Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

[Grumpy Cat]

The Odinic Rite has its fair share of kooky neo-pagan types

More than it's share. It's a giant ball of fluff, but they hide their fluff behind extreme right-wing views.

I had an OR member admit to me that he called all four corners before a blot.

As much as I don't agree with universalism, I would consider a universalist who did a blot properly more a a true heathen a folklish person who call all four corners any days of the week.

Being folkish or universalist is an opinion, no different from my opinion that Burger King is better than McDonalds, calling all four corners is a sacrilege.

[Magister Eckhart]

Unnecessary triple post is unnecessary.

I once had an interest in Asatru, but the only pagan (from a Christian perspective) belief system that still has any hold over me is Stoicism, which considered the popular cults of the Greco-Roman period to be superstitions.

Dressing up in robes and pretending to be a sorcerer, how does this help one to live what the Stoics called the good life?

Agreed; but you do need to recognise the difference between the kooky Wiccans who do the dressing up and waving "wands" and the genuinely religious Heathens who are committed to building a religion. I think if there is something for you to be found in Stoicism, you would be surprised by how many Heathens share your disdain for the less thoughtful of our species.

Answer, it doesn't; it only teachers mummery and a book knowledge of myths, rites, and so forth. What passes off as paganism in this day and age is merely an anti-Christian reaction.

Being able to mumble supposed incantations or knowing various esoteric tomes doesn't make one a good person, it just means one can mumble and knows esoterica, or can march in a parade with other silly people.

So, I consider the ancient, and entirely workable, philosophies such as Cynicism and Stoicism to be a superior belief system to profess than any sort of new paganism because they require practice, progression, self-reflection, and study- above all one is required to be honest with oneself as one comes to accept his or her place in a seemingly chaotic world:

"Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do."

From purely practical standpoints, Christianity needs to be supported and strengthened as a societal institution. I'm no Christian, yet it's been the dominant religion of the western countries since the end of Roman times. I say this in thinking of comments made by men as diverse in time and space as George Washington, Epictetus, Confucius, and Mencius, and my thoughts run something like:

The dominant religion should be supported, even if one doesn't believe in it, for the stability and strength of society. Otherwise the result is a slide into moral chaos, factionalism as new superstitions and cults rise up to replace the dying faith, and society itself is weakened.

It may be a dinosaur, but this dominant religion of the west still is Christianity and I'm more favorably inclined to it than any of the new paganisms. The new paganism has none of the qualities of being able to fight its way out of a paper bag (not unless, say, tens of millions suddenly become Asatru or somesuch), much less battle the Muslim barbarians to the death for the fate of western civilization, most especially since western people divide religion and state whereas the barbarians make no such distinction.

Hostile feelings regarding Christianity serve no purpose other than to make the pagan devotee feel good, and this frame of mind quickly passes (as it did for me). The radical traditionalism of de Benoist, and others like him, is sort of putting the cart before the horse because it's for a class of intellectual pundits that engage in a sort of philosophical quibbling amongst themselves rather than, say, for the Everyman. This is where Christianity still is superior, by being able to appeal to the Everyman.

The best self-help manual that I've ever encountered is Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and there're several points when he tells himself to stay away from books and over-intellectualizing. Stoicism had at its core of beliefs the triad of ethics, logics, and physics; the earlier Stoics tended to overemphasize logics and physics, leaving ethics by the wayside, but by the time of the Roman-era Stoics, ethics had more or less become the main area of study (that we know of). Epictetus knew of several men in his own day like de Benoist, basically men who "talked the talk [logic, physics] but didn't walk the walk [ethics]." Stoicism can teach us, for example, that virtue is its own reward and that mankind isn't subject to the whims and wiles of an external God (God actually dwells in each of us, so they say, as a portion of the fiery Zeus); the whole purpose of this life is to put philosophy, the love of wisdom, and hence virtue, into practice. God exists, and is thanked, but isn't the focus of one's existence; the actual focus is oneself. This can be done by anyone, man or woman, slave or emperor.

Freeing oneself from the twin traps of too much intellectualizing and clinging to popular superstitions, this is why I don't have a very high opinion of most forms of modern paganism. On one hand, you've got the de Benoists, radical post-Christian traditionalists or somesuch, and on the other, you've got the mummerers who parade around in their costumes, holding rods and staves whilst pretending to cast spells and whatnot.

I have a reply from someone looking who has been reading this thread from over my shoulder. These words aren't my own, but the words of an anon.

What recalcitrant ignorance! Christianity as we know it is a modern concept. Before the creation of the modern state/nations, Christianity was not a religion consisiting of faith and charity (as it has been forced to be now) but another part of the set of powers that ruled the world and that could not be separated from each other for it formed a WHOLE that was our civilization. With the arisal of the modern nations and the transfer of some forces to other forces, the Church was absorved by the king, then by the state etc. until what it is now. While Christianity remained a part of those ruling forces, the church (Popes, masses, priests, doctors, etc.) along with the other ruling forces tried to defend US from our enemies: which were believers of Allah, other forces, or HAD other aims totally unlinked to any God). The moment the state took the power, it was the state that was now the one in charge of defending us. It was just a transfer of power.

My last word, you can blame the old Christianity (sic) for trying to defeat our enemies (in the name of God and tradition) and for not getting their aims, as much as you can blame the modern state for trying to defeat our enemies (in the name of reason) and assuming all the power and responsibility and, so, not getting their aims so far. Paganism will not solve anything just like Christianity won't solve anything because it is the role of the state, not religion as we know it now.

The role of the state being the role of defender, rather than religion, as it used to be in the times when Christianity was more militant, I presume.

You miss the point as much as the "pagans" who practise this sort of quasi-religion. You yourself must admit that a religion without mysticism, though, isn't truly a religion. There must be a whole; a religion must be complete, with a strong theology and also a confirmed mystery of faith. The ritual of the mass in Roman Catholicism was once part of its strength, a part of its strength that it has lost. The fact is that theology gives a religion permanency but it does not seize the minds of peasants; they need ritual and mystery to captivate and compel them religiously. As you will see at a glance, Christianity lacks this power, and today stands little more than a mummified corpse of its old form.

To say that "Christianity" is simply modern - that is ignorance. It is ignorance of the religious power of the faith even in the age when the Catholic Church was a political power. Christianity is a legitimate faith and has been for thousands of years, with or without political power in Rome. To claim, as your friend has, that Christianity is only powerful so long as it was a strong political force ignores the sacrifices of the martyrs down through history as well as the contributions of all the Church Fathers and other theologians. How would you explain the survival of Christianity in the face of political impotence? Whether one is willing to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is some kind of "saviour" or not, one cannot deny that the strength of the Church is not found merely in politics, but in the very living faith practised by millions and confirmed by thousands of thinkers and warriors - the reason why Christianity has lost its power is because the faith is dead. God is dead: Christianity no longer has the moral authority to command the minds of people trained to reject religious mystery in favour of secular scientism.

Anti-Christian feeling seems only natural among a budding faith that finds its roots in a culture that was suppressed by the rising tide of Western Christianity. I am not so sure it is as purposeless and as silly as you make it out to be. Rather, it represents an immature approach to the faith that must be outgrown, but even immaturity is necessary for a complete cycle of growth, even spiritual growth.

[2DREZQ]

Being a Christian is an individual decision. We have free will, and the ability to choose our own path.

I chose to become a Christian. I am a follower of Christ. I believe that I personally am not capable of "saving" myself. That had to be done for me. Christ, the Son of God, did that. I accept that as true, and surrender my will to Him as my King. I am autonomous, He is Soveriegn.

I consider everything I'm told is "God's will" by other men, with a one-eyed squint and one hand on my wallet.

I will stand, armed to the teeth, and defend my country against Islam, if it comes to that.

The Catholic church has weathered the storms of millenia, and is not likely to fall down an time soon. Protestantism grabbed the core strengths of "The Church" and has succeeded for centuries in no small measure by shedding each denomination like a snake sheds its skin when it becomes to restricting. When Lutheranism began to fossilize, the faith moved on, as it were. It continues to this day.

You want racial gunners? I offer you a variety of them in North America. You want altruism in spades? We've got that as well. North American Christianity is alive and well. Reports of its weakness might be compared to Japanese opinion of America's will to fight, circa early 1941.

Sorry if this is a little bit more disjointed than normal, cold meds, you know. I just had to weigh in on this subject, since it bordered on defamation of my Sovereign. Hey, at least Christians don't murder people who "insult" Christianity"!

Oh, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[Psychonaut]

As much as I don't agree with universalism, I would consider a universalist who did a blot properly more a a true heathen a folklish person who call all four corners any days of the week.

Why would orthopraxy necessarily make someone a truer representative of a religion than heteropraxy? Such views are common in Heathenry, but they're never defended with any rigor. To say that an orthopraxic methodology is superior to heteropraxy to imply that tradition weighs heavier than efficacy in regards to religious practice; is this so? If so, why do you think so? Why should I persist in an historically accurate practice that does not, for me, tend to result in a hierophany when a different, non-historical, practice does? Is the traditional methodology of approaching the divine more important than the approach itself? If so, why?

[Baron Samedi]

Fixed

Some of us actually practice magic in regards to our ancestors, and it's not bullshit.

Most folks are just too lazy to even get off internet message boards to devote themselves to a sacred art.

As far as proving it? Why should I have to?

Our ancestors were convinced....

[Green River]

Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

Yes, paganism is are key defense against Islam and JUDEO- Christianity!

[Magister Eckhart]

Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

Yes, paganism is are key defense against Islam and JUDEO- Christianity!

"is are"? Seriously? And you're from the US? Then again you are emphasising the "judeo", which means you're probably an anti-Semite, so I won't be expecting much intelligence from your corner. Prove me wrong.

Some of us actually practice magic in regards to our ancestors, and it's not bullshit.

Most folks are just too lazy to even get off internet message boards to devote themselves to a sacred art.

As far as proving it? Why should I have to?

Our ancestors were convinced....

We can offer more support for rune magic than just "our ancestors did it". Our ancestors also used to lay men face-down on rocks and cut out their lungs.

Scriptural support for rune magic is abundant in Heathenry as a principle form of gaining access oneself to the wisdom of the Gods. No empirical proof can be given, to be sure, but no less empirical proof can be provided for Germanic rune magic or Graeco-Roman augery than for the Christian Mysteries of Faith. Yet, the ritual power of these beliefs and their actualisation in practise is undeniable.

Indeed, a lot of "magick" and "sorcery" is completely contrived nonsense meant to augment the fascination with Ouija boards that these infantile neo-pagans call "religion". Crystals, wand-waving, tarot cards and drug-induced hazes, all are little more than masturbatory acts for the purpose of the pretence that one is "deep" or "mystical".

The difference is the level of truth in the practise, and the level of true faith. There is power hidden in this world from the man bound to his senses, spiritual power and spiritual experience which is completely esoteric in nature; the ancient and primordial practises of the earliest worshippers are the only true access to this otherwordly reality, which is why in many cases what Wulfhere is calling "sorcery", what is really more properly a mystery of faith embodied in ritual, is definitely a real experience.

Furthermore, the burden of proof in these cases really rests on the non-believer rather than the believer. The atheist and the sceptic are spitting in the face of over ten millennia of human history and then place the burden of proof on those who hold to older ways; it's the worst cop-out in history, and it's been tolerated in the West for far too long.

[Brynhild]

Fixed

I'd like to know why it's such a bullshit view to be held oathbound for the sake of a brotherhood. If that's their rules, then that's their rules. If people don't want to be held to such oaths (and I'm one of those) then it's a simple process of not joining.

More than it's share. It's a giant ball of fluff, but they hide their fluff behind extreme right-wing views.

I had an OR member admit to me that he called all four corners before a blot.

As much as I don't agree with universalism, I would consider a universalist who did a blot properly more a a true heathen a folklish person who call all four corners any days of the week.

Being folkish or universalist is an opinion, no different from my opinion that Burger King is better than McDonalds, calling all four corners is a sacrilege.

KKK are right-wing fundamentalist Christians as well. You're going to get rotten apples in every bunch. Attitudes such as those already mentioned are just going to drive solitaries like myself further underground. Why? Because I couldn't be fucked with people who are forever critical of things they know absolutely nothing about!

I think Nationalist pride is missing more than anything, and you don't need to be of a religious persuasion, just mindful of your heritage and culture. Minority groups and multiculturalism are taking those rights away from people with each passing day, making it increasingly difficult for us to remember who we are.

[2DREZQ]

KKK are right-wing fundamentalist Christians as well.

Uhmmm...

No.

The basic activities and most of the beliefs espoused by the Klan place them at odds with the Teachings of Christ that are central to the fundamentalist mindset. Speaking as someone who could be described as a fundamentalist, and has actually been exposed to Klan beliefs.

[Psychonaut]

the ancient and primordial practises of the earliest worshippers are the only true access to this otherwordly reality

While I heartily agree with you on the importance of the hierophany in religion, why do you say that only ancient methodologies are effective? As one who has made a study and practice of psychonautics (or, in this discussion, we might say hieronautics) for the last twelve years, engaging in long term experimentation with a myriad of ancient and modern praxes, I can definitely say that many of the contemporary methods have surpassed those of the ancients in their efficacy. This is glaringly true when it comes to trance induction. Now that we know so much more about what actually goes on in the body/brain during trance (from hooking up Yogis to EEG machines), our methods of inducing it have really taken off. If we think of psychonautics as being similar to hacking, the old methods are more like brute force attacks, while many of the newer ones are like sophisticated viruses that fully take advantages of the brain's architecture. It's like the difference between breaking through a brick wall with a sledge hammer versus finding one loose brick that then loosens the rest.