More on Runes, Rune Poems, and Old Norse Perspectives on the Otherworldly

April 17, 2016 update:  I have posted two more blogs on runes and Old Norse myths.  is the most recent.  Previous to that I posted what is the first part of a two-part introduction to runes and John G. Bennett’s theory of triads of will:  In that first part, I tried to give people with little or no background in either runes or triads theory the sense that there might be a valid corresponding system of correspondences between the two.  I didn’t worry too much about the traditional ordering of the runes, as I wanted to present the most persuasive data suggestive of a link first.  Part two, which is next up on my bucket list of blogs, will address the rest of the runes in the traditional elder futhark, as well as go more deeply into the two runes I touched on only briefly in part one of the introduction, as the case for them is more complex.  After that, I intend to address issues connected with the hands-down most-discussed of the Old Norse Eddic poems, namely, Völuspá, beginning with a good look at the stanzas relating to Gullveig and the witch Heiði:



All authors who have contributed to the genetic problem have been led sooner or later to postulate the intervention of an individual creator (or, alternatively, of a small group). (1)  It appears, indeed, that the runic alphabet is based on a careful phonological analysis of the OGmc. sounds, rather than on haphazard borrowing.  (2)   Such a creative act would of course be far less bound to external circumstances than the diffusion of an ornamental fashion.”  [Derolez (1) p. xvi]

In his note to the above remarks, Derolez quotes with approval Bruce Dickin’s ““appraisal of the Old English runic character” : … “a cursory glance at Caedmon’s Hymn or Bede’s Death-song will show how vastly superior as an instrument for recording the sounds of Old English it is to the latin [sic] alphabet, which had eventually to borrow from it for use in England the characters ‘þ’ and ‘w.’””  [ibid, n. 2]

 …all serious modern students of the runes have recognized the fact that runic writing is derived from the great Mediterranean writing tradition.  Their greatest efforts have been directed toward the identification of a particular Mediterranean alphabet as the source from which the runes were borrowed…“  [Morris, p. 3]

I.   Richard Morris’s theory of Archaic Greek Origins:                                                 After a detailed survey of the major theories regarding the origins of the runes that earned high praise even from his scholarly adversary Bengt Odenstedt (1), Morris set out his reas-ons for favoring the archaic Greek ca. “5th – 4th century before Christ” [Morris, p. 154] over the Latin alphabets “ca. 4th – 3rd century before Christ” [ibid] as the most likely source for the runes, some of the more compelling of which I will summarize here:

“Latin had no letters for /p, z.w.j/ which were necessary for the Germanic sound system.”  [Morris, p. 152]  Greek had letters for the z and w; and, the argument against using Gk. heta on phonological grounds for the H-rune did not apply 500 B.C.  [ibid, p. 3]

Greek koppa Ϙ could have been used to represent the sequence /ng/ in Germanic, i.e. the    rune.   [ibid, p. 153]

In his table showing “the runes and the archaic Greek and Latin alphabets,” [ibid, p. 154]  Morris shows that, with respect to one of the thornier issues in runic origins theory, there is a ‘th’ sound represented by a single letter in  the Greek, namely, the archaic theta, that corresponds to that in the Elder Futhark rune   þ ;  however, there is no such correspond-ing letter in the Latin alphabet.

The archaic Greek also had a ‘z’ sound corresponding to what is thought to have been the original sound of the Elder Futhark rune   , whereas the Latin of that period did not.  [ibid]`

The forms Ι  and   of Greek iota could have been used to form the runic graphs      , , and even modified to create the runic rune ,  æ .  [ibid, p. 153]  There is no such corresponding possibility for the development of the  rune from the Latin alphabet.  [ibid, p. 154]

Elmer Antonsen, who also favored the archaic Greek theory of runic origins,  argued that “the presence of the 6th vowel-rune , ,  in the fuþark” can be explained “on the basis of linguistic evidence;” saying, “….it is apparent that the runes   and    originally represented only short vowels, since their names begin with short vowels.  Had they also been the designations for long vowels, their names would have begun with a long vowel, as is true of the runes   and   , and is still true for letters of the alphabet in the West European tradition…  There is therefore an exact fit between the vowel system of Proto-Germanic (2) and the orthographic system provided by the fuþark.  This must mean that runic writing arose during the Proto-Germanic period (2), that is, well before our earliest runic records.”  [Antonsen, p. 46 – 47]

Martin Findell remarks that “The absence of syllabic discrimination in the use of Roman  ˂i˃  ~  ˂j˃  is sufficiently well known to require no further comment.  On the other hand, the fact that the fuþark contains distinct runes i/j and u/w suggests that to speakers of early Gmc dialects (or at least, to the creators of the fuþark) the distinction was perceived as being significant.”  [Findell, p. 54]

Later, Findell concludes:  “It appears that in the Continental runic inscription, as in Older Fuþark inscriptions elsewhere, the “yew rune”  [] is functionally a free variant of i…   The choice of this rune does not appear to be motivated by the phonetic environment…  In the two reliable cases where [the original value of ] appears, we have good grounds for sup-posing it represents a high front vowel.  We have no basis for arguing that the selection of Ï is motivated by any phonetic or phonological distinction – it does not represent a distinct allophone of /i/ or Ï.  What, then, is the motivation for its selection?  Why use a rare and phonologically redundant rune when a more common and formally simpler one is avail-able?  This must remain – for the time being, at least – an open question.”  [Findell, p. 218]

Michael Barnes does not dismiss Antonsen’s idea of an archaic Greek genesis outright.  He says:  “The case that leads Antonsen (and his pupil Morris — cf. Morris 1988) to move the origin of runic writing back to near the middle of the first millennium B.C. is cogently ar-gued and by no means without interest.”  However, “It founders not because of its artifi-ciality but because of the dearth of runic inscriptions between the supposed period of origin and A.D. c. 160, and the lack of a trail of such inscriptions leading from the Mediter-ranean northwards towards Scandinav-ia.”  And, “My complaint against Antonsen and Morris is rather that they have been unwilling to engage with the reasonable criticisms their proposal about the high age of the fuþark has attracted.”  [Barnes (2), p. 24]

(Antonsen goes on to set out “yet further evidence pointing to the origin of runic writing in the Proto-Germanic period” related to linguistic changes, which I will discuss later in this appendix.)

In his detailed discussion of Morris’s archaic Greek theory of runic origins, Odenstedt says:  “To sum up:  I find Morris’s theory unlikely chiefly for chronological reasons.  If the futhark had been invented as early as 500 BC, we would no doubt have had runic inscrip-tions on the numerous early Iron Age objects that have come down to us…”  [Odenstedt (1), p. 382]

Earlier on in his 1990 discussion of Morris’s book, Odenstedt agrees that the Meldorf fibula “might justify Morris’s opinion that the invention of the futhark must be pushed back considerably.”  [ibid, p. 364]  If only it were runic.  But Odenstedt does not agree with Morris and Antonsen that the Meldorf fibula is in fact runic.

Whatever one thinks of the various arguments made for or against a positive identification of the Meldorf fibula as being runic, (or Latin, for that matter), I agree with Bengt Oden-stedt that it’s a very dodgy hook on which to hang a whole theory.



II.   Hendrik Williams’ version of the Latin theory, the ‘Switched at birth’ hypothesis:                                                                                                                                   Bengt Odenstedt is a proponent of the Latin theory of runic origins, and so is Henrik Williams, who developed his own version of the Romans-on-the-Rhine theory, the ‘switched at birth’ variation:

“The Germanic language had all the phonemes of Latin but also six other phonemes (or perceived phonemes), /w/, /ŋ /,  /j/, /ï /, /z/ and /d/…  According to my derivation all of the five “unnecessary” Roman letters [K, Q, X, Y, Z) were used to make runes for these for these extra sixth Germanic phonemes; one more rune was needed for the sixth extra phon-eme, and therefore invented (  probably by the doubling of D). “  [Williams, p. 216]

To get around the obvious discrepancies between his “proto-runes” and “the actually attested sound-values of the fuþark,” Williams postulates that “all the proto-runes with novel i.e. Germanic sound values have “been switched,” or “traded places,” or “been mixed-up…”  When the traditional alphabet order was rearranged into the fuþark se-quence, there was probably a mix-up of certain graphemes, whereby five or six sets of runes were switched pairwise.”  [ibid]



III.   Flashpoints in Discussions of Runic Origins

     IIIA.  The Ing-rune:                                                                                                               One of the major flash-points in scholarly debate on runic origins is the question of the ‘Ing-rune,’   or  .

Terje Spurkland briefly summarizes the issue for scholars with respect to this rune:   “This sign seems redundant because rune-carvers could use    ng just as well.  In fact, there are instances where    and     are used indiscriminately in inscriptions in the elder fuþark.  On the Reistad stone in Vest-Agder in southern Norway, we find                iuþingaR , which is interpreted as the name of a dead person.  On the stone from Arstad in Rogaland, we might be able to read        R,  ‘young friend.’   From these examples we can see that the sequence /ng/ is written both as   and as   .”  [Spurkland, p. 7]

To this, Michael Barnes adds that “[The Ing Rune] cannot in point of fact tell us anything about the age of the runes, since it stands either for/ŋ/, which was a variant of /n/ that occurred immediately before [g] (as English single versus sinful), or for [ŋ] or even [iŋ] + [g] a quicker alternative to writing  [    ].”  [Barnes (1), p. 13]

However, Elmer Antonsen argued that “The most conspicuous of all symbols in the older runic alphabet is the rune   , which is often transliterated as  ŋ  in spite of the fact that there was no phoneme */ ŋ / in the older Germanic languages… The sequences */ng/ and */nk/ were pronounced / ŋg/ and / ŋ k/ (as in English longer and honker.)  The velar nasal in these sequences was merely an allophonic variant of */n/ and as such would not be represented in an alphabetic writing system.  The ng-rune does not represent this velar nasal, but rather the cluster of nasal + stop.  Since this rune, and only this rune, represents a phonemic cluster, it does not fit well into the alphabetic system…  No satisfactory ex-planation of the   rune  has yet been put forward, but one thing is clear:  this rune must have its origin in the Greek tradition, for only there do we find a special designation for /ng/, although nasals are not ordinarily designated before consonants.  The ng-rune  must somehow be connected with Greek gg…”  [Antonsen, p. 102 – 103]

In his review of Richard Morris’s book, Bengt Odenstedt doesn’t have much to add to the discussion on the Ing rune  , except to:  (i)  “agree with Morris and Antonsen thatIng bindrune variant.png.  Ing bindrune.png are to be regarded as bind-runes:  Runic letter isaz.svg  + Runic letter ingwaz.svg …. ”  [Odenstedt (1), p. 373];  and, (ii) essentially, to re-state the sole point [Odenstedt (2), p. 163] where his own ‘Latin theory’ of runic origins differs  from that of Fritz Askeberg’s ‘Latin theory:’  “It is not necessary to go to preclassical Greek Ϙ quoppa [as Richard Morris does] to find a model for Runic letter ingwaz.svg .  Classical Latin Q (which derives from quoppa) provides an equally plausible model.  The new sound value in the futhark is not so strange, considering that Germanic people had no need for Q with its Latin sound value:  they therefore used it to denote a (homorganic) nasal that had no letter of its own in Latin…”  [Odenstedt (1), p. 377]

However, in his book, ‘On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script…,’ Odenstedt gives a protracted discussion on the Ing rune.  [Odenstedt (2), p. 103 – 118, 163, 167]

Speaking in general about the sound value of the Ing rune, Odenstedt remarks that:  “It has often been stated by runologists that Runic letter ingwaz.svg was a superfluous rune since it would have been possible to use n + g (see e.g. Grønvik 1981:28f.), but since at this time g was pro-nounced Ʒ  [sic but see also  Note (3)] everywhere except in the combination ŋg… it is pos-sible that ŋg was perceived as one phoneme, contrasting with e.g. n; if so Runic letter ingwaz.svg is of course a necessary rune…”  [Odenstedt (2), p. 167]

Odenstedt accepts Fritz Askeberg’s theory Latin-derived theory of runic origins (4) – except insofar as it pertains to the Ing rune:  “As I have stated above, I find Askeberg’s derivations convincing, except on one point:  the ŋ-rune.  As I have shown (16. a–c), the original form of the ŋ-rune was probably Runic letter ingwaz.svg.  As we shall see below, this rune should no doubt be derived from Roman Q, the only letter in the Roman alphabet that Askeberg does not use in his derivations…”  [Odenstedt (2), p. 163].

The first problem with Odenstedt’s assertion is that the data he provides in the section he refers to (16. a–c) does not support at all his premise that the original form of the Ing rune was Runic letter ingwaz.svg.  In fact, even in his very own table of the earliest known examples, the Runic letter ingwaz.svg does not show up until the 6th c. in the Vadstena and Motala inscriptions.  [ibid, p. 107]  Meanwhile, even he agrees that the Kylver inscription is a “certain” example of the Ing rune, and Kyl-ver shows the form  ŋ.  Another 5th c. form given in Odensted’s table is that in the Opedal inscription:  

taken from:  for more pictures of runic inscriptions, see also: 

and the Opedal inscription is the only example given by Odenstedt of that form in his table dating from the 5th c. through the 6th c.  Even if the Opedal inscription is assumed to be a rather smushy variation of the Runic letter ingwaz.svg, it’s hardly a solid support for Odenstedt’s assertion regarding the original form, given that his own table also shows a “certain” 5th c. example of the Ing bindrune.png form, in the Szabadbattyán inscription, as well as two more “certain examples of the same form that he dates “c. 500,” namely the Kong and Tanem inscriptions, as well as one “certain”  6th c, inscription, Aquincum and one “uncertain”  6th c. inscription, Grumpan – and all of this he finds wanting against two mere 6th c. examples, Vadstena and Motala, of the form Runic letter ingwaz.svg!!.  So how does Odenstedt justify his assertion that Runic letter ingwaz.svg is the original form of the Ing rune?  He does this by casually and quietly equating it with the form given in the Kylver inscription:  “… In the five inscriptions in which the sound value of the [Ing] rune can be determined none exhibits the sound value  / ŋ /.  But in the three futhark inscriptions in which the rune indisputably occurs (Vadstena, Motala, Kylver) it has the form Runic letter ingwaz.svg [ŋ]…”  [Odenstedt (2), p. 108].   And that’s how the trick is done.  Odenstedt equates the  6th c. form a 5th c. form, because  the 6th c. form Runic letter ingwaz.svg  fits a lot more conveniently into his theory regarding the Latin Q origin of the Ing rune than the actual 5th c. forms ŋ and Ing bindrune.pngwould do!


IIIB.  The ‘Peorð’ Rune:                                                                                                               On the other hand, I find Ray Page’s 19994 assault on Odenstedt’s theory, in Page’s essay ‘Quondam Et Futurus,’ to be harsh and unfair, at least with respect to the ‘P’ rune.  Page rips Odenstedt (justifiably) for not including St. Cuthbert’s coffin and the so-called Pada coins in his survey of runic inscriptions [Page (1), p. 10 – 11].  Fair enough, but then Page goes on to say:  “I think it is beyond the bounds of probability to assert there is no continuity between the earliest use of this graph [the  rune-form], its continued use into the sixth century in fuþarks outside England, and its appearance on the Pada coins and thereafter.  But by marginalising the coin evidence and ignoring that of the Cuthbert coffin, Odenstedt is enabled to deny the likelihood that ‘p’ would be used in [the] Watch-field [inscription].  But by marginalising the coin evidence and ignoring that of the Cuth-bert coffin, Odenstedt is enabled to deny the likelihood that ‘p’ would be used in Watch-field.  What slight evidence there is has been skewed to fit a hypothesis.”  [ibid, p. 11]

But, here is what Odenstedt actually says:  “11.4.1  As we have seen,  seems to have been avoided in runic texts in Scandinavia and on the continent; the only examples occur in futhark inscriptions.  On this point runic practice in England was different –   was used to indicate p in runic words, at least in the later inscriptions.  In my material there occurs one example, helle ‘help’ (subjunctive) in 168 Mortain (c.750).  That  was a rune in liv-ing use in England is confirmed by other inscriptions which fall outside my material.  The Whitby comb uses it in the word h[e]lipæ ‘help’ (Page 1973:168 and Plate 4), and it is also used on the pada and epa coins (ibid:123ff. and Figures 18,19)  The use of   in these late inscriptions seems to be an English innovation.  There is some reason to believe this in-novation is comparatively late.  To judge from a recently discovered sixth-century inscrip-tion, 152 Watchfield (c. 525 – 550),   was still avoided in words containing p, just as in Scandinavia and on the continent.”  [Odenstedt (2), p. 80 – 81].  Odenstedt goes to discuss the Watchfield inscription “at some length” and concludes that it may well be “a case where the rune   is used to indicate the rare consonant p.”  [ibid, p. 81]

I wouldn’t call that a case of “‘denying the likelihood’ that ‘p’ would be used in Watchfield.”  The fact is, that Odenstedt’s case for making out the  rune in Watchfield as actually being a stand-in for the sound designated by the    rune in the Elder Futhark makes a lot of sense; so he is correct in saying that there is “some reason” to believe the use of the latter rune in runic inscriptions (as distinct from fuþark-rows] may have come late to England.


NOTES                                                                                                                                                  (1)  “Morris’s account of previous theories of the origin of runes and of early Greek and Latin epigraphy is highly interesting.  Those who want an introduction to these subjects can hardly find a better guide than Morris.”  [Odensted (1), p. 360]  “… this is a well-written, well argued, knowledgeable and stimulating book.”  [ibid, p. 358]  “Chapters 2 and 3 (p. 55 – 105) are devoted to a thorough discussion of pre-classical Greek and Latin alphabets.  In my opinion these two chapters are the best in the book and invaluable for those who want to study the origin of runes in the future…”  [ibid, p. 367]

(2)  Antonsen doesn’t think to define what he means by ‘Proto-Germanic,’ which is really unfortunate, because “Estimates of when Proto-Germanic became a distinct language vary considerably.  There is general agreement, however, that, by the beginning of the Nordic Iron Age around 600 B.C.E, the inhabitants of southern Scandinavia were speaking a language that can reasonably be termed Proto-Germanic.”  [Sheffield, p. 4]

(3)  Odenstedt means ‘like insular g‘ but there seems to be some disagreement as to how that should be represented; see for example:

April 25, 2015 NOTE:  I fully intend to continue to develop this appendix on runic origins over the next year, but I’ve become bogged down in the complexity of the data and the arguments, and I need to move on right now.



TWO:  OLD NORSE MYTHS and RUNIC SOURCES:  Summary Reviews and recommendations

I’ve launched this second appendix as a separate blog-post:

as it will be updated fairly regularly over the next year, and scrolling down on this page will get annoying.



Sources:                                                                                                                                       Antonsen, Elmer H.  ‘Runes and Germanic Linguistics.’  Mouton de Gruyter.  2002   Barnes, Michael P. (1)   ‘Runes: a Handbook.’ The Boydell Press, 2012                    Barnes, Michael P. (2)., ‘What is Runology and Where Does It Stand Today?‘   in ‘Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 4 (2013)’                                                                                                                  Derolez, René.  (1).   ‘Runica Manuscripta.’  De Tempel, Tempelhof 37, Brugge.  1954  Findell, Martin. ‘Phonological Evidence from the Continental Runic Inscriptions.’  De Gruyter.  2012                                                                                          Morris, Richard L.  “Runic and Mediterranean Epigrahpy.”  ‘NOWELE, Supplement Vol. 4,’ Odense University Press.  1988

Odenstedt, Bengt, (1) ‘A New Theory of the Origin of the Runic Script:  Richard L. Morris’s Book Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy,’ in  Bammesberger, Alfred, ed., ‘Old English Runes and their Continental Background.’ Heidelberg.  1991.  p. 359 – 387                                                                                                                                             Odenstedt, Bengt, (2) ‘On the Origin and Early History of the Early Runic Script:  Typology and Graphic Variation in the Older Futhark.‘   Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adlophi LIX, Uppsala. 1990                                                                                                    Page, R.I.  (1).  ‘Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Collected Essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking Runes.’ The Boydell Press, 1998                                                              Robertson, John. S.  ‘How the Germanic Futhark came from the Roman Alphabet.’   published in Futhark:  International Journal of Runic Studies Vol. 2 2011

Sheffield, Ann Groa, ‘Long Branches, Runes of the Younger Futhark,’   Lulu, 2013 Spurkland, Terje.  ‘Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions.’  Translated by Betsy van der Hoek.  The Boydell Press.  2005                                                                                             Williams, Henrik (1).  ‘The Origin of the Runes.’  in ‘Frisian Runes and Neighboring Traditions.’ 1996, p. 211 – 218.


7 Responses to More on Runes, Rune Poems, and Old Norse Perspectives on the Otherworldly

  1. mark says:

    Hi. I’ve yet to finish the other longer page but here we are today, snow bound. I vote for the archaic Greek ; )

    Note that the Hebrew row contains several candidates as regards th and z. I compared meanings and they are, after extracting for a core essence, not too far off. Teth and Zayin somewhat reflecting Thurisaz and Elhaz as far as conceptual generalities. In actual fact, may runes appear to reflect Hebraic (Kabbalistic) counterparts.

    What I wanted to add, as mentioned in my other comment, is that it’s possible – more so, in light of the above imo – that certain of the (ambiguous) staves were included, and positioned, due to the overall influence of a prevailing Perennial Wisdom, so called, or thereabout.

    I think the three aetts reflect this. As you may know, the Hebrew row has a threefold split concerning it’s letters. I haven’t seen it schematized but read that Sanskrit too has a threefold division in some manner.

    And tho I haven’t been able to find it, all (runes) may be predicated, apart from phonic considerations, on summative numeric correspondences. We should still give weight to Flower’s observation as regards apparent conceptual dichotomies formed when placing the second half of the row under the first, forming pairs. This, and the idea that the middle of the row itself has a significance all to it’s own; so similar to the English alphabet (but not others which may have another significance!).

    I get to shoot from the hip here and waive footnotes and sources : ) But let me know if you’d like an elaboration somewhere.

    I’ve enjoyed your writings. I still wonder at myself for staying on this particular fringe like path. I have never yet met a real person into runes as much as myself or the various authors I find on line.

    Almost forgot to ask. Regarding what is found in certain lays as regards runic Practice (as per say Sigdrifamal), what do you think of the fact that there were other rows fairly identical; that (apparently) had neither lore or magical protocol affixed? I cannot find any other culture who had the idea of staining the letters they just risted with their own blood………….

    Of course Jewish etc etc magic involved the use of Hebrew letters. But I’ve given over a decade to those systems and never once is mentioned to DO something with the letters Themselves. A bit curious with all the ceremonial antics they do otherwise.

    Similarly…. in what other culture was their alphabet, or writing system… Won by a shamanic ordeal!?

    All this is too interesting. Something about the Norse…….


    • Marnie Tunay says:

      Hi, Marc. “snowbound.” Yes, I heard. My sympathies. I’m not familiar with the Hebrew system. My special interest is the runes. Your comments are the same are interesting for me, though. No I didn’t know the Hebrew alphabet had a three-fold division. That’s very interesting. ” summative numeric correspondences” I have no idea what that means. re Edred’s theories: Edred is very knowledgeable. The runes are symbols, rich in meaning and applications. We are like the blind men and the elephant. Everyone can get some sense of them, but we can never know everything about a symbol. The holy grail is to someday be able to apprehend the essence of a symbol. “I’ve enjoyed your writings.” Thanks. I’m happy for your interest and your comments. “I still wonder at myself for staying on this particular fringe like path.” A path calls people to itself. I’m not sure how useful it is to wonder why. George Gurdjieff called his aim in life a ‘whim.’ Perhaps the answer to why for him in the end was ‘because I do.’ I suspect that for me, in part the runes are a roundabout way of seeking the faith in the Divine I’ve lost over the past few years. It’s not gone entirely, but it’s been severely damaged. I think I’m seeking the footsteps of the messengers of the Divine. But I don’t spend much time thinking about it. “runic practice as per Sigdrifamal.” There is no short answer to this. One of the projected appendices on this page will address the meaning of the word ‘rune.’ It rarely meant a single letter of the futhark, for which concept there was ‘rune-stave.’ “Staining with their own blood.” A corrupted idea, in my opinion. Originally taught in mystery schools, as I believe the runes were, the idea was that the runes came alive in your own essence. The blood was a link to the life-force, the soul, I think. “I favor the Greek origins.” I’m rather inclined to favor that theory myself at this point, but I have not yet read or received Bengt Odenstedt’s book on his own theory. To some degree it’s set out in Bammesberger’s book, ‘Old English Runic Inscriptions…’ but I want to see the whole theory. Odenstedt is no dummy, so I’m curious to see what he has to say. Bfn. Have a nice day.

  2. mark says:

    Your faith in the Divine has been shaken. I could type all day here, supporting either side and much is based on reading which makes the whole thing moot…

    I can assure you however that there is something greater going on. I’ve seen both strange craft, likely not black op, on Six occasions and now orbs. With these latter, I’ve learned that they only or mostly appear when I think in very specific, Positive, ways…. Three of the Silent craft disappeared right before my eyes. A coworker saw some of them and thank god for that.
    On the last occasion I was alone on a nature trail. The thing floated by quite low…and once I fixed my attention on it, it suddenly warped up, turned on a dime, shot behind a small cloud and simply vanished. Point being is that I’m sure they did that antic for me, “See ya!”
    They were the same craft on those six and I’m sure they had my “signature”. I think they were simply checking the place out – or perhaps monitoring something (I was thinking they may be concerned about Fukushima or something akin).
    The Ridiculous kicker was that, as far as I can tell, no one else saw them or at least reported them. This, gives you an idea of what (most of) the people are like around here!!! I think many around here are still clueless about chemtrails.

    The blood thing, tho extreme, makes perfect sense in the context of sorcery. I just haven’t heard of this specific approach anywhere else. All of that could have been a romanticizing of the runes as they were such a novelty back then.

    In any case, pondering the runes is for some reason comforting. It imparts a wholesome feeling. One does not get this sensation of wholesomeness when perusing other magical systems! Try Enochian for instance! I jest but it’s true.

    Btw, I did a divination for a certain matter. But the rune I got, the way it came up, seemed to indicate the runes were trying to tell me something about another matter… And poof, in a day or two we got that blizzard and I did or came very close to losing my job. I did unless he gets back to me but it’s been a week and a half. That was Thurisaz….

    That was interesting. I once drew the Tower Key and got fired that week.


    • Marnie Tunay says:

      “With these latter, I’ve learned that they only or mostly appear when I think in very specific, Positive, ways….” To me, this is an indication that you need to check with someone else for outside validation. “A coworker saw some of them and thank god for that” Maybe try to take a picture next time with a cell phone cam if you have one… “The Ridiculous kicker was that, as far as I can tell, no one else saw them or at least reported them.” Well, Marc, it could be that there’s a reason you haven’t thought of, that nobody else is seeing them… The visions plus the repeated job loss suggests to me that you maybe need to see a doctor. Get your eyes checked at least… Glowing orbs appearing out of nowhere could indicate a serious vision or other problem. A CAT scan might be in order. Good luck and thanks for writing.

  3. mark says:

    Ha, you’re way off. I’ve about a 10 second clip with about 8 orbs from different nights – clearly not dust due to their in flight behavior as they don’t simply hover or float. Not by a long shot. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. I’m not the only one doing this of course. They’re on youtube…

    I can call them in by thinking/feeling in certain ways – but sometimes don’t even need to do that. I proved this last night to myself. And the job loss is really due to an unstable boss! My eyes were checked also. I guess I assumed too much in conveying that as I’ve learned the hard way there is yet another dichotomy out there.

    No, my coworker saw them on about three occasions. Only then did he share his experiences in California where they see these spheres that seem to be autonomous. And my boss… he was there, but was too um himself to not see them. He was in a severe car crash which almost got him so we deal with his instability. But overall… employers around here are quite PC. A tad disgusting.

    It’s really no big deal and if you’ve a cam with Viewer you can see them yourself. They are around without having to call them sometimes. Just sit in a room with lights off but cam light on and wait.

  4. mark says:

    Hi again. We got The Long Branches book and so maybe down the road we’ll have some further comments or questions.

    Check this out >

    You will see orbs… It’s not my eyes, or me, whatsoever. This is becoming increasingly common and hopefully indicates things really are changing. I’d like to track down some older pro cameramen to see if they’ve known about all this.

    If you read the comments there you’ll see I asked something about psychic protection. What I didn’t mention was that I was able to break or shake off one of the episodes; by focusing on/invoking Thor and Hammer and a few other related motifs. This surprisingly worked very well and felt as if I got some kind of med that knocked the vampiric symptoms out cold. Due to the complexity of life and psyche we can be sure this exact method won’t always work but it certainly did the last time.

    I am psyched overall, still love runes and all related and am going to (hope to) savor this book over the year.

    Was wondering, hoping, you could type a few short lines as to your take on what the three divisions are essentially about as regards that author’s model you co-opted. Simply body/mind/spirit and that kinda thing? Id/ego/super consciousness… all the usual triune complexes I would imagine.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s