The word race carries great weight in modern times, but its significance is too often misunderstood, even to the degree of bare contradiction and absurdity. Because there have undoubtedly been grievances during certain periods in history from the domination of one powerful set of people over another, the term racism never fails to raise emotions concerning such events in history, and especially when an instance of it is seemingly repeated nowadays. But the notions of race and racism, since they command and induce such high emotions, have become too sacred for some to reconsider and comprehend, and hence the people who subscribe to the usual definitions and historical lessons on the subject run the risk of being employed as mere tools and servants to fulfill the interests of those powerful and hidden ones who profit or generally benefit from civil disturbances or unregulated immigration. I will attempt to explain this rather complicated case.
In monotheism, which still rules the world (along with its modern and degenerate offspring, atheism) with absolute power, the religious hierarchy seeks to end all opposition to its doctrines and views, by using high promises and harsh warnings to induce action and fear within the minds of its followers and proselytes towards a private cause that is always misrepresented as a common one for the benefit of all. Now, since monotheism subscribes to notions of universalism, that is, absolute truths and one supreme way for all mankind, the easiest means to gain and maintain followers is to call them “chosen people” who have “no differences at all” and who will all go to heaven together for eternity if they become “obedient servants” to their deity and the deity’s “representatives on earth”, but otherwise the disobedient will be punished in hell forever. Monotheism thus tortures the mind to choose between two miserable and unnatural extremes, and where the mind flees, the person is subject to torture and distress by other means, till he submits to the “will of heaven”. I find a clear parallel in this point between the old monotheism and the new “liberalism” that exists nowadays.
There are certain powerful leaders nowadays (counterparts of the priests of old) who subscribe to a general and absolute notion of universalism that at first may seem the height of what is good, but in reality brings a great deal of harm of the world. This universalism states a dogmatic syllogism to this effect “all people are good and the same, and they were created equal: therefore, it does not matter where they live or travel, how much their races intermarry, or what culture they subscribe to, since they are all one people without differences”. These words are superficially logical and just, but when this white surface is examined and scratched carefully, especially through the actions that they induce, the true colors of the fallacy appear, along with enough contradictions and absurdities to confirm the evil motives of those modern leaders, and the poor blindness of their followers.
Although there are many ridiculous faults within this fallacy stated above, it will suffice to expose only three, the greatest of them. The first and most obvious contradiction in this deceitful universalism is that the notion punishes and degrades the “white man”, not only by using all his collective historical actions as evil things to be condemned, but also by raising emotions against him as a person, which if done with any other races (or even person), would be criminal. This is racism in itself, because it attributes certain qualities and collective guilt to a people because of the actions of former generations, which they had no hand in. But what is yet more repugnant to the mind, is when some white men reject this view of their being “the devil”, and call it a grievance and a return of racism, they are cried down and shamed further, a sort of torture that cannot fail to remind us of historical monotheism. Indeed, unless a white person entirely accepts his inferior position as an evil race that must be kept in check, without speaking well of his ancestors or glorifying anything at all in his history, such a person will be threatened with “hell”. The second fallacy, is that of unregulated immigration, which has become a subject of great debate nowadays, and rightly so. Although I am not a proponent of nations (I support smaller entities, like city-states, but this is a future topic to write upon), there is no doubt that borders exist for a very particular reason. It is unfortunate that the childish logic prevailing today, i.e. borders should not exist for the race of mankind, is not only an invented dream of returning to a Golden Age that had never existed, but it also dismisses immediately thousands of years of history and millions of lives lost in wars that contributed to the present situation of the earth. It is as if they believe in a simple view that all wars can end by opening borders and letting all people live together in one land happily forever. If they were only ignorant of history, it would be tolerable to debate them, but there is hardly any sense at all in their idealism. For example, let us consider their notion of absent borders in a smaller scope: Would anyone leave his front door open, or even worse, to remove it altogether, and thereby allow anyone to come in? This would hardly be accepted in one’s own neighborhood. But why is this the case? Is it because we hate people and our neighbors, or because things are bound to go wrong without certain rules and “boundaries” in place? One could help another home or family, if it is poor or temporarily miserable, but nobody in his senses will allow that other home to occupy his own freely and continually. A child, well brought up, could answer this question easily, but unfortunately there are so many “children” nowadays who were not brought up well at home, and have been falsely raised at the “university”. The third fallacy is the benefit of continually mixing ethnic cultures and people together, i.e. globalism. The pretext always given for such a notion is that all people are alike and equal, and should be allowed to know and help one another; again, this is a rather simple view that dismisses the complication of human society and the historical experience that we have been gaining throughout the ages. It is wrong to confuse the words “equal” and “same”, since they are distinct; equal means neither superior nor inferior, but same means not different. The danger in dismissing the differences of ethnic cultures, which should be celebrated as such, is that the cultures mix together too much and lose their value, i.e. their distinction; this turns worse when the exchange of cultures becomes a commercial enterprise to profit from, as we can see nowadays. Even the most austere and isolated practitioners of strange and original religions have become preys to the commerce and interference of globalism. But as if commerce is not bad enough, there is yet another more dangerous consequence of this mixing: Because of the differences of ethnic culture, mixing them too much and profiting from them too much leads to continual competition, and hence it becomes inevitable that one culture will attempt (and in time, succeed) to rise in superiority or commercial “value” over the rest, to the detriment of all other cultures. Don’t we see this clearly with American culture, which spreads throughout the world and “converts” all youth to follow its consumerism and forget of their native cultures? Have not innumerable cultural treasures been lost at the false altar of this new American deity of pleasure and entertainment?
We polytheists must grow wary of these points and continue to reflect on them, for surely it is in them we can foresee our destiny. When ethnic cultures are protected and maintained as distinct, they retain their inherent value and original beauty. I must say that the same with ancestry in general: All people are certainly equal in worth, but we are too numerous and diffused to be considered as the same. Nor should we be the same, otherwise the world will become dull and of one color: Even one ethnic people has distinct tribes. Our equality, I would argue, derives in itself chiefly from our distinctions, because unless we know what we are, from whom we came, what did our ancestors do, why we should follow them, and how we differ from others, we lose sight of our distinction, whereby, in attempting to mix together continually and create a “new superior culture”, we actually lose ourselves in a universal crowd and grow miserable, because our inevitable differences soon bring about inequalities and competition. It is a great fault to confuse between nativism and racism, as monotheists and atheists do: the first is the desire to maintain ethnic culture at nobody’s expense, but the second is to maintain it at the expense of others by calling them inferior or conquering them. As a Hellenic polytheist, I value any other polytheist throughout the world, of whatever ethnic religion, equally, without setting them above one another. Nor are my people inherently superior to others, but I am bound to serve my ethnic Gods, ancestors, and culture first, in precedence to others. This is natural and reasonable, and history has proven it to be true. If there is anything to disagree with what polytheists had done in this regard, it is the establishment of empires, but this subject will be taken up at a future time.