
one's place in the greater whole". If one commits to a group -- as this
person did with yours -- and is accepted by virtue of their deeds, one
accepts them completely, with of course the Odinic admonitions to keep one's
Then, when the person's deeds diverge from the common good -- not the common
feelings towards them, but their deeds -- it is a leader's responsibility to
raise the issue and scotch any potential messes to protect the Innangardh.
We need to stress vigilance within and without the Innangardh, and the value
of leadership...and the dispassionate nature of good leadership. That cannot
be stressed enough. Babies were once exposed to protect the people from
non-productive mouths and congenital diseases. That must've been damned
hard, but a duty of the leader of the family or the folk to carry out.
A chieftain's leadership should be dispassionate, businesslike.
In doing the people's business, it is best to be businesslike.
That is how business should be conducted for the common good. It
should carry over in one's more personal life, as well.
Friendships should be based on duty and trust. I like a lot of people, but
there are a lot of charming villains in the world.