more on the Wild Hunt bullshit. I’ve never thought particularly highly of Cherry Hill — too much PC nonsense and not enough theology — this does not change or improve my opinion. God damn it, our communities deserve better than this bullshit. There is a difference between journalism, that conveys information and tells us the who, what, where and how and “activist” journalism that seeks to brain wash, influence, control information and is little than propaganda that compels action from the readership. We have a right to clear, unbiased journalism in our communities or why the hell are we supporting TWH. Do you only want them doing hit pieces on groups? (Think about it doing a hit piece on your group). Journalism is there to protect our freedom of speech and to give people the information they need to make their own choices. What we are seeing instead, is “oh, this is neutral which means it supports blah blah blah let’s yell fire.” Being exposed to ideas that one disagrees with is not oppression.

Terence P Ward

I’d hoped never to comment on this nonsense again, but as there is at least one Wild Hunt columnist who clearly believes he (who by his own admission is not a journalist) has the facts straight about my resignation, and his column remains despite my specific request that it be retracted, I do have something more to say.

The blogger who has been allowed to publish “a public apology from the Wild Hunt” demonstrates that he is, indeed, not a journalist.  After praising a retraction (which, after the last time she pulled an article due to pressure, the managing editor swore to me would never happen again; she regretted the clear hit to the agency’s credibility and her clear claims of support for freedom of the press), the blogger writes this:  “The Wild Hunt is also working on internal changes to ensure that journalistic standards are more consistently maintained…

View original post 359 more words

About ganglerisgrove

Galina Krasskova has been a Heathen priest since 1995. She holds a Masters in Religious Studies (2009), a Masters in Medieval Studies (2019), has done extensive graduate work in Classics including teaching Latin, Roman History, and Greek and Roman Literature for the better part of a decade, and is currently pursuing a PhD in Theology. She is the managing editor of Walking the Worlds journal and has written over thirty books on Heathenry and Polytheism including "A Modern Guide to Heathenry" and "He is Frenzy: Collected Writings about Odin." In addition to her religious work, she is an accomplished artist who has shown all over the world and she currently runs a prayer card project available at

Posted on August 26, 2018, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. thetinfoilhatsociety

    We’re right back to the yellow journalism of the 1800’s.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s this kind of bullshit that makes me fear Mithraism will never see any kind of revival outside a few private individual practitioners. If the Pussy Church only allowing biological females membership gets this much hatred and vitriol, I can only imagine the rabidly homicidal outrage and fear mongering a male only mystery religion would cause.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan, as a veteran, male in both biology and gender, that has made forays into Mithraism, this issue concerns me as well. Are we not allowed our spaces, both sacred and/or “safe”? Don’t like ours? Form your own. I won’t stop you.


      • ganglerisgrove

        I’m all for male only spaces, female only spaces, trans only spaces and everything in between but I do wonder with Mithraism whether or not it was more a matter of it being a soldier’s cultus, rather than male only. would a female veteran today be welcomed by this God, or was there a theological reason that it was male only (as opposed to nearly all soldiers at the time of its dominance being men)?

        Liked by 4 people

  3. Galina, can’t reply directly to your last response, but that question NEVER even occurred to me so thank you! Definitely something for me to ponder. The Dionysian in me says “Well, duh!”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. While I personally don’t agree with the Pussy church and really dislike the exclusion of trans people, I don’t agree with removing an article that is neutral and just reporting on facts makes no sense at all to me. How can people know what’s going on in the world if they only read articles on things they agree with, especially in today’s world. Trump supporters as a matter of fact only pay attention to news they like, and we all know the result.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I have pondered this for sometime. I believe that the anti-TERF see any mention of TERF in a neutral form is like striking a match in a room full of gas. If ISIS or whatever they are called these days was written up in a similar manner – i.e. a group formed a church, etc, there would be strong reaction to that.

    The irony is that the church (Pussy) became known in the general press at Forbes Magazine. So the knowledge etc was already out there. I guess not many of the WH folks read Forbes to know that coverage and “free publicity” was already done for the Pussy people.

    I think in the WH’s case, they live off of donations. You can’t upset the donor base and still be solvent. In other words, perhaps the withdrawal was done for monetary reasons. They need the money to operate. The people donating are probably people who screamed the loudest. Hence, the WH caved.

    I remember an old dictum from labor strikes. The amount of money that the union or the management has determines the length of the strike. The one with the least amount folds first. Principles are not involved. But they dress up the basic facts.

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: