Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Ancient Combat Guest Authors Ivarr T. Boner
Bring Back the Blood Eagle!
By Ivarr the Boner

Various studies of the Vikings by academic liberals, reject the idea that the Vikings used the ritualized method of torture an execution known as the blood eagle. The victim, always a member of a royal family, was bound face down, back exposed, and usually by means of a hand axe, his ribs were chopped from the vertebral column. Then his lungs were pulled out to make a form of “wings.” Who said that the Vikings did not go in for their own form of origami?

In fact, I have a racial memory of having killed my enemies by doing this in a past life:

Original Old Norse

Ok Ellu bak,

At lét hinn’s sat,

Ívarr, ara,

Iorví, skorit.

Literal Translation

And Ella’s back,

at had the one who dwelt

Ívarr, with eagle,

York, cut.

Possible Reordering

And Ívarr, the one

who dwelt at York,

had Ella's back

cut with [an] eagle.

This was no literary metaphor; my previous self was there and cut up the captured king king Ælla of Northumbria, who had killed my father Ragnar Loðbrók, “hairy britches.” You doubt me? But of course you believe in either endless economic growth and that science can solve all problems and/or that Jesus rose from the dead on this day (it’s Easter Sunday as I write).

The liberal Viking revivalists, who see the Vikings as traders first, barbarians second, don’t like this because it shows Vikings in a bad light, and they take it as a Christian fabrication to discredit the Vikings. That, to my mind, is reading back from the “values” of a decadent, effeminate, cucked, consumer, estrogenic society, to one which was hairy and manly before Christianity imposed the very “civilized” values upon them which led to their racial downfall, and to the racially suicidal plight of the Northern lands today.

Roberta Frank, “Viking Atrocity and Skaldic Verse: The Rite of the Blood-Eagle,” English Historical Review, April 1984, pp. 332-343, is one authority questioning the existence of the practice of the blood eagle, because all references to the blood eagle occurred several hundred years after the Christianisation of Scandinavia.

Ronald Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy (Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, 1993), says: "the hitherto notorious rite of the “Blood Eagle,” the killing of a defeated warrior by pulling up his ribs and lungs through his back, has been shown to be almost certainly a Christian myth resulting from the misunderstanding of some older verse." (p.282)

The problem with the liberal argument is that it would discredit almost everything expressed in the sagas about the Vikings. Certainly, the Sagas are not historical records, but they are still some of the few sources of information available. Unless there was strong contrary evidence, we should provisionally accept the existence of practices such as the blood eagle, if it is consistent with the existing body of knowledge about the Vikings. The pre-Christian Vikings were not liberals, and would spit on the degenerate liberalism that dominates us today. So much the worse for liberal values. The offended can just try manning up, or go to a Women’s Study or Queer Study class, for comfort.

In fact, in the coming age of neo-barbarianism, when the rule of law, the rule of the whore, crumbles, I would expect that practices like the blood eagle will make a return. We will be home once more.

If there was no blood eagle, or berserkers, then there bloody well should have been, and will be, next time round.

Thriving in Bad Places

Add Comment
UlricKerenskyApril 19, 2017 3:35 AM UTC

I thought the main objection to the practice is that the subject would die of blood loss long before severing the bones.