Tag Archives: polytheism

Good and bad polytheists (part 6): Phillip II and Alexander III

PHILLIP II

Philip1[1]The 4th century BCE was an age of such decline and decay for the Greeks, that it became difficult for any notable person, whose name is recorded in history, to be considered truly as a good polytheist, except in comparison with bad ones. The huge Peloponnesian War of the preceding century, which had raged for 20 years between Athens and Sparta, resulted from ambitious greed and moral corruption, causing great destruction throughout Greece. This horrible war and dangerous decay was anticipated by the Second Sacred War, a conflict that broke out between Athens and Sparta in 449 BCE, each striving to control the pre-eminent religious sanctuary in Delphi for its own interests. During the middle of the 5th century also, we also see the rise of philosophy in Greece and its defiance to traditional polytheism, most especially in Athens with such characters as Protogoras, Antiphon the Sophist, Hippias, Diagoras of Melos, and to some degree, Socrates and Euripides, among others. The old conflict between the Greeks and the Persians was now forgotten as the Greek city-states fought amongst one another for domination, especially Athens and Sparta. In 371 BCE, the situation grew more complicated when Thebes entered as a third great player in the game for the domination of Greece, after defeating their Spartan rival in battle and capturing large territories. About this time, when Thebes invaded the northern region of Thessaly, bordering on Macedonia, a young Phillip II of Macedon, the future father of the famous Alexander, was taken as a hostage to be raised up in Thebes, where he received a fine military education.

Phillip returned to Macedonia in 364 BCE, and succeeded his brothers on the throne five years later. He soon refined his skills at war while fighting with the Thracians and then with the Athenians, who were attempting to restore their old domination over Greece. In 356 BCE, however, the decay of Greece grew deeper than ever when the Third Sacred War broke out for political reasons, i.e. the hatred of Thebes (a leader of the religious council of Delphi, called the Amphictyonic League) towards Phocia. The Phocians were punished with a huge fine after they began to plant sacred land, but instead of protesting this decision reasonably, they most shamefully captured the Temple of Delphi and used its riches to fund an army for their protection. Athens and Sparta, jealous of Thebes’ growing power, rather than disappointed with the Phocian sacrilege, joined themselves with the Phocians. Phillip, who came from a more conservative region of Greece (even accused of being barbarous by the Athenians), saw the greed for domination and disregard for religion, but because he was a King rather than a philosopher, he was forced to join in actively and prevent a total destruction to Greece that would allow the Persians (who had taken the side of Sparta before) to conquer them all, Macedonia geographically being the first in danger. Phillip took the side of Thebes in 353 BCE, after hostilities with Athens, and the war lasted until 346 BCE, ending with the victories of Phillip against Athens. However, the Athenians, jealous of his power and growing territory, called for continued resistance. The hostility lasted, with a peace of six years, until the armies of Athens (as well as other city-states, including Thebes, which now hated Phillip too) were utterly defeated at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE. Phillip now established domination over all Greece, an unfortunate but necessary situation. Only a year after his victory, however, he did appear wise and pious in establishing the League of Corinth, a confederation of all Greek cities, which took sacred oaths of peace, and his motive in doing so was to direct his attention to the Persian threat. His assassination soon after prevented him from going forward in the project, but his intention and accomplishments prepared everything for his son Alexander.

 

ALEXANDER III

alexanderthegreat-bustThis king of Macedonia, successor to Phillip II, is commonly given the epithet of “the Great”, but I will refrain from using it and justify doing so. As was said, when Alexander became king in 336 BCE, his father had prepared the foundation for everything towards an invasion of Persia. The young king also, thanks to his father’s efforts, had received an excellent education in the Temple of the Nymphs at Mieza at the hand of Aristotle, the most learned of the Greek philosophers (though a monotheist). Alexander’s favorite books were Homer’s Illiads and Odysseys, and he admired Achilles above all heroes. This was indeed a noble beginning for a young king, but the conquests of his father had made him vain and pampered. The Roman historian Justin even speculates that his mother Olympias had a hand in the murder of his father, perhaps to raise her son to power. Although this is not certain, some ancient historians hold that she filled the ears of Alexander with vanity, telling him he was the son of Zeus, rather than Phillip. But if all this is to be doubted, Plutarch (who actually admired Alexander) records that the young King, in the same year his father died, went to the Delphi and requested a prophesy that he would conquer the world. When the oracle declined to comment and directed him to return later, Alexander, known for his moments of fury, dragged her out by her hair until she screamed with fear “You are invincible, my son!”. This disregard for the sanctity of Delphi and the prophecy of Apollo, as great a crime as it was, did not stop Alexander from offending the Gods.

Alexander was certainly a fine general who distinguished himself at battle against the Persians, but he inherited this skill as well as his skilled army from the work of his father. Flattered by his victory at Granicus against the Persians in 334 BCE, even though his army was larger than theirs,  Alexander proceeded to travel to Egypt, after destroying the Phoenician city of Tyre. In Egypt, Alexander was proclaimed a liberator and savior by the Egyptians who resented Persian power, and even though he had already gotten a forced prophesy from Delphi, he travelled to eastern Libya to the oracle of Zeus-Ammon. There, a strange mistake happened: As Plutarch records, the oracle of the temple greeted Alexander in bad Greek, saying Ο παι διος! (Oh, son of God!) instead of Ο παιδιον! (Οh, my son!). Alexander was utterly amazed and when one of Alexander’s sycophants asked the Oracle whether the King should be given divine honors, he was answered “This would please Ammon”. Ever after, Alexander called himself the son of Zeus-Ammon and demanded to be addressed and respected accordingly, which displeased his men. Although Alexander utterly defeated the Persians in 331 BCE, and then subsequently conquered their empire, his arrogance and vanity kept him from returning home, and in order to keep his men, he married them to Persian wives as he did for himself. However, when the men complained that they needed to see their families and that they did not like how he thought himself a half-God nor how he imitated the Persian kings, he began to grow very suspicious of them, especially after two plots against his life were discovered, perhaps false ones invented by himself. He had his father’s most trusted general, Parmenion, executed on charges of treason, because he feared he would plot to assasinate him as his son did. Also, in a fit of drunken rage, he murdered Kleitos, a loyal officer who had saved his life at Granicus. Alexander’s madness drove his campaigns to continue; for his personal ambition alone, he carried his men as far as India, but he was forced to return, since he concluded, after a costly victory, that he could not be “invincible” against elephants. He died after drinking wine in Babylon, either from a fever contracted from intoxication, or from poison, the latter being more likely. Alexander’s evils did not end with his death; he refused to name a successor on his deathbed, which afterwards caused a civil war among his generals. Furthermore, he had already established a new empire with new principles that had not been practised by the Persians; he encouraged his men and indeed all Greeks to intermarry with native populations and mix their cultures and Gods together. This led to the great corruptions in religion and culture prevalent during the Hellenistic age that would later pave the way for Christianity.

 

Good and bad polytheists (part 5): Potitus & Barbatus, and Appius Claudius Crassus

POTITUS & BARBATUS

roman_eagle_design_by_erebus74-d4t2bly[1]Lucius Valerius Potitus and Marcus Horatius Barbatus were two senators who distinguished themselves during the troublesome time of the Decemviri as well as the secession of the Plebeians in 449 BCE. Conflicts between the aristocratic senate and the common citizens of Rome had increased since the overthrow of the monarchy in 509 BCE, and in time the bad blood in the state made the Plebeians (or common citizens) secede, or break away, in 494 BCE. Although the troubles ended when the senate conceded some power by the formation of the office of Tribune of the Plebeians, with inviolable privileges, new disturbances began to brew about forty years later. Because Rome was not in a condition for civil broils during a time of war with its neighbors, it was determined by the senate to appoint a special committee of 10 men to establish a code of laws that would prevent future disagreement at home. These men, who were all senators, were called the decemviri, and were given extraordinary powers for each term in office, which lasted one year. However, upon the end of their second term in 450 BCE, they remained in office by force and suspended indefinitely the office of Plebian Tribune as well as the Plebian right to appeal.

When petitions failed, the Plebeians repeated their action 50 years before by withdrawing to the sacred mountain of Rome and declaring secession. The senate sided with the people and accused the decemviri of restoring the tyranny of the old kingdom. It is here that Potitus and Barbatus first served their homeland by negotiating with the people on the sacred mountain, having been entrusted by the senate with that task. They had also stood up to protect an innocent man from unjust persecution by the decemviri earlier, one of the causes of the revolt (see below). By this means, with an alliance of the senate and the people, the decemviri was abolished and persecuted. For their honest service on the side of justice, Potitus and Barbatus, whose namesakes had also participated in the overthrow of the monarchy, were elected consuls. During their year in office, they further contributed to the cause of good order and justice by passing a series of laws that solemnly secured the old rights and magistracy of the Plebeians. To punish dissent, they enacted that the heads of those who violated these laws would be sacrificed to Jupiter, and their property sold for the benefit of the temple of the Gods Ceres, Liber and Libera. Furthermore, those who deliberately prevented the people from electing tribunes and magistrates were to be scourged and beheaded. These accomplishments of Potitus and Barbatus not only led to justice and harmony in the state for many generations, but also to a greater respect and reverence for the laws, which were indeed an essential component of religion.

 

APPIUS CLAUDIUS CRASSUS

95620-004-4AE21086[1]This is the senator who was the most notorious member of the decemviri, and afterwards their ringleader. During his term as consul in 451 BCE, it was determined by the senate to establish a committee of ten men to examine how Roman laws could be modelled to the laws of Greece, which had been brought back from a legal inquiry three years before. During their first year and term, the decemviri gained the approval of the senate and people by their establishment of the Twelve Tables, the code of Rome. However, it was expected of these men to resign at the end of their terms and give way to others in the next election. Because there were fears of his already apparent ambition, Crassus was given the friendly privilege, by his colleagues, of choosing the members of the next committee. But instead of resigning, he elected himself and nine others whose views matched with his own, and proceeded to make the lictors, originally guards of the state and laws, tools to maintain his power. His lictors entered the city of Rome with axes attached to their fasces, a privilege only given to dictators; by this means, he suppressed anyone who dared offend the dignity of his committee with persecution or execution. Furthermore, upon the end of their second term, the decemviri, by Crassus’ direction, remained in office by force. The senate, which had hoped that its reputation in the eyes of the common people would improve by the decemviri, now became ashamed and indignant, and even more so when they saw signs of the old tyranny returning upon their own heads too.

As if these violations were not enough, Crassus aggravated his injustice with two despicable crimes. First, a soldier by the name of Lucius Siccius was secretly murdered on his orders, after the man had called for all soldiers to avoid military service until the decemviri were replaced. His death was blamed on an ambush by an enemy, but this was soon exposed as a lie. Secondly, after Crassus took a fancy to Verginia, the beautiful young daughter of an accomplished centurion (Lucius Verginius) who had left on a campaign with the army, he ordered one of his assistants, Marcus Claudius, to declare her a slave of his. Although Verginia was already betrothed to Lucius Icilius, a former Tribune of Plebeians, Marcus Claudius boldly abducted her while she was going to school. A crowd gathered in the forum, or marketplace of the city, declaring that Verginia was not a slave, and then they pleaded the decemviri for justice, not knowing the outrage had originally come from that same committee. It was agreed that Verginius would be recalled from his campaign, but Crassus tried to delay it by intercepting the messengers. When this trick did not succeed, and when Icilius threatened the decemviri with sedition, Verginia was allowed to return to her house, but here the pride of the decemviri was too wounded to give way to justice. Thus, when a crowd had gathered in the forum around Lucius Verginius to support him against Marcus Claudius, Crassus sent lictors who accused the crowd of sedition. The crowd dispersed and declared secession on the sacred mountain, and Verginius, fearing for his daughter to be violated, begged of Crassus to question her himself. As soon as he met with her, near the shrine of Venus Cloacina, knowing that he would have no power to save her from dishonor, he stabbed her. Crassus had anticipated this action, and he quickly sent lictors to arrest Verginius and Icilius, but they were prevented by the senators Potitus and Barbatus, and later joined with a crowd that returned to attack the lictors. After some time, following the war with the Aequi and the Sabines, the decemviri were brought to trial. Eight of them were exiled, another was excecuted, and Crassus committed suicide, adding to his dishonor rather than lessening it, since it would have been the best possible death for him to let his blood be shed in a sacrifice to the laws and Gods he had violated many times.

Good and bad polytheists (part 4): Herodotus and Empedocles

HERODOTUS

220px-Herodotos_Met_91.8This is the great father of history, who flourished in the middle of the 5th century BCE. He was born a subject of Persia in the Ionian city of Halicarnassus, and from there he may witnessed, as a young boy, some preparations for the second Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BCE, which the treacherous queen of the city took part in on the side of Xerxes. What is certain, however, is that he grew up among veterans of both the Ionian revolt of 499 BCE against Persia and (after he left his city) veterans of the Persian invasion. He also seems to have belonged to a patriotic family, because his cousin Panyassis (a poet of some renown) was executed after an uprising in Halicarnassus, against a treacherous Greek tyrant. However, whether he left the city by force or by curiosity is not known; as a subject of Persia, he probably thought little of his citizenship within such a vast empire, or at least wondered what had happened to change his world so much. His curiosity surely burned to gather and consume many stories, but he was also concerned about various inquiries, especially how and why could Persia, as far as it was, come at the door of Greece and attempt to break through it? For this reason, he composed a work called ‘Ιστοριαι, meaning Inquiries, but more commonly translated as Histories.

It is upon his immortal contribution to understanding and preserving so many valuable stories about ethnic culture and polytheism that the fame of Herodotus rests. Although his work was mainly concerned with the conflicts between the Persians and the Greeks, Herodotus was curious and wise enough to search for indirect and external information that related to both, that is to say, stories and inquiries about neighboring civilizations and peoples, most of whom now belonged to the Persian Empire. He visited many places, such as the rest of Greece, as well as Egypt and Mesopotamia to collect and confirm as much as he could that he believed pertinent to his vast subject. But even though he spent much time and effort concerning foreign matters and people, he never forgot of himself as a Greek; his praise of the treacherous Queen of Halicarnassus, Artemisia, for her courage during the invasion of Greece, also shows he had not forgotten of his native city. Furthermore, he is reasonable in his inquiries without offence to the Gods of his own people, or any others; in spite of what later critics say, he was unbiased, even when he sometimes failed to be accurate. And what is more, he was a fine writer: It is said that he recited parts of his work at a festival and was applauded greatly for it. He is a true story-teller who engages and moves his reader; it is no wonder he drew much inspiration in the writing of his work from the great Homer himself.

 

EMPEDOCLES

220px-Empedokles_fragment_Physika_I_262–300This man, a contemporary of Herodotus, is known as a philosopher, or lover of wisdom, even though, he strayed very far from it as a polytheist. Throughout the Greek lands, all the so-called philosophers at this time (the 5th century BCE) were indeed, with very few exceptions, either bad polytheists or secret monotheists, and in the next century, they would become even worse, with the addition also of atheists among them. Empedocles was born in a Greek colony of Sicily, Acragas, to a family of some wealth. Although his father contributed to overthrowing a tyrant of the city, Empedocles turned against oligarchy in general, and supported the poor with his skilled oratory. He knew that philosophy was a stronger and more enduring weapon than power, which is why he declined to rule his city, when the mob offered it to him. The fanciful stories and magical actions attributed to him confirm his connection to the Pythagoreans, followers of Pythagoras, another so-called philosopher who was originally inspired by Orpheus (discussed in part 3) to found his own mystical religion. The Pythagoreans operated their secret religion in the Greek colonies of Italy, where they had more freedom, and it is from their activity aimed at the common people that Empedocles first strayed from polytheism and contributed to its corruption.

Like other philosophers before him, Empedocles wrote a poem containing his view of cosmogony, nature and the universe. He believed in the orphic mysteries and followed its invented principles, in imitation of the Pythagoreans. His main contributions to philosophy were, first, the essence of strife and love in cosmogony, and second, his theory of the four elements. In the former, he held that the universe was created out of the opposite forces of strife and love, which gradually turned into the two sexes. Like Orpheus and Pherecydes of Syros, he seems to have altered the order of the cosmogony from the accepted one in the holy text Theogony. Instead of beginning with the orthodox chasm (χαος), he places Ερος (Eros-Love) and Θανατος (Thanatos-Strife) as the first Gods of the universe. This is further confirmed by another corruption through his theory of the four elements: He held that air, water, earth, and fire were four components of the universe, which he equated with Hera, Nestis, Aidoneus and Zeus, respectively. In doing so, he strays greatly from the established tradition of Greek polytheism and almost makes a new religion of his own, i.e. one of intellectual pantheism. Although he acknowledges all these as Gods, he also hints also that they were allegorical forces of nature, an interpretation that afterwards contributed further to either monotheism or atheism among most philosophers. Nor did this Empedocles fall short of the ambition of Orpheus or the arrogance of philosophers: After publishing his works, he sought to trick the populace one last time by jumping into Mount Etna to make them think that he was an immortal god. But the Gods confounded his false magic, and caused the mountain to vomit one of his bronze sandals, exposing his impious deception.

Good and bad polytheists (part 2): Ahmose I and Amenhotep IV

AHMOSE I

artstor_103_41822003065925-1442DAA3A0621AD876D

Ahmose was born a local king of the Upper Egyptian city of Thebes, towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period, a period of disorder which lasted from 1650 to 1550 BCE. During this time, Lower Egypt was ruled by Semitic invaders from the Levant, called the Hyksos. They were a warlike and cruel people who took advantage of a weak government, seizing and plundering towns, destroying temples, and capturing slaves. Having found an abundance of opportunity and wealth there, they founded a dynasty and ruled by force, setting up fortresses to protect their possession of the land. Their kings styled themselves as pharaohs, but they were, like many or most Semitic rulers, henotheists, that is, worshippers of one God while acknowledging others, a practice that later contributed to monotheism. The Hyksos kings only worshipped Set, the God of the desert, which was looked upon suspiciously by Egyptians, who had known no such custom before.

But after a reign of 100 years, the invaders grew comfortable enough to relax its absolute power, nor did it have the ability to maintain their rule completely over Egypt. Hence, in Thebes, where a dynasty of local kings had grown in power gradually, Ahmose sought to restore the independence of Egypt and carry on the military exploits of his grandfather Seqenenre Tao and his father Kamose, who had both died in battle. Ahmose proved himself worthy of his noble and brave paternity by conquering and expelling the Hyksos, after a long campaign of several years. In order to maintain independence, he afterwards invaded and pillaged the Levant, and then withdrew to his borders to restore his country. Prosperity returned to Egypt by means of trade and construction, and antique examples were followed in art that preceded the invasion of the Hyksos. Besides this earnest revival, he also attempted to build the last pyramid of Egypt, but the project was unfinished and dropped upon his death after a few years of his short reign as Pharaoh. Nevertheless, even though Egypt was not to be as glorious as it was before, Ahmose was great enough to be remembered as the restorer of Egypt’s independence and the founder of a new age in Egyptian history, namely, the New Kingdom. As great as the acknowledge is due, it is perhaps a testimony to his modesty and diligence as Pharaoh, that only 3 mediocre statues of his have been found.

 

AMENHOTEP IV

Akhenaten-temple-atonThis Pharaoh is infamous by another name which he assumed later in his reign of 17 years during the 14th century BCE, namely, Akhenaten. He ruled for some time with his father Amenhotep III, a long-reigning Pharaoh who had brought great prosperity and power to Egypt. At this time in Egypt, as it was since Ahmose, Pharaohs were crowned in the city of Thebes, which had now become the capital of the realm and its God Amun the Head of the Pantheon, having joined with the former Head Ra (God of the former captital city of Memphis) as Amun-Ra, as a symbol of northern and southern unity. Akhenaten’s innovation within this scope was unprecedented and outrageous: In his fifth year, he elevated, by his own whim, a local God by the name of Aten to the pre-eminent position of Amun-Ra. Furthermore, as if to affirm the fault, he changed his name from Amenhotep (Amun is satisfied) to Akhenaten (servant of Aten).

Egyptian Pharaohs, by virtue of their position as divine kings, perhaps had the authority to worship whatever God they pleased, without disturbing the ancient tradition and condition of the Pantheon. But instead of being content with the first infamy of replacing Amun-Ra with Aten as supreme God, and changing his name accordingly, he set up Aten as the true God of the Sun, instead of Ra, and proceeded to promote its worship as such. His motives are yet unknown, as are his exact means of effecting this transformation in religion. However, the situation was horrible: the priests of Amun and Ra took the innovation as a grievance, and Egypt was threatened by pollution. And what was worse, the madness of Akhenaten seemed to increase with his reign; at first he was tolerant of other Gods, even though he lessened the funds of the Temples that held their cults, but afterwards he debased himself by attempting to erase the holy names of the Pantheon, particularly Amun, as if to leave only Aten for posterity, an unmatched crime. Yet his sinister project failed, for the Egyptians, always traditional, maintained their old ways for the most part and did not accept the changes too well. The memory of the Hyksos was also not too distant to them, and Akhenaten’s religious infamy was far beyond their strange henotheism with Set. Upon his death, the priesthood of Thebes returned to power and restored Amun-Ra at the head of the Pantheon, and about 20 years later, Akhenaten received justice: The Pharaoh Horemheb commanded his monuments to be destroyed and his image to be defaced. What survives of Akhenaten’s figure presents us with a character very different from that of Ahmose: His appearance is vain, assured and degenerate. The idea of his innovation, however, could unfortunately not be destroyed, for the history of the Hebrews under Moses follows after 150 years, a further contribution to the destructive monotheism that plagues the world to this day. It remains to be known whether Moses was inspired by Akhenaten or Akhenaten was inspired by earlier Semitic practices in the Levant.

Essential distinctions in polytheism (part 7): Harmonious hierarchy v.s Deceitful equality

egypt-cairo-pyramids-of-giza-and camels-2It is remarkable to notice how modernism, with all its boastful claim to intellectual and moral superiority, resembles monotheism in its brazen hypocrisy and open trickery. The medium for the falsehood and deception is also the same, i.e. language; in both ideologies, there is deliberate confusion and obscurity with terms, rather than distinction and clarity. They always tell you either to interpret something significant in one way, which is according to them the best way, or otherwise to interpret it in whatever way you like, without any direction, as if all interpretations are good. This conversion and subversion, which they create and spread through language, afterwards becomes a real monster (unknowingly to them) that ruins not only their view of the world, but that of others, if not their actions too.

The absurd and hypocritical contradiction we see in the modernists’ and monotheists’ conception and application of the term equality is impossible to be overlooked. On the one hand, they tell you equality is essential and necessary for all, but on the other, they always seek to impose their views on others, as if the notion of equality applies only to them. What is more strange, even among them, equality is a total delusion: Their leaders are very often among the most arrogant and selfish people one can meet with. Consider the famous artists of modernism, like Picasso and Pollock, or the Abrahamic prophets; their desire to recreate and reform not only what people can see, but also how people should think and live (especially their followers), without caring to explain themselves properly or honestly, is indeed despicable. To justify their authority and maintain their followers, they always chose an enemy (usually the common authority) and then proceed to deform it in every way possible, i.e. as an ugly thing, devil, etc. By this means, the disaffected people, who can rarely think enough for themselves, are tricked into thinking this rebel is a champion of theirs, who seeks to raise their dignity.

Populism has always been an essential characteristic within both monotheism and modernism, but it is strange that this truth is often forgotten or dismissed as fiction. All the Abrahamic prophets, the Greek philosophers, the modern artists and philosophers, the ancient tyrants (Gaius Marius, Alexander of Macedon, Julius Caesar), the dictators of the 19th and 20th centuries (Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, etc.) all justified their horrible actions by that word equality in the name of the people. It is hard to believe that this trick still continues to deceive people and ruin their society over and over. But what is society? It is necessary to define this notion, and justify its value, before concluding against the trick described. In general, society may be defined as a place of common good and common interest, where people can achieve security and prosperity by cooperating in their different functions. Yes, it is because people are different from one another, that they inevitably have different functions, a natural truth which can’t be denied: Nobody thinks, acts or is alike. In time, when the institutions of society grow, these different functions lead to social class and hierarchy. To some, these notions of class and hierarchy are unacceptable and signs of oppression, but all historians agree that if it were not for those two terms, the rise of civilized society 5500 years ago would have been impossible. All that we enjoy today is indeed the fruit of hierarchy.

Since people are different by nature and by ability, the reasonable consequence must be differences in wealth, function and power. Inequality implies differences, not injustice; when a hierarchy is firm and in good order, harmony is the result, not harm. This is especially the case with ethnic polytheism, which acknowledges the power of the Gods, the sanctity of the Earth and the necessity of harmony.  All our ancestors, whatever ethnic creed they followed, accepted hierarchy as a natural order of the universe, and attempted to achieve harmony in society. Perhaps they did not always succeed in improving things for all and maintaining satisfactory justice, but they never attacked the notions of hierarchy and classes; it was utter madness to do so, since it was denying obvious reality and embracing an empty dream*.  Monotheism produced the real oppression and disharmony through Abrahamic madmen, atheism produced the madness of Hitler and Mao, and modernism has produced the huge corporations that abuse nature and man. They all sing the same deceptive song about equality, while actually practising the worst inequality.

It was not polytheism that produced Alexander or Caesar, but rather the lack of polytheism: The first of them unjustly called himself a god and demanded to be worshipped, and the second bribed the priesthood (with kind threats) to give good omens of his victory and perpetual dictatorship. If we fall into the trap of imitating the monotheists and modernists in this ridiculous and arrogant habit of questioning everything and rebelling against every hierarchy, in contradiction to our good ancestors (the absolute majority of them), we will bring upon ourselves a double shame.

________________

* I have already shown Plato, when I wrote about philosophy previously (see essential distinctions, part 5), to be mistaken in his views. Indeed, his last book The Republic, written in his old age concerning the ideal society, is absurd and unnatural in many points, which his student Aristotle also noted. The Greek philosophers were unfortunately covert monotheists or atheists, who laid the foundations of modernism.

Essential distinctions in Polytheism (part 6): Evolution v.s Revolution

invazielacuste-1486643891In the first essential distinction, the tree was used as the beautiful emblem of the polytheist in general, and the forest represented community in its collective strength of many trees. Here the emblems will be natural once again, suitable to the topic in hand; nothing can be better compared to evolution and revolution, as notions and modes of change, than the children of the Earth. As all change is inevitable, it remains for us to understand how we can best benefit from it, rather than be swept away by its current. When any polytheist looks back in time, this idea of change is of great concern, considering how ethnic and original religions waned into oblivion; by looking at future time with foresight, a polytheist will also feel a sense of anxiety, as to how this budding religion, painfully restored, will survive and grow on.

In this regard, a polytheist should think and act like a farmer who learns from past failings with his crops, and applies his knowledge to improve future harvests, not only for himself, but his family, community and descendants to come. He must observe changes, make trials, and discuss the consequences with his fellow farmers, as to which seeds should be selected, how the land should be tilled, grubbed or plowed, whether the tools need improvement, which animals will best serve, what exact days within the seasons should be employed. While refining these methods of his theory and practice in agriculture, a farmer may be said to undergo a sort of evolution: By noticing the slow and subtle changes of nature, he attempts to benefit by adapting himself gradually to it. In doing so, the farmer does not subject nature, but only harmonizes himself with it; he seeks to perpetuate the beauty and presence of nature, and at the same time, enjoy her bounty. If anything goes wrong, the farmer must learn further under some hardship, but whenever greater forces will it, he succumbs to the Gods and returns to them.

Animals and insects, being children of the Earth, are bound by this necessity of natural adaption and evolution. Although these beings are small, they are not below notice, nor so useless that we cannot learn anything from them; quite the contrary, they are often very clever and orderly in their actions and understanding of their habitation and the world. In spite of our learning and languages, we are often so baffled to comprehend our condition and changes, that we are at last forced to examine, or as it were, consult with these creatures for advice. Indeed, it not only possible to observe the notion of evolution among animals, but also the more unusual practice of revolution. Revolution may be defined as a quick change, arising through great numbers for a short time, and causing a great imbalance. We may be inclined to think that it is only people who behave in this disorderly manner, but the truth is, we can see it in nature too, especially with locusts.

The lessons that can be gained from the evolution of the farmer and the revolution of the locusts are greater than could be presented here. It is known aid that when locusts see a new sudden source of food, after suffering from hunger, they are inclined to swarm together for some time and gobble up whatever they find during their roaming flight, as if in a frenzy. The behavior of these locusts is necessary for their own survival, and they do accept to pay a price for the damages they cause. Farmers may not be able to stop them, but they often make up for their losses in crops by eating some of the stuffed locusts themselves, which is still done in certain parts of the world to this day. Difficult times often compel creatures to act in an unusual or even unnatural way, as if breaking the rules of evolution, but since this is inevitable with them as it is with us, it is absolutely necessary to learn how the hurtful effects of revolution can be curbed and restrained, till the frenzy passes and harmony returns.

In the case of people, difficult times are often aggravated by an unwillingness to act with understanding or foresee the consequences of a revolution. For this reason, story-telling and myths in general provide simple and excellent lessons taken from nature, but suited to our understanding. In regard to this point of revolution, I will use a fable of Aesop from the Hellenic tradition: it is an allegorical story famous for its application to politics, namely, the fable of the belly and members. It is reported by historians that during the secession of the Roman soldiers in 494 BCE, a sort of popular revolution aimed at the aristocracy of the Senate, this fable succeeded in putting an end to the troubles of state. The people “swarmed” because they were too many debtors unable to pay the taxes imposed by the state, now impoverished after the war with the Sabines. After a hero of the war appeared in the forum with scars to complain of the harsh handling he had received from the tax-collectors, uproar spread throughout the city and after concessions were refused, the soldiers declared a secession. The Senate chose a man by the name of Agrippa Menenius Lanatus, a former consul, to negotiate with the rebel soldiers.  “It once happened,” he told them, “that all the other members of a man mutinied against the stomach, which they accused as the only idle, uncontributing part the whole body, while the rest were put to hardships and the expense of much labour to supply and minister to its appetites. The stomach, however, merely ridiculed the silliness of the members, who appeared not to be aware that the stomach certainly does receive the general nourishment, but only to return it again, and redistribute it amongst the rest. Such is the case,” he said, “ye citizens, between you and the senate. The counsels and plans that are there duly digested, convey and secure to all of you your proper benefit and support.” By this means, the frenzy of the soldiers cooled without further disturbance and the Senate conceded to the formation of the Tribune of the Pleibians, a political body which gave rights to the common people and soldiers.

Let us polytheists imitate such wise instances in of our ancestors, rather than revolt like the early Christians who abandoned their ethnic culture for a false god and the atheists of today who abandon all law for a selfish anarchy. Let us restrain ourselves from the revolution they so much love, and embrace the evolution of nature and our ancestors; by this means, we will grow strong slowly and outlast them.

Essential distinctions in polytheism (part 3): Nativism v.s Racism

nospin_2-lgThe 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.