Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: I'm Germanic and Proud of My Heritage, but I'm Unsure About the Far Right. Is This Site for Me Too?

  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    I'm Germanic and Proud of My Heritage, but I'm Unsure About the Far Right. Is This Site for Me Too?

    Hello Skadi members and staff,

    I've been a returning reader of your site since 2016, and I've enjoyed many of your topics.

    I'm an American of mostly Germanic heritage and I take a healthy amount of interest in and feel a sense of pride towards my heritage. So after almost a year of reading, I've considered joining in. I'm opinionated, but quite shy, which isn't the best combination.

    However, I am not sure that I can identify with the far right movement, its concerns, and methods. I'm guessing some members of the far right will label me a lefty or troll going by that alone, so I feel I have to put up a disclaimer and clarify my thoughts more in depth:

    I do not support mass immigration from non-Germanic countries, or even racial mixing. I wouldn't like to see a world where everything becomes a brown mass, devoid of identity and where political correctness impedes people from speaking freely. So of course I would prefer to see one where Germanics preserve their heritage. Here's where the big question mark comes in. I don't believe in forcing people to do something against their will, intimidating and threatening them socially or politically, putting them in prisons for thought crimes. This is a problem we are facing today, something the far right also condemns, but only contextually. The way I've understood it, they don't see a problem with it because it is tyranny, but because it happens to be orchestrated by their opponents. So, they will shout freedom, but their freedom has an asterisk, for in a far right state, those who disagreed with their authorities would suffer the same fate: bans, imprisonments, ostracizations, extortions.

    My question therefore would have to be, is that really freedom? They would say yes, freedom for Germanics, and that could be true to a degree, but only for those Germanics who wouldn't have an issue with their government. In reality, the far right and national socialist ideology had its issues. For example, homeschooling was illegal in Nazi Germany. Coming from America, I am used to a different idea of the concept of freedom, a more, let's say uninhibited kind of freedom. I don't believe in a kindergarten type of government, treating people like children. I do not engage in racial mixing, but I don't do it because I fear some authority will slap me, rather because I respect my heritage and am sufficiently informed to make a responsible decision. I don't believe violence and force are the answer, but education and free, uninhibited access to information. I guess fellow Americans could call me some sort of a libertarian.

    In short, I believe in the same things you do, but I disagree about some of the methods. Would that be acceptable or not?

    Thanks for the patience and reading.

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Schmetterling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    30
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    63
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    I would welcome you and I don't think there's a compatibility issue here.

    This site has its fair share of libertarians, although some of them posted more pre-2016, so you might want to go through some older material for reference. There are also quite a few members who are apolitical, and concern themselves more with spiritual or religious issues. There are also a few members who identify as leftist racialists, socialists, strasserists or even anarchists. Although as mentioned, the variety was more obvious pre-2016, I was largely active between 2008-2009 and I recall many discussions centered around what you argue.

    Skadi is a forum that advocates free speech for Germanics, so if you support its mission I think you should be ok. The site's owners are actually libertarians themselves. You don't need to agree with whatever you perceive as the "consensus", members have always had some differing views on various topics but that's not a bad thing. It could prove boring to preach to the choir and repeat the same things ad nauseam, a little variety and controversy can create brainstorming discussions. Of course free speech also means you might be exposed to opinions you disagree with. There are advantages and disadvantages, but I think we could look past our differences and focus on what unites us - we are all Germanic and we all want a better future for ourselves, our nations and our children.
    "Tradition doesn't mean holding on to the ashes, it means passing the torch."
    - Thomas Morus (1478-1535)

  3. #3
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 07:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,167
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,477
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,552
    Thanked in
    1,109 Posts
    Hello,

    Just create an account, you're welcome. We won't bite you.

    I don't believe in forcing people to do something against their will, intimidating and threatening them socially or politically, putting them in prisons for thought crimes.
    The owner of this forum doesn't believe in any of these things either. The far right is a very big club house and so is Skadi. Not all of us are totalitarian, as you must've noticed in the last year. We welcome every debate in regard to methods, including the methods of people who are completely democratic or perhaps pacifist or adhering to the libertarian non-aggression principle.

    This is a problem we are facing today, something the far right also condemns, but only contextually.
    It depends on who you're talking to.

    Anglo-America already existed prior to 1776 and long before there were 'human rights' or the enlightenment, there was England and the Netherlands. Our heritage is much richer than is assumed.

    The liberty ideal is much stronger in the U.S. than in Western Europe - and to some Americans freedom is indeed the most important thing, individual freedom no matter the cost. It's the cornerstone of the libertarian worldview. Not everyone looks through that freedom vs slavery lens at the world and history though.

    Personally I value individual liberty, but I don't think it's the most important value in the end, nor do I think it's enough. If Anglo-America disappears due to demographic decline, liberty will disappear with it, like everything else we hold dear. Liberty is a Germanic ideal, after all, something for instance Mexicans don't care for and most blacks can't begin to understand. If liberty is at odds with Germanic preservation, I wonder: "What liberty? Whose liberty? Who gains from this liberty?" If I have to make a choice between an abstract ideal and people of flesh and blood, I will go for flesh and blood. If the nation doesn't benefit from liberty, but actually hastens its downfall, then I would call clinging on to liberty a harmful ideological fixation. Liberty can always be regained, but you can lose your ethnic identity only once. IMHO, liberty is a luxury, something that can be achieved and enjoyed under certain circumstances.

    The enemies of the West care little for liberty. They're quite realistic. It's something to keep in mind. In my eyes too history is more an affair of a naked power struggle between nations and competing ideologies in which quasi everything seems to be allowed - and freedom then primarly is mostly just a word or a rallying cry.

    I'm not a proponent of imprisoning opponents for thought crimes, I don't see why - it's not necessary to establish or maintain the ethnostate. However, in a revolutionary scenario, it would make sense that some of the most powerful figures of the old regime/establishment go to prison for their actual crimes against the people, some would lose their jobs, some would be barred from entering the country (think G. Soros). But that's the nature of a revolution, it wasn't different back in 1776 or when the Berlin Wall came down.

    I do not engage in racial mixing, but I don't do it because I fear some authority will slap me, rather because I respect my heritage and am sufficiently informed to make a responsible decision.
    Great, that's noble. The main issues however, far more pressing than race-mixing, are the decline of our birthrate and mass migration & the fact that we do not control the borders of our countries.
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  4. #4
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,097
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    76
    Thanked in
    48 Posts
    You do not need to be far right or a national socialist to be a member of Skadi. I concur with what has already been said about the mission statement and owners of the forum. The mission statement actually rejects totalitarian, white supremacist and neo-nazi ideologies, as you can read from this disclaimer:

    Although we do not desire to define ourselves negatively, we, in light of reoccurring misunderstandings, desire to express clearly that Skadi Forum is not a white nationalist, white supremacist, (neo)-nazi, pan-European, pan-Aryan, or racist forum and that it considers such and similar unitizing, collectivist, totalitarian, oppressive and anti-pluralist ideas incompatible with our freedom-loving Germanic spirit and our diverse and enlightened Germanic societies.
    Nonetheless, the forum has attracted all those types, which is why I assume the disclaimer was added to begin with. Most of them are here because of the freedom of expression - they are marginalized on mainstream fora and most places in society, so they retreat on fora they perceive as friendly to their ideologies.

    There is a caveat here however: while they - particularly the neo-nazi faction - enjoy this freedom, they can be quite intolerant towards others who take advantage of the same feaures. In the past, those who were unpopular with the nazi faction were constant ban proposals and lobby subjects. I have not seen this trend lately but I have not been a daily visitor so either way is possible.

    My advice would be to join if you believe in Germanic preservation and freedom, since both go hand-in-hand.

    Freedom is a basic need and ancient Germanic virtue, like the pursuit of happiness. Our pre-Christian Germanic ancestors valued it quite highly and it is in their society that you can find the precursors of democracy. The Althing, an ancient Germanic institution is the oldest parliament in the world. It started as a general assembly which all free Germanic men could attend.

    A healthy Germanic society needs both individual freedoms as well as collective and political freedom. Take for example the freedom to access information, the freedom to research and publish raw, unbiased results. The freedom to seek the truth, even if that means questioning established theories. The freedom to associate with like-minded people, even if those beliefs are considered deviant. Likewise, the freedom to discriminate, ignore or reject those whose beliefs we do not share. The freedom to speak, criticize and refute those who we believe are in the wrong. The freedom to express ourselves through clothing and fashions. The freedom to administrate our businesses and properties the way we like and establish our own rules within that space. The freedom to learn, even if that means going through trial and error. The freedom to defend ourselves from abuse, and hold those who abuse us accountable for their actions. The freedom to be independent and neutral, or to strike alliances with whom we want. The freedom to close and protect our borders as we see fit.

    A Germanic society lacking even one of those will gradually degrade. This is what happened to National Socialist Germany and why the masses turned from Nazi supporters into Communist and Socialist supporters quite quickly, without any protest. Neo-nazis will say that freedom is not necessary because the masses bend with the wind, but this only serves them from a position of power. Otherwise, the masses can quickly turn into their enemy, and their ideology massively marginalized because the state sanctions it. Those are not the traits of a sane and proud Germanic folk. An enslaved folk, who does not know the notion of freedom, is much more susceptible to tyranny and will eventually perish with little resistance. A bird born in a cage, who believes flight is an illness, is itself ill.

    Unfortunately, tyranny and absolutism have dominated many chapters of history, as has Christianity, another system of debilitating and enslaving the folk. Some of our ancestors didn't benefit from as much freedom, but that is not an argument to embrace tyranny any more than it is an argument to embrace religious fanaticism, poverty, famine, unsanitary living, illiteracy and the absence of access to information, which was also much more common before this era, and had to do with why tyranny and absolutism had a freer reign. Our ancestors could not log on to the Internet and read alternative news, for a long time they did not even have access to books. So, they had to listen to whatever the tyrants told them and take it for truth. This persisted in the era of state-controlled television and newspapers, when people believed they had more diversity, but were essentially listening to the same thing on all channels. It was the Internet that brought on a significant change, and which is more difficult to control by the elites.

    Our Founding Fathers also valued freedom. The US was born out of a revolution, an act of independence from English control. Traditional Americans valued the concept of freedom, which is why it is protected by our Constitution. They entrusted a government to serve, but not to police and restrict the American nation. Very few know and admit this, but the American people were originally given the right to bear arms so that they could protest against an unruly, tyrannic government if it ever second-guessed or abused its attributions. Today, Constitution fanatics are seen as enemies of the state, by those who feel threatened by the Constitution and refuse to be held accountable for their abuses.

    Those who say that individual (or any other type of) freedom is not important to them have probably never been deprived of it sufficiently to assess its cruciality. Many people take it for granted, as they would take running water. Liberty is not something easy to gain. The longer you are enslaved, the more your access to independence and self-sustenance is cut off, the less capable and willing you become. Today, enslavement comes in a slightly different form than in the past. You no longer have to starve or perform exhausting manual labor. You can be enslaved as a sedentary person with a full fridge and access to McDonalds or pizza delivery. Western nations have plenty of dormant couch potatoes, whose ability to think critically has been shut off by soap operas and reality TV. Enslavement by consumerism, while you think you are free and wouldn't mind if your rights were taken away. Why would you care about your guns, when you can't defend yourself and have to rely on the police to protect you. Why would you care about your speech, when aside from posting your duckface selfies on Facebook and your fake breakfast on Instagram, you don't get involved in discussions and debates? Why would you care about accessing politically incorrect information, when you watch mainstream TV? Why would you care about losing your job for political reasons, when you live off a welfare or disability check? Why would you care about the right to self-medicate, when you have Obamacare to provide you with a free ER ride everytime you cut your finger while trying to open that can of beans? Why would you care about the right to run your business as you see fit, when you don't own one in the first place? It's easier to be a fat mindless zombie, easier for you, and for the state because you're easier to control. All you have to do is go once every few years to approval stamp the establishment - maybe not even that.

    The truth is, many establishment people would not care to sacrifice others' personal freedoms, not theirs. If something important to you is taken away, and you really care about it, you too would growl. This is how neo-nazis react, when the establishment bans their parties and symbols, they complain about their freedoms and rights being taken away, on the other hand, if they were to have the power they would easily take away those rights from other people. A proud Germanic folk cannot exist without liberty. Without any "abstract" notions, we are simply material. You would have the flesh and blood, but those would be pieces of meat devoid of meaning, never reflecting their existence. Abstract notions are what sets humans apart from other animals and Germanics apart from other humans. States are abstract notions, created by people. Germanic itself, is partially an abstract notion, as it also involves language, culture and spirituality.


    Die Sonne scheint noch.

  5. #5
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    222
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    53
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    146
    Thanked in
    59 Posts
    Please join, we could use some more discussion and activity. And as Chlodovech said, we don't bite.

    You might find this older thread interesting (and as Schmetterling suggested, you should also try checking pre-2016 discussions - the forum is actually 15 years old ):

    Freedom or Safety, What Would You Choose?

    Some interesting opinions, but in the meantime, if we had this poll today, I think many more would choose freedom, especially since the fake war on terrorism and intrusive measures to keep us "safe" (naked body scanners, video surveillance in dressing rooms and restrooms, surveillance of chats and private messages, etc.)

    I mostly agree with what you say, I'd also prefer a minimal government to one that controls my individual life.

  6. #6
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 07:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,167
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,477
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,552
    Thanked in
    1,109 Posts
    I'm not big on totalitarianism either. I'm very much in favor of freedom of association and (artistic) expression. Yet this can be combined with (semi-)authoritarianism - see Singapore, where human rights are completely respected despite Singapore not being a democracy. And Singapore is a rich, successful country. The second German Reich comes to mind as well.

    Between complete liberty and totalitarianism there are 50 shades of (semi-)authoritarian grey. A traditional monarchy for instance is not democratic, but it's almost certainly further removed from totalitarianism than a democracy.

    For me authoritarianism is first and foremost about political decision making on the highest level, not about curtailing free speech. In part it has to do with the circumstances in my country which are very different from those in the States. In Flanders difficult but necessary decisions are postphoned for decades until they're completely called off altogether. A lot of it has to do with our lack of space. It's impossible to get great construction projects done in Flanders - such as expanding harbors, building railways, prisons, football stadiums ... as soon as someone takes initiative over here the initiative will be blocked. The result is stagnation and decline.

    The future is authoritarian, that much is clear to me, regardless of the political forces which will dominate the 21st century - the liberal democratic model has been dead for quite a while and has been replaced with plutocracy. The Sino-Russian models are doing pretty decent and offer an alternative to democracy.

    I'm not against democracy in principle, I would happily live in a resilient national democracy, but if democracy is incapable of preventing a nation committing suicide it is utter rubbish and it must be rejected and replaced with a different model.
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  7. #7
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    38 Minutes Ago @ 11:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    539
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    194
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    293
    Thanked in
    160 Posts
    It doesn't matter what you believe or say, they'll call you racist anyway .

    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Thank you for your opinions. I don't care about being called a racist, this is not just a nice image I adopt to appease somebody, these are my beliefs.

    The way I see it, the problem is not that we have too much democracy but that we have too little. I dislike political correctness from the left, and I dislike political correctness from the right. I also dislike religious dogma. Basically, most of what is on the bottom left and right of this scale:



    Perhaps democracy and unrestricted freedom do not create a perfect society, but they dimish the potential for abuse. I don't find absolutist monarchy much better than totalitarianism. If a leader is not bound by law and constitution, we basically have to pray that he is a benevolent dictator who never goes mad.

    I have seen a thread about women voting, and many people who want to restrict their right to vote because they don't vote conservative.

    While I am not against conservatism myself, I find these kind of arguments rather strange, and have to imagine some sort of dictatorship or Soviet system, where people would only be allowed to vote for one existing party.

    While democracy doesn't always lead to quick change and mobility, it does ensure a greater likelihood of long-run stability and of popular support. But why is popular support important? A content society is unlike to revolt against a government. If it does, then something is wrong with that government. A true democracy is more or less civilized revolution. You create the opportunity to change a government that isn't doing its job, but without bloodshed. This possibility, in a true democracy would also work as a deterrant to the government. In other words, keep your promises, or risk being replaced.

    Some people are afraid to live without government because they expect government to solve their problems for them. A democratic, libertarian or anarchist system would transfer more responsibility to the people. e.g. not relying on the police for self-defense. People who can live with very limited government are generally also able to live together in peace despite diversity of opinion and lifestyles.
    Last edited by Blod og Jord; Wednesday, September 6th, 2017 at 06:45 PM. Reason: fixed img tags.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    38 Minutes Ago @ 11:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    539
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    194
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    293
    Thanked in
    160 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Thank you for your opinions. I don't care about being called a racist, this is not just a nice image I adopt to appease somebody, these are my beliefs.
    And you shouldn't. They just MAKE IT sound as if there is something wrong with that.



    Please register!

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Perhaps democracy and unrestricted freedom do not create a perfect society, but they dimish the potential for abuse. I don't find absolutist monarchy much better than totalitarianism. If a leader is not bound by law and constitution, we basically have to pray that he is a benevolent dictator who never goes mad.
    Actually democracies tend to turn out to be far more tyrannical than monarchies are. The reason is simply that democratic governments feel they're entitled to what they do, because they got the "majority behind them". Makes it easier to raise taxes and expand the state. A monarch has to be careful about what he's doing as not to end the dynasty he represents.


    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I have seen a thread about women voting, and many people who want to restrict their right to vote because they don't vote conservative.

    While I am not against conservatism myself, I find these kind of arguments rather strange, and have to imagine some sort of dictatorship or Soviet system, where people would only be allowed to vote for one existing party.
    Fact is, that even in a democracy people have limited options. A party needs funding and in the end its the sponsors that decide on the major direction politics goes in a country. Needless to say that this is problematic.

    I'm not that sure, whether women vote less conservative. I find women as a norm more conservative then man. But they're more susceptible and group-related in their thinking. So when they can be tricked that something is more in line with the group's idea of things, they may vote into that direction.

    My opinion is that the public sphere is more for men and the private social sphere is more for women. Men and women are naturally different and it's good that way. Men are as a norm certainly better in leadership roles than women are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    While democracy doesn't always lead to quick change and mobility, it does ensure a greater likelihood of long-run stability and of popular support. But why is popular support important? A content society is unlike to revolt against a government. If it does, then something is wrong with that government. A true democracy is more or less civilized revolution. You create the opportunity to change a government that isn't doing its job, but without bloodshed. This possibility, in a true democracy would also work as a deterrant to the government. In other words, keep your promises, or risk being replaced.

    Some people are afraid to live without government because they expect government to solve their problems for them. A democratic, libertarian or anarchist system would transfer more responsibility to the people. e.g. not relying on the police for self-defense. People who can live with very limited government are generally also able to live together in peace despite diversity of opinion and lifestyles.
    No, not necessarily. As said, follow the money in a democracy. People tend to vote for those they seem to be giving them a bigger piece of the cake (through promises so the politician can sponge off better), not for those that actually make the cake bigger or better. A monarch on the other hand has incentives to increase the value of the cake, since his dynasty is going to inherit the cake.

    And oh yes, democratic systems are prone for parties that "take over burdens of responsibility" from people. In monarchies responsibilities are delegated. Not everyone wants to bear responsibility, hence the need for hierarchy and clear rules.

  10. #10
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    4 Days Ago @ 11:16 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,107
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    217
    Thanked in
    127 Posts
    The minimal consensus is, and has always been, the survival of our people, and some at least semi-patriotic sentiment. From that onwards, anything goes, within reasonable limits. As such, we're far from being a "far right" forum. We have National Communists as core members, even.

    From what you wrote in your introductory post, you've got your own political ideas, and that is perfectly fine. If we lived in more sensible times, a basic preservationist consensus would be shared by people from left to right, anyway. Not that I think a parliamentary seating-order over a century old is a good counter to establish political orientation anyway, not after the prevailing zeitgeist has - for good or for ill - changed at least twice on most topics.

    Skadi Forum is a place for Free Speech for Germanic preservationists, regardless of the ideology or world-view they might subscribe to as long as they can articulate themselves as a normal Germanic adult who's received a classic education. Yes, this does mean that Libertarians will happen upon the entire spectrum up to National Socialists in some discussions. But it also means that the most hard-liner Folkish-NS-Ethnonationalist will have to be happy debating with someone more moderate.

    It also has a way of shaping people's Weltanschauung. We've had people going from NS to Libertarian, from pan-Germanicist to Regionalist and from staunchly ethnocentric towards ethnopluralist and vice-versa whilst 90+% of their core convictions remained unchanged. Debate sometimes does that to people, this can be a healthy process as long as it happens within the parameters of aforementioned consensus.

    So, yea, I'm going to parrot what everyone else has said: Go ahead and register and jump right into discussion.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •