Galina Krasskova

[hlewagastir]

This is one of those things that I personally have to think about when it comes up, because way back when "heathen" was used to mean "dealing with northern European stuff", with "Asatru", specifically, referring to reconstruction.

IMO specialization is the reason it has changed.

Asatru is a constructed word denoting an Icelandic flavoured type of Heathenry, when reconstructing the worldviews and religiousities of the Germanic tribes you will have to make distinctions between say, Icelandic Heathenry and Swedish Heathenry.
So Heathen is a lable to imply a reconstructionist approach and one can specify and call oneself German Heathen, Danish Heahten and so on.

This means that my basic perspective on "'heathen' means 'recon-oriented'" is fairly similar to my basic perspective on "'witch' means 'Wiccan'" - something like, "Oh, you want a general/generic term to be just yours, huh?"

In this group (as in many others) it is commonly agreed that Heathenry denotes an emphasis towards reconstructionism - even Krasskova seems to make this connection - and you can accept it or complain all day long, it´s not gonna change!

[Nyktipolos]

It still is a generic term. Its like saying your pagan. There's a bunch of different specified off-shoots in heathenry.



Like, just being heathen doesn't tell me if your focus is Swedish, German, Icelandic or just broad.

However, generic is just that: generic. It can imply both reconstructionist and completely UPG-derived practices, or something in-between, and yet it's still under the same umbrella.

[Lokabrenna]

However, generic is just that: generic. It can imply both reconstructionist and completely UPG-derived practices, or something in-between, and yet it's still under the same umbrella.

In my experience, Heathens tend to argue that it's not just a religion, but a worldview. If "Heathenry" is defined as a worldview, one could be both an atheist and a Heathen.

Religiously, I would say that it's primarily used to refer to a reconstructionist approach, that's why some people refer to themselves as "Norse Pagans" or "Northern polytheists". It's "generic" in the sense that there are Anglo-Saxon Heathens, Asatruar (specifically Icelandic Heathenry), Swedish Heathens, divided by culture, but they all share a common worldview (that's the 'Heathen' part).

There was actually a thread devoted to this very topic on the old board, it's here: http://www.ecauldron.net/forum/index.php?topic=16704.0

[Hyacinth Belle]

In my experience, Heathens tend to argue that it's not just a religion, but a worldview. If "Heathenry" is defined as a worldview, one could be both an atheist and a Heathen.

<snip>

There was actually a thread devoted to this very topic on the old board, it's here: http://www.ecauldron.net/forum/index.php?topic=16704.0

Yes, someone could in all likelihood be heathen and atheist... although I'm not sure why they would call themselves that. It's more likely to come up if a heathen is talking about an atheist and remark they "make a darn good heathen" or something of the like. If you are actually calling *yourself* heathen, to be atheist would defeat somewhat of the purpose, since religion IS inherently entwined with that worldview.

Thank you for the posting the link to the other thread. If you all wish to discuss labels, start a different thread. But know you probably won't reach a consensus, and it's come up numerous times on the old board.


*************************


Now, as SIG leader I just want to put in a word. I can't make this as a separate post since I'm not quoting from this thread, so it's getting tagged onto this post.

I just wanted to point everyone to the special rules for this SIG in hopes we can get away from the debate that's happening on what constitutes an "opinion," etc. The following emphases are mine.

SIG = Special Interest Group. The special interest of this group is Asatru and Heathenry. Therefore:

• This is a reconstruction-based discussion area. Though we embrace Unconfirmed Personal Gnosis (UPG) and non-primary or non-scholastic secondary sources, they are not given the same weight as primary source material or scholastic secondary material. If you are using UPG or questionable modern sources, state that up front in your posts.
• While we welcome the input of non-Heathens, Heathen religions have a well-established framework and core set of ideas. We are not looking to discuss yet another brand of Wicca.

[Mark C.]

Have you considered that the reason more than one person is misinterpreting your posts could be because of something at your end? Maybe you are having difficulty expressing your thoughts in the way you intended? Or maybe you wrote every word carefully but those who replied are genuinely offended by it?

It is certainly not my intention to offend, but what people get offended by is beyond my control.

In addition to the options listed above, it could also be people are not reading my posts properly or are not following the thread to see the context in which those posts are made?

I’ll use this post as an attempt to clarify and hopefully reassure people I was not seeking to offend.

The two posts where I asked if I was being misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted made the following statements:

1 – That I considered anyone who had ANY kind or relationship with a deity as mentally ill (I never said that).

2 – That anyone with ANY kind of mental illness should be shunned (I never said that either).

I did not state either of those things, and have clarified that in other posts. What people did was take the some specific things I had said and then expanded / twisted them into unpleasant generalities. People can reread the posts to see that is the case.

It would seem the “mental health” thing is the one people have got really upset over, so I’ll try to summarise what I actually have been saying so people don’t read one isolated section, or a “reply”, and take me to be something I’m not or to have said something I did not.

Firstly, I don’t know Galina Krasskova and she is not here to put the other side of the story. While I really don’t like her work and her views, I have been very careful not to discus her personally. What I have done is discuss in general terms what I feel about certain views and how I feel, in general terms, about those who hold those views. Nothing is to be taken as a direct factual comment on Galina Krasskova, but as my personal opinion on general issues. If people read though my posts, they can see I have been consistent in doing that. I’m discussing my views.

Anyone making the claim that they have been actively courted and are married to Odin can only be doing so in three ways:

1 – It is true and it’s entirely factual that they have been actively courted by, and are married to Odin. Any claims of a sexual relationship with him are also completely factual.
2 – They are lying. They know it is not true but make the claim anyway.
3 – The claim is false, but they honestly believe it to be true (i.e. they are deluded).

It would seem from the thread that many here (notably the non-heathens) are totally willing to accept number 1 as a valid explanation. I’m not.

If I can’t / won’t accept number 1 (for the reasons discussed in other posts) then I have to conclude that a person is lying or deluded. I don’t think people who make such claims are lying as they seem to be genuinely held beliefs. So the only conclusion I can reach is that they are deluded.

Would people prefer I lied and said that number 1 was acceptable to me? Or it unacceptable for me not to accept that possibility? I get the feeling that to some it is and that’s why there has been some “heat” in this thread. However, I would hope differing views are acceptable and that people can follow the logic of where my view has to lead me?

If the only way to avoid having an “offensive view” is to change that view to being the same as those I disagree with, where does that leave me? I hope people can see and accept that delusion is the right and only conclusion / explanation from my perspective.

Mental illness is one possible cause of delusion and I made reference to a condition where the sufferer would claim such relationships with a deity. As I said, not all people who make such a claim would be mentally ill. However, it would be far more likely in my view than the relationship being real.

None of this is meant to offend, but if it does then there is little I can do about that as it would seem the only way not to offend would be to accept that anyone claiming to be married to Odin is telling the truth.

I could maybe dodge the issue by saying “such views are valid, but not valid for me”, but that would be lying because I don’t believe such views are valid. I strongly believe them to be invalid. And, as I said earlier, that only leaves me with the options of lying or delusion when I hear people state such views.

As regards the “such views are valid, but not valid for me” approach, it’s perhaps ironic that that does not seem to apply to my views for some in this thread. My non-acceptance of explanation 1, and the logic of what there leads me, is seemingly unacceptable.

I’m done on this one as we could end up going round and round in circles. I hope this helps clarify what I actually said and that some of the claims about what I said are incorrect (as a read back through the posts will show). Above all, I hope this final post in this thread makes clear it was not my intention to offend, but simply to state an honestly held view.

Mark.

[bobthesane]

I've heard references of her being called the "SRW of Heathenry" but at the same time, I've also seen her spoken of as "the greatest Heathen in Modern times". I known she's controversial over her views on Jotun-worship, but what is you all's take?

Well, I guess I will step into the shitstorm.

The vast majority of modern heathens of various stripes do NOT consider the activites of Krasskova and those associated with her, to be 'true' heathen practices. Her association with the Jotun and other villainous creatures which seek to destroy the world and everyone in it speak volumes to us about the kind of person she is. She is therefore most decidedly NOT welcome where most of us are gathering. I sure as hell don't want her near MY kindred.

Her statements about being a 'wife' of Odin? Um... as far as I am aware there are no writings anywhere from any place about that would state that he cares one whit about having any other wives besides Frigga, and that's probably just because he knows she's smarter than he is. He is known to be able to charm the pants and skirts off of any woman he chooses, and does so all the bloody time. Trying to lay claim to sacral marriage to such a creature to my mind simply makes the claimant look like a fool who has been used and tossed by the wayside. Not something I would personally want to trumpet to the world.

I also find the idea rather presumptuous. I mean... what proofs does she offer that One-Eye would be willing to bind his holdings and honor to a MORTAL? Remember what marriage was: a contract. A business arrangement. A political tool. Not something done for love, and sure as hell not done for lust.

As for her and her groups activities and the opinions of the general heathen populace, got news for you guys: WE DO get to decide if what they are doing is heathenry. What she does bears little resemblance to historical heathenry. She can call it whatever the hell she wants, but she isn't one of us and as long as she keeps claiming to be, we will keep very vocally opposing and distancing ourselves from her and her group. They chose to align themselves with evil beings, therefore they are unwelcome among us. Simple as that.

[Asch]

Well, I guess I will step into the shitstorm.

*does so too*

I think, regarding Mark C's statements and persons perception of them that it appears that some parties are riffing on aspects of his statements but not the entirety. In other words their reactions are being triggered by his words via their own filters and they're knee jerking a response without taking a deep breath.

He's not being that radical. Galina is claiming to be a Heathen, she is representing Heathenry for newcomers and many of her actions and statements are not only inaccurate but fly in the face of the established Heathen worldview and practices.

Which, she must be aware of, therefore she either realizes that she's appropriating and misrepresenting Heathenry and doesn't care, or she genuinely believes she isn't which is bizarre and confusing and begs further questions some of which may result in armchair speculation about her mental state.

Something which, by the way, any public figure particularly a religious public figure is going to be subjected to.

In Mark's case (sorry if I'm speaking inaccurately for you feel free to correct me) she is apparently not only willfully misrepresenting and profiting from her misrepresentation of Heathenry she is either okay with it or thinks it is okay to do so or finally doesn't think she is. In the end, whatever the cause or motivation behind it he is choosing not to associate with HER or anyone behaving similarly.

*shrug*

More power to him, it's his valid and justified choice.

[Mark C.]

sorry if I'm speaking inaccurately for you feel free to correct me

Not inaccurate at all. That's what I feel I've been saying all along and I appreciate you paraphrasing it for me.

More power to him, it's his valid and justified choice.

Thank you

Mark.

[Asch]

Not inaccurate at all. That's what I feel I've been saying all along and I appreciate you paraphrasing it for me.



Thank you

Mark.

'

No problem, and, for what it's worth, I agree. Appropriation that results in fiscal profit/fame/'creedence'/etc is a trigger for me. It infuriates me so I can completely understand your reaction and feelings.

Edit: Also, appropriation performed badly and in the face of available knowledge that demonstrates why an act etc is being misappropriated and how an alternative would work better etc is also infuriating. Ignorance is fine, willful ignorance is unacceptable.

[FollowerofOdin]

I have mixed feelings regarding Krasskova. I have Exploring the Northern Tradition and Northern Tradition for the Solitary Practitioner (co-authored with Raven Kaldera). Both books have been immensely helpful to me.

At the same time, I think she comes across as a little "gloomy", by this I mean that she tends to emphasize the "harsher" aspects of relationships with deities (ie. how Odin is a harsh taskmaster who will smite you if you don't do what he wants). Many people take issue with the concept of the "godatheow" (god-slave) that she promotes. Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but whatever floats your boat. Others take issue with her association with Raven Kaldera and Cauldron Farm (not just for the jotun-honouring) but I think there is often an element of "Kinky people are icky" in the criticism that's leveled at them.

There's also the issue of whether or not she is Heathen in the first place. Raven Kaldera is very up front about the fact that his Northern Tradition Paganism is not Heathenry, but Krasskova identifies as a "free-range, tribalist Heathen" and this is what I think pisses a lot of Heathens off (especially since her writings are readily available to the public).

I did have both her books and they were a huge help when I was starting. I even have one of her prayers written down to Sunna. I really love how she wrote that prayer and I feel a smile go on my face when I'm finished. I personally don't care what she does in private. Her path is her path, though it's not the same as mine.