Index | About | Mission | Vor Vegr | Resources | Contacts | Book Store | What's New |
Back to Common Law Index

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 commitment.

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 the Folkway.

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 simple).

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 eyes open.

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.