The Sons of the Knife
If the Sikh has a right to his kirpan, the Saxon has a right to his seax.
Let a man never stir on his road a step
without his weapons of war;
for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise
of a spear on the way without.
- Hávamál, Stanza 38
On December 3rd, 2025 the 18-year-old accountancy student Henry Nowak was walking home from a night at the pub with his friends from the University of Southampton football team. Nowak had a few pints in him, yes, but he was far from blind drunk. He was singing to himself and SnapChatting with his friends. From the sounds of it he was in high spirits.
Around half past midnight he encountered Vickrum Singh Digwa, 23, who was openly carrying a shastar or Punjabi short-sword. This struck Nowak as notable, and he teased Digwa, “Innit bad man, what bad man. You’re a bad man, say you’re a bad man, go on.”
“I am a bad man,” Digwa replied.
At that point the video cut off.
When the police arrived they found Nowak bleeding from four stab wounds: one on the jaw, two on the backs of his legs, and one deep puncture through his lung. He had tried to escape Digwa by climbing over a bin, a fence, and a car. Digwa informed the police that Nowak had done a racism.
The 999 call was apparently made, not by a concerned onlooker, but by Digwa’s brother, who called in to report that Nowak had racially assaulted Digwa. Video from the encounter records Digwa mocking Nowak, telling him that he hadn’t been stabbed, he was just drunk.
The police responded by handcuffing the wounded Nowak.
Nowak drowned in his own blood shortly thereafter.
Digwa was later arrested and charged with murder. His mother, Kiran Kaur, was also charged with assisting an offender, as it is alleged that she arrived on the murder scene before the police and hid Digwa’s shastar. When the weapon was recovered, Nowak’s blood and fatty tissue, Digwa’s hair, and Kaur’s DNA were found on the sheath. Nowak’s phone was also found in Digwa’s possession, suggesting either that Digwa was just trying to rob Nowak, or – more likely – that he was trying to hide damning evidence that was contained on it.
The trial commenced a few days ago, following Digwa’s plea of not guilty which he entered because, you see, he was defending himself from a racially motivated assault launched by the viciously unarmed white kid, and there can be no guilt when a racist is involved. Perhaps Nowak disliked Sikhs; perhaps he liked them; perhaps he was serenely indifferent. Whatever his private opinions, does it strike anyone as plausible that an unarmed young man would physically attack a man he’d taken note of specifically because he was armed? Not that this will necessarily matter to a British court, for which all other facts are routinely overruled by the observable facts of skin colour.
Regardless of the trial’s outcome, there are a couple of notable things about this case. The first and most obvious is that the police reacted by handcuffing a young white man who – given the multiple stab wounds that Digwa had inflicted upon him – was quite clearly the victim in the situation, rather than the brown man who was equally clearly the aggressor. Nowak apparently would have died regardless, but this is neither here nor there to their demonstrably hostile disposition. The law enforcement officers of the Yookay have been so deeply indoctrinated with oikophobic mindrot that their first instinct is to restrain a white man as he’s bleeding out, solely on the say-so of a brown man claiming an intolerable intolerance had been done unto his blameless self. By now the Yookish authorities are well-known for this kind of two-tiered response. These are the same monsters who have aided, abetted, and covered up the systematic mass rape of hundreds of thousands of white girls – as in, twelve-year-old white girls – by Pakistani rape gangs, for decades. The cheerful euphemism ‘grooming gangs’ does not do justice to the abuse these girls suffered, which included being burned with cigarettes, tied up, gang-raped over periods of months, forcibly injected with heroin, having baseball bats and broken liquor bottles rammed into their vaginas, and being held captive and starved. Throughout all of this their Pakistani abusers were quite open about the ethnoreligious dimension of their predation, referring to their captives as white slags and white cunts, and holding special gang rape parties to celebrate Eid.
The Yookay’s lawlessness enforcement agencies have long since been purged of that type of good man who can’t bring himself to treat his own people as helots. Instead their ranks have been packed with antiracist lesbian girlbosses, Islamic mercenaries, and that particularly contemptible species of squishy little nematode that’s willing to crawl through any sort of filth as long as it comes with a small paycheck and a modest pension.
This is from a year ago, during the nationwide protests against the migrant hotels.
Nowak’s case is simply one more entry in a ledger of outrageous grievances that has by now consigned the suffocating autoethnocidal bureaucracy managing Great Britain’s decline to the short list of the most evil regimes in recorded history. In the context of the litany of horror inflicted by Tony Blair’s troglodytic spawn, Nowak’s treatment is really a small thing, which merely underlines once again that the Yookish police are the enemy of the British people, and that there is no sane reason why policing the Yookay should not be among the world’s most dangerous occupations.
That’s the first thing to notice, and it’s already been noticed enough that talking about it only makes me feel nauseous.
The second thing to notice is that Digwa was armed in the first place.
Infamously, as one of its many assaults upon British tradition – the latest of which is the end of jury trials, a right Englishmen have enjoyed since the Magna Carta – the decline’s managers disarmed the British people. The right of (Protestant) Englishmen to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Glorious Revolution’s 1689 Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment of the American Constitution’s Bill of Rights is essentially a reiteration of this ancient right of Englishmen; indeed, one of the complaints of the revolutionary colonists was that their rights as Englishmen were not being respected by the English crown. The right to bear arms was first expressed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, but its origin is much older, in the ancient Germanic understanding that a free man is an armed man, and that only slaves are prohibited the means of assuring their personal security. Britain’s managerial regime spent the twentieth century patiently gnawing away at the right to bear arms. It began its assault with licensing requirements in 1920, finally escalating to absolute bans following the 1988 Hungerford massacre1 and the 1996 Dunblane massacre2.
As with all of its petty oppressions, the excuse for banning firearms has always been public safety, which the Yookish regime claims to prize much more highly than public liberty, which it does not claim to prize at all, that being the only honest thing about it. The sincerity of these invocations of safety is rendered dubious by the simultaneous premium Westminster, Whitehall, Number 10 Downing, and Buckingham Palace place upon the uninterrupted mass importation of humanoid dross from the most violently dysfunctional countries on the planet, which (notably) started in earnest at almost exactly the same time that the British people were disarmed.
It was not enough to take away the tools of self-defence. The principle of self-defence was also effectively eliminated: if a private citizen injures or kills a criminal in the course of defending himself against criminal predation, he will be charged as a criminal himself. The British people are expected to outsource their personal defence to police who refuse to defend them, in a country to which their government deliberately imports as many dangerous men as it can. Notably, defence against dangerous men of diversity is particularly frowned upon, because this is racist; indeed, even to complain about diversity danger is treated as a worse crime than rape, robbery, assault, or murder. The Yookay arrests more people for speechcrime than any other country on the planet.
Since firearms are banned, Britain’s criminal element has turned to knives, leading to a long-standing hysteria over knife crime. ‘Zombie-style knives’ and ‘ninja swords’ were banned in 2024 and 2025, while online knife sales now require 2-step age verification. There have even been calls to ban knives with sharp points, which would present certain challenges to the culinary arts. Meanwhile the stop-and-search policies intended to control knife crime on the streets are routinely derided as racist, as it is (surprise!) overwhelmingly young black men who are caught with concealed knives, which of course they conceal because their intent is to use them in the commission of robbery, assault, and murder. Which the British people are not permitted to defend themselves from, and which the Yookish police refuse to do anything about.
All of this raises the question of why, precisely, Digwa was walking around with a big knife.
The answer to this is that Digwa is a Sikh, and Sikhs have a special carve-out for the kirpan, a ceremonial knife which their religion mandates they carry with them at all times, as (if I understand correctly) a symbol of resistance to oppression and their readiness to always be prepared to defend the weak from injustice. Symbolic or not, the kirpan is a very real knife, with a very real edge.
The special religious dispensation granted Britain’s Sikhs is merely the most visible double-standard when it comes to keeping weapons. We saw another example during the Southport riots, when large numbers of Muslims turned out on the streets with machetes. Rather than arresting the lot of them (which the Yookish authorities couldn’t do, as they were busy filling the prisons with British protesters), the lawl enforcement officers on the scene advised them to hide their weapons in their mosque, which out of respect for the delicate sensibilities of the vibrant Islamic community the police would certainly never even dream of searching. One wonders just how many mosques are hiding caches of weapons.
Unlike the benevolently blind eye the Yookish authorities cast upon their treasured Muslims, however, the Sikh exemption is actually written into law.
As the Nowak case broke across social media a few days ago, a lot of people called for an end to this double standard. If whites are disarmed, then everyone else should be as well. There should be no special treatment on account of their heathen gods.
This is an understandable position, but I think it’s the wrong one. It is the thought pattern of The Raped.
Rather than wanting to drag Sikhs down to the subbasement of slavish cuckery into which they’ve been pressed, Anglo-Saxons should instead demand that they, too, be allowed to arm themselves.
The Sikh argument is that their faith requires that they be armed at all time.
The Saxon argument is similar to the Sikh, but if anything it is even more fundamental.
The name Saxon derives from the seax, the characteristic short sword carried by the Germanic invaders who made England their home in the 5th century. ‘Saxon’ literally means ‘the sons of the knife’, ‘the people of the blade’, or ‘the swordsmen’.
The very identity of our tribe is intertwined with privately held armaments. This is pre-political; it’s pre-religious; for the Saxon, armaments are an identitarian symbol that goes to the very core of what a Saxon is. To remove the seax from the Saxon is to strip him of his identity. Which, of course, is the avowed goal of the Fabian social engineers who have laboured for generations to reconstitute the definite form of the Anglo-Saxon into a pliable mush of generic, vaguely-defined, ahistorical, and universally extensible “values” that no Anglo-Saxon had even heard of until five minutes ago.
If Henry Nowak had carried a seax sheathed on his belt, he would almost certainly still be alive today. The open display of a knife is a powerful deterrent, following the same principle of mutually assured destruction that governs relations between nuclear states. At close range it’s impossible to dodge a knife attack, and any attempt to block a knife just means you get cut somewhere else. The most likely outcome of a fight between two men armed with knives is two dead men; most men understand this, and so will leave men with knives alone even if they carry one themselves. If Nowak had been armed in this fashion, Digwa’s response to him would probably have been a courteous “You’re a bad man, too,” and that would have been the end of the interaction.
The same principle obviously applies to knife crime. Criminals are opportunistic predators. They avoid hard prey. There’s profit in jacking up easy meat to get a free iPhone, but not so much in getting stabbed into fresh meat yourself. If every Saxon wore a seax, street crime would very rapidly become a non-issue.
Of course, from the perspective of the Yookish governing apparat, the powerlessness of its subjects against criminal predation is quite an insignificant price to pay in exchange for ensuring the powerlessness of the autochthonous helotry against the apparat itself. If anything it’s a bonus. The regular humiliation of being forced to endure low-level criminality encourages a feeling of helplessness. The rainbow communists will therefore never “allow” the Saxon to rearm himself.
But what if the Saxon wore the seax without permission?
Any individual Saxon who started walking around the streets of Britain with a seax would be immediately arrested. One way around this would be for so many people to wear one that the state ran out of jail cells. This has its own problems, however. If everyone is technically a felon, the police can arbitrarily arrest anyone, at any time. This would be particularly disastrous for political dissidents, who the state is always looking for any excuse to arrest. Imprisonment wouldn’t be the only potential consequence: heavy fines could be levied on offenders, and offenders could be debanked. The effeminate regime generally favours administrative tyranny over the iron fist, as soft measures can be taken remotely and bloodlessly, without exposing themselves or their agents to physical danger.
A sufficiently motivated Saxon could, however, use the inevitable court case as a cause celebre. The strategy would be two-fold. First, publicity would put the idea in the heads of other Saxons: you should rearm yourselves, because armaments are your right as Saxons. The seax is part of your national dress! Second, and more importantly, a properly constructed court case would draw the Yookish oppressor into a no-win situation. A finding in favour of the defendant would establish the precedent that it is the human right of Saxons to wear the seax, after which nothing would prevent the Saxons from rearming en masse. Obviously the authorities understand this, and so there would be intense political pressure to find against the defendant. That, however, would drive yet another big, fat spike of a nail into the coffin in which the Yookish traitors have been encasing themselves: if Sikhs are allowed to carry knives because their religion demands it, but Saxons are not despite an exactly comparable ethnoreligious argument, it would once again underline the preference shown by the regime toward its pet invaders.
An explicitly religious component may be helpful to the argument. The stanza from the Hávamál could provide the necessary scriptural justification: when Odin says “Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war”, this can be very easily interpreted as a directive to always be armed in public. It can of course also be argued that this is more in the way of advice than a strict commandment: the pagan deities don’t proclaim laws in the same way that the God of Abraham does. However, what matters for the purpose of a legal argument isn’t how someone else interprets a given religious doctrine. Courts are not supposed to adjudicate theological disputes, and therefore it’s what the faithful believe that counts. The faithful can believe whatever they want.
It’s worth pointing out that Odin doesn’t specify what kind of weapon one should carry. He simply says ‘weapons of war’, and gives the example of a spear. The specific weapon of war one should carry is up to the judgment of the individual man. The principle very obviously extends to firearms. However, it’s worth pointing out that the example of the spear suggests that Odin is not saying that one should carry concealed armaments, since it is quite impossible to hide a spear. Concealed weapons carry no deterrent effect, but they can signal criminal intent, since they confer the benefit of surprise over an unwary victim.
So far this discussion has focused primarily on Britain, but the same principle can be applied throughout the Anglosphere.
American citizens of course enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment, but as Americans know all too well this constitutional principle is very unevenly applied. Some red states enshrine both open and concealed carry. Some blue states tie down the 2A with so many rules and regulations that the right to keep and bear arms may as well not even exist. The core problem Americans have in this regard is that the Second Amendment is a merely political right, meaning that it can be chipped away at by politicians. If instead the right to keep and bear arms was approached as a fundamentally religious question, the communists would have a much more difficult time diluting it.
Americans are the most Christian nation of the Anglosphere, and Christians probably have a harder time making a religious argument for bearing arms than Odinists do. It’s not impossible, however. Christians can quote Matthew 10:34, in which Jesus says “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” There’s also Luke 22:36, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment,” and Luke 11:21, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.” All of these passages suggest that Jesus Christ thinks you should be strapped. While He disapproves of wanton violence, He is no pacifist.
It’s probably possible for Americans to bolster the Second Amendment using the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause, by expressing Constitutional Originalism as a religious philosophy that demands that every man be armed. Honestly, American Constitutionalists already think this way, it’s just a matter of making the de facto explicit.
In Canada, interestingly, it’s actually entirely legal to walk around with a sword. It isn’t normal, obviously, and it will certainly attract the gimlet eye of the constabulary. Intent is the key issue in Canadian law: if the weapon is being carried for some purpose contrary to the public peace, the police can arrest you, confiscate the weapon, and lay charges. If the reason you give the nice officer is ‘I’m wearing it to defend myself’ or ‘I just think it looks cool,’ this is considered contrary to the public peace, and legal difficulties are likely. However, it is explicitly legal in Canada to carry a sword if, for instance, one is going to historical martial arts practice, LARPing in a historical reenactment, or (and this is the crucial bit) if one has valid cultural or religious reasons ... as in the case, once again, of the Sikh kirpan.
The precedent established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2006 case Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys effectively made it legal for Sikhs to carry kirpans wherever they go, including (as per the complaint in Multani) in public schools, because banning them from carrying their holy knives is a violation of their religious liberty. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that Sikhs are allowed to use their kirpans to threaten or attack people, and indeed their religion explicitly prohibits them from using their kirpans for such purposes, a reassurance that contributed to their successful litigation of the issue. The point is that the precedent is there: cultural or religious grounds can be invoked to force the government to allow you to carry weapons. All that remains is for some determined Canadian Saxon to use it.
This would be an uphill battle, of course, and I would not recommend any individual or group to undertake it lightly. I would in fact strongly advise almost anyone reading this from trying this out, because you will almost certainly get into trouble. The courts are naturally biased against whites, and will be deeply suspicious of any new cults which claim that their doctrine demands that they be armed with a specific ceremonial weapon. The probability of success is very slim, and the probability of jail time is very high.
When Sikhs fought this battle in the Anglosphere’s courts, they went in with some crucial advantages: the question was decided by a sympathetic judiciary terrified of looking intolerant towards a religious minority; Sikhs could point to a long and well-established religious tradition; Sikhs had the moral and (I assume) financial support of a large and well-resourced faith community. A Saxon that goes into this half-cocked will have none of these things, and without them success is much less likely. A sympathetic judge is laughably improbable, which makes community support all the more important. The defendant would need to have the backing of a large and absolutely rabid cult, the sincerity of whose belief was beyond question, and which would be liable to chimp if they did not get their way. It would help enormously if this group could point to religious teachings and organizational practices that strongly discourage aggression. Perhaps a real-life Brotherhood of Saint Possenti, the unofficial patron saint of gunslingers, would have a good shot (heh).
Of course, we aren’t likely to get militant Catholic orders or politically astute pagan brotherhoods any time soon, and insofar as we are, adopting a policy of publicly bearing arms is a short path to organizational disaster. It would be just the excuse that the authorities would need to bring the hammer down, arrest the leadership, seize the organization’s assets, and declare it a terrorist group. Leaders would wisely be leery of having their people walk around on the streets with weapons.
Given that, another strategy is the social media influencer path, because while we don’t have much in the way of formal organizations, the ad hoc networks we’ve built on social media are a particular strength of ours. In this version, an ambitious young man with nothing to lose goes full kamikaze, and makes himself The Seax Guy. He’s got a TikTok, an Instagram, channels on YouTube and Rumble, a Substack, and an X account, and his thing is basically just walking around with a seax and seeing what happens, while advocating for the ancient right of Saxon freemen to wear their traditional national implement, as part of a broader focus on Saxon revivalism and national pride. Obviously he’ll get arrested, at least once and probably repeatedly, but this just provides fodder for the attention economy. His goal is to end up in court, specifically so that he can argue for the right to wear the seax while forcing the authorities to tie themselves in knots as they try to explain why it’s okay for Sikhs but not for Saxons. Meanwhile he monetizes with views, a Patreon, superchats, sponsorships, and a webstore selling authentic British and American-forged seaxes, hand-made artisanal leather sheathes, whetstones, and oil for polishing the blades. At some point he can write a book or something. Again, and this can’t be emphasized enough, this strategy is obviously extremely risky for anyone who wants to try it, but it has the great advantage that pretty much anyone could start doing it tomorrow, and the only life they’d risk screwing up is their own.
Winning back the right of Saxons to wear the seax is a tall mountain to climb, so what’s the point? Don’t we have more important things to do, like take back control of our governments so we can remigrate the invaders? Of course we do. But that isn’t going to happen overnight, and in the meantime some measure of personal defence on the mean streets of the post-West would not be unwelcome.
The real point isn’t self-defence, however. It’s psychology. Forcing men to outsource their defence infantilizes them. The modern Westoid is cucked. His soul has been gelded by his defencelessness. A man who is powerless to protect himself, his loved ones, and his property becomes cautious, servile, and deferential to authority, because the authorities are now the only protection he has left ... even if they generally won’t do anything to protect him, which actually renders him more servile, because all he can do is endure. He basically becomes Reek from Game of Thrones. As a direct result of this, he is less likely to speak candidly, because voicing opinions contrary to prevailing sentiment risks alienation from the collective, which would render him helpless.
Walking around with seaxes on their belts would not give men the physical ability to overthrow the government or anything, that would be silly. Knives are no good against rifles, and even rifles are of very limited use against the administrative state: as many have observed, for all their muttering about the immanent Electric Boogaloo (any day now!), red state Americans have not yet taken up arms against a government that is far more oppressive than the British Empire ever was. It’s not clear that taking up arms would actually do much. Fifth generation warfare problems require fifth generation warfare solutions, and we’re actually doing pretty well in that arena. That said, it also has to be acknowledged that the US government, for all its many faults, is far less tyrannical than the governments of the rest of the Anglosphere. This is certainly not because there is any shortage of enthusiasm for tyranny amongst America’s homegrown Khmer Rainbow. They would go much farther if they could. Part of the explanation for this relative liberty is probably that America’s large population of armed men do not feel themselves to be so easily cowed as their British counterparts; because they don’t feel easily cowed, they aren’t; because they aren’t, the state treads a bit more lightly. The effect is hormonal as much as anything else, and this has a subtle but real behavioural impact which affects the way American men carry themselves, speak, and think.
In addition to the salubrious psychological impact that carrying implements of violence has upon male psychology, there is also a desirable effect on the enemy’s psychology. Namely, it intimidates them. The modern white man is expected to be meek, soft-spoken, and unthreatening, because anything else makes his jailers feel unsafe. By and large, men have complied with this, which is a big part of the reason that the regime finds it so easy to abuse them. Carrying weapons would make them screech that they feel unsafe, and this is a good thing. They should feel unsafe, because they are vicious traitors who have perpetrated monstrous crimes upon our civilization. If leftoids feel unsafe, they will be far more hesitant to shriek like banshees when they don’t get their way, which will make our public spaces quieter and more enjoyable. The non-white criminal auxiliaries the left has lovingly nurtured will also be much more cautious. The mere presence of armed white men would serve to passively reinforce the public peace. What’s not to love?
A revival of the seax would also help the Saxon to remember who he is. The modern Anglo is not only defenceless, but deracinated. He has been severed from his roots by a long process of social engineering which has systematically eliminated his traditions, his faith, and his ancient rights from public life. He floats in an asynchronous, decontextualized moment, with no idea where he came from, where he is, or who he is. This state of semi-consciousness renders him malleable, which is precisely why he has been put into it. It enables the regime to marginalize the Saxon in his own countries. Reestablishing a connection with ancient symbols by wearing the weapon from which his ancestors took their tribal name would be a visible reminder of his origins and identity, not as some sanitized, defanged national cuisine or music or costume or whatever, but as something potentially dangerous and therefore very alive and undeniably real. That alone would be a very powerful thing.
I’d like to finish this by noting that I have nothing in particular against Sikhs myself, and certainly don’t resent their carrying the kirpan. What I resent is the double standard. Indeed, I got some input on this piece from a Sikh friend whose fond hope is that the Anglo uncucks himself and finds his warrior spirit again, and who was very happy to share his thoughts on how we might leverage the same legal processes used by Sikhs to win our own right to wear our tribal weapon again.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you enjoyed it, and I hope it was worth the wait. Obviously, given the news cycle, this is something I threw together over the Victoria Day weekend, while the rest of you were out enjoying the weather, which is finally beautiful (which I’m enjoying myself, sitting here on the patio as I type this). Winter this year was especially long, cold, and dreary, and that affected my mood quite a bit, probably contributing to the creative funk I’ve been experiencing lately, which is part of my sorry excuse for the relative paucity of posting the last couple of months (the other reasons being things I can’t talk about yet). Now that the weather’s finally turning, I can feel my mood lifting already, and I’m hoping to polish up a few much longer pieces I’ve been plugging away at to the point where I can share them with you. I’ve got 23 open documents in LibreOffice Writer at the moment, some of which have grown to 20,000 words or so...
All of which is to say that my gratitude towards those of you who patronize my writing is particularly strong right now. Your patience is nothing short of saintly. From the very bottom of my heart, thank you.
And, because Substack complains if I don’t do this, if you’d like to support Postcards From Barsoom yourself, which you can do for the price of a domestic beer a month, you know what to do:
A mass shooting that claimed 16 lives, for which no motive was ever determined.
In which the shooter murdered 16 students, a teacher, and injured 15 others before turning his weapon on himself. The shooter was a disgruntled former Scout leader who’d been kicked out on suspicion of pederastic intent. One suspects that had he began his scouting career twenty years later, he would have been celebrated for his stunning and brave representation of the PLGBT community (it’s a silent P).
You'll notice I didn't say anything about Sikhs having high rates of violent crime.
As to Alfred the Great, or for that matter any other king of England, none of them dealt with a situation in which their government did something on the scale of Rotherham to their own people. That's an historically unprecedented situation. It demands an unprecedented response, along with a reminder that will last in people's memories for a thousand years, so that nothing like it ever, ever happens again.
Is the intention to gain the permission of the state to carry a specific type of weapon, or is the intention to assert a pre-modern right to arm oneself?
I think an appeal to the courts may be the wrong approach in that it requires an acknowledgement of their right to make the determination in the first place. If the point is that this is something that predates the modern state and predates the notionally foundational religion of the state, deferring to a judge seems unnecessary.
If we're honest about this no one really wants to carry a seax, the point is to arm oneself with a personal weapon that can be carried about in public on a daily basis. The seax may carry a certain amount of cultural significance among a segment of the population but I'd bet most white Britons couldn't identify one in a lineup of edged weapons. Why limit the discussion to that specific weapon? "All men should be armed when outside their home" is a much simpler statement than "White Britons, carry a seax and stand with your ancestors".
I've carried a handgun daily for almost 20 years. I do so with a permit from my state but if the permits were withdrawn I certainly wouldn't stop carrying a gun. If I couldn't access a handgun I'd carry a knife. The point isn't the specific weapon itself but rather the act of taking direct ownership for your own immediate protection. Convincing men to stop deferring to the police and the justice system should be the priority rather than getting hung up on the particulars of what they carry. The point is to orient people in a way where they view themselves as not being under the protection or rule of an illegitimate government.