Tuesday, September 01, 2015

This fallen world

Whilst in a store in NY, I spy the outline, from the back, of a tall, broad-shouldered, crop-haired man in a pair of slacks and a light polo shirt.

He turns to speak to one of his staff and I see a Mediterranean nose and jawline, powerful build, age about 25.

I hear him talk: out pops a 17-year old high school girl.

I want to curse God.

---



September morn

I have had some very good times this summer. And one of them, living in SF, is expecting that September will actually be a summer month. And furthermore, as I say pretty well every year, knowing that the coming autumn will be kind and the winter no more than inconvenient a bit...

Going back to religion makes me ponder directly once again the Great Questions: why is the world created and why are there humans?

Self-described tough-minded types who think that they can reduce everything to what they imagine they know by sense experience find all of religion nothing but "pretty lies." I wonder how a religion would look that remained a religion, a commitment to a trans-human sacred, and did away, as far as possible, with "pretty lies." Or is the pretty lie essential to gaining religious commitment from people?

It's a shame I am not a novelist. Weaving the faith of the Sons of Europa into a post-collapse series of novels would be a great way to do it.

Trapped on a long uncomfortable plane flight, I watched the last half hour of Exodus; Gods and Men, the latest version of Moses and Pharaoh, etc. Very idiosyncratic, to say the least. Why Christian Bale should play Moses is a mystery. And Yah apparently reveals himself to CB in the form of a wise little boy of about six. He chats with him while CB is in a cave carving the Commandments on tablets.

The Red Sea scene was interestingly unusual, combining naturalism --interpreting the withdrawal and return of the waters as tsunami behavior-- with pretty exciting CG.

A thought on so-called fundamentalisms. During the aeons of Christendom --from the establishment of Christian Rome to the 19th/20th centuries, a self-confident Christianity interpreted the Old Testament through Christian eyes. It was the New Covenant, which had superceded the Old and was its true owner and interpreter. Within that theo-cultural confidence, the images of the Hebrew scriptures would easily be appropriated into Christian style for the new peoples of Europe.*

With the collapse of Christianity and, along with it, Western White self-confidence and the post-WWII sanctification of Jews, we now have a situation of ethnic fundamentalism, where Moses --whom White Christian audiences once easily saw without qualm in Charleton Heston-- now "ought" to look like what we are told to imagine ancient people like him were supposed to look like. Which, whatever it was, was not like evil White us.

It is against this catastrophic loss of self-confidence that my quixotic ramblings about a new European religon arise.

----









Monday, August 31, 2015

Just to clarify

When I wrote that I considered Armenians one of the Greater European Christendom peoples whom I consider White, I did not mean the Kardashians.

As I mentioned, genetics is the basis of race, but not all of it.

Kanye's Kim & Kompany brood are definitely Beyond the...Pale.

--

Pravda Radio West

On my way to JFK, African driver has NPR on. 

Smugness and faked objectivity flow out like methane from a herd of cows. 

"Public" radio my ass. 

I need coffee. 

--



Sunday, August 30, 2015

Speaking of "myths"

My brother, a guy who has been terrifically supportive of me, is an atheist. Over dinner he was talking about the superiority of the scientific method over "faith bias," which allows people to rejects facts that do not cohere with their "faith" narrative.

And yet, love the man though I do, he is a dyed-in-the-wool Obama-loving, Trump-hating liberal.

So he believes in the "myth" of human group equality.


For which there is not only no evidence but against which the evidence is massive.

Faith bias.

One man's myth is another man's... myth.

---

Meta-theology

Religious pluralism is an enduring fact. There never has been, is not and, IMHO, cannot ever be a single religion for the whole race of homo sapiens.

Trying to prove that one faith is true while all the others are false is an important part of real belief, but in terms of outcome is only ever partially successful. Yet, a lackadaisical attitude masquerading as "tolerance" surely signs a belief to a small segment.

Culture and religion are bonded together. I cannot think of a successful culture which was not bonded by a sacred myth. And culture cannot be significantly detached from kinship. Funny how the same people who are always going on about organic this and holistic that deny absolutely that something like Western culture has anything to do with the race of the people who have created it...unless of course they are condemning it. Then it's clear: Western = White. And male.

At one point, there was in fact "only one race, the human race," as silly liberals sometimes shout when they get uncomfortable. But that was many long ages ago. And apparently the restlessness in (some) humans that made for distinct tribes made for the eventual diversification of humanity into notably different races and other kin-based groups.

If you really like diversity, then you accept this fact. Not only accept it, but protect and promote it.
And that is the direct opposite of the destruction-through-homogenization strategy that our masters have ordained for the Sons of Europa.

I don't finally subscribe to the Perennialist notion of "deep unity" in world religions, although there is a lot of insight there. And I certainly don't think that "all religious teach the same thing in different ways." Buddhism and Islam? Christianity and Jainism? Come on.

I do interpret the language of ultimacy and finality in religion not as a "literal" truth but as the natural expression of valuation that people give to the myths by which they live and move and have their being. No small value. That is a problem for a more consciously mythic faith which is not interested in having apologetic debates to "prove" that the Ancestor, the Warrior and the Sage are the real God, as opposed to Allah or The Trinity or the Sikh Waheguru.

In a post-Christian world, where for 1000 years, the truth of religion has been asserted to be as factual as the truth of (unnamed) gravity or basic math, how does one become enmeshed into a mythic life that does not so "literally" assert itself?

One of the remnants of this cultural bias is the use of the word "literal." It mean, "as written," which, I suspect, comes from the identification of the written words of Scripture with factuality. So now a thing is "literally" true precisely if it is not written, but experienced as undeniably factual and measurable.

To say  nothing of the endless popular use of "literal" to mean its exact opposite, "metaphorical," as in "Dude, I was literally blown away by that song."

How can a sacred path be mythic and real even if it is not "literal?" How can it be engaging if people say that it is "just poetry?"

---








Saturday, August 29, 2015

Enjoying this



Are Republicans For Freedom Or White Identity Politics?


Are Republicans For Freedom or White Identity Politics?:

One Trump doth not a GOP transformation make, but it's fun to watch the Decent Conservatives tie themselves in "non-racist" knots as he continues his unapologetic march through the polls.

---





'via Blog this'

Playing with God(s)

What the sons of Europa need is a religion that is as tribal and survivalist as Judaism, as masculine, terrestrial and tough as Islam and as intellectually and aesthetically creative as Christianity...with a dose of the unflinching realism of the ancestral ways of the Greeks and Romans, Germans and Celts.

And for the larger Indo-European frame, something of the Indian capacity to combine an ultimate and philosophical realization of The One with a robustly mytho-poetic religion on-the-ground. Oh, and some of the psychological acumen of Buddhism.

Should be easy to imagine, no?







On the role of the feminine and of human females: All world religions are the creations of men for men. Women follow these religions because they follow their men. There are certain aspects of female life that would be well served, I think, by a female-only secondary priesthood, one whose activity was limited to other women (like the Relief Society in LDS) and to their concerns.

I was thinking especially in sacramental terms of female initiation rites on coming into puberty, around childbirth and on rites of healing. There is no compelling reason why the female mysteries should not be recognized and solemnized among women by woman.

The connections of the feminine consorts with the Thrice-Male (a nice Gnostic term) are in play for me. Given my minority experience, I claim no expertise. The Warrior Prophet and the Wise Lord might switch? The hetaira with the Prophet and the virgin sister with the Sage? Hmmmm. Seems a bit too congruent. But if there is one thing about the feminine that strikes me, it's fluidity.



If my theology of God and gods remains more or less as is, these three great modes of divinity --Ancestor, Prophet and Sage-- will both reflect and attract all sorts of images, themes, narratives from the various religious imaginings of the race's archetypal history. All sorts of kinship should emerge and shift. Echoes, resonances, etc. Mythic boundaries are often fluid.


The realm of darkness, to shift focus, need not always be demonic, as it tends to be in Christianity. I would distinguish between the demonic --supranatural powers which hate mankind and even the creation itself-- and Shadowgods, divine powers of the necessary shadows cast by light in the world, or of the Underworld, of death, of chance, of disorder and destruction...which play a necessary role in the world's unfolding.

All this, of course, as with the whole "project", is a kind of play. And as serious as play always is.



---


Friday, August 28, 2015

Musing on an archetypal White Godhead

The major metaphor that I have discovered as regulating my personal preferences in theology is the prism.



Light is itself invisible to human eye, although it is that by which we see at all. When it strikes a prism, the spectrum of visible hue --and its invisible extremes of ultra and infra-- appears. That is how I basically see God and the creation: a single energy beyond our sense and mind and which must express itself in a multiplicity of forms in order to communicate with us.

The Godhead is revealed to us in three "books," the Book of Nature, the Book of History and the Book of the Soul.  Although not isomorphically, these three correspond to the ancestral, prophetic and sapiental paths.

(The rainbow and the LGBT rainbow flag are, of course, entirely and unfortunately coincidental.)

Henotheism is an appealing alternative to strict monotheism and to Fate-dominated polytheism. And modalism, the old Trinitarian heresy, also appeals as an explanatory theory: the One Godhead, not knowable in itself, is revealed/expressed in a variety of images and modes within a finite and multiple creation. Trinitarianism, while rightly at the heart of orthodox Christianity, distracts from the focal points of what I am imagining. The choice between mono and poly is one I do not think --today, anyway!-- we have to make.

This allows for a more frankly mythical language in religion that does not rely so much on a particular set of historical events as directly managed by God (although it cannot be, for Westerners, a mere set of allegories).

My Christian background remains strong. The deity I sketchily imagine is expressed as a Triad of male divinities, but each with a feminine "helpmate".  The Triad corresponds to the three great streams of human religion: ancestral, prophetic and sapiential.

There is a Father-God, the Patriarch Creator and his spouse, who carries the Mother.
They generate Twin Sons, a Warrior Prophet and a Sage. (The Father, Son and Spirit background is quite clear, no?) And very likely these two God-Brothers are provided with feminine companions --how and in what realm I am not sure-- a Virgin Sister for the Warrior and a Hetaira for the Sage.



The Father's symbols are the rod/staff and the bull, the Prophet's are the sword and the lion, and the Sage's are the pen and the eagle. The connection of the FatherGod's bull with Europa is not incidental...in fact, that is the name I would give to his GoddessWife: Europa, the Mother of the Sons of the West.


Although not taking the ancient Apostolic Christian doctrine of theosis/divinization in a concrete and polytheist frame like the Mormons, I would make the incarnation of this Godhead in the members of the Sons of Europa as the fundamental trajectory of the faith. Not simply declaring that Whites are gods --all too obviously and embarassingly untrue!-- but that some kind of mutual sharing of life, the uncreated and the created, has a lot to do with the reason for creation in the first place.

You Bible scholars might notice the bull, lion and eagle of Ezekiel, Revelation and the evangelists; the fourth symbol, the human face, is for the Kinsmen...the religious name I have given to the Sons of Europa.

And so Jung's strictures on a Threefold divinity would be answered by making the Sons of Europa and their women and families the Fourth Realm.

My anthropology forbids any kind of pollyanna view of people as originally pure and innocent. That is a mythological theme, not a description of empirical man. Homo sapiens, as a race created by descent from earlier primates, never new an actual historical moment where a deathless and perfect Garden-world existed. We have always been required to engage in competition and violence in order to live and so these things cannot be inherently wrong. But we are in the equally real position of having consciousness and conscience along with the rest, so while we are not, in the Christian sense, "fallen," we may as well be! We are complex and flawed species who is yet --at least in part-- ordered toward, in St Peter's words, participation in the Divine Nature.

My career as heretic continues apace.


Thursday, August 27, 2015

Two religious points

One of the hardest things about assimilating Christ into a new religious frame is that he was certainly in favor of forgiving your enemies and I am not. At least not across the board. I am in favor of a case by case approach, and my motives are far less high-minded.

Aside from his sinlessness, what makes Christ problematic as a moral exemplar for what Jung calls "empirical man" is that he was never anyone's fellow-equal for a lifetime. Among his disciples, he was always The Master, even --or especially-- when serving them. With his opponents he was a relentless opponent and never had a kiss and makeup with the Pharisees. And when he was betrayed and murdered, his forgivenss was a one-time event. Jesus did not have to live with other humans in groups for a whole lifetime where he had no special status. We do. 


Part of the folly afflicting the Sons of Europa is that we have lost the capacity to do what Samuel Huntington --who may be one of the Soul Doctors of the new faith-- reminded us about: how to accurately assess relationships with Others. Despite Will Rogers' wisdom about many things, the stupidest thing he ever said was that "A stranger is just a friend you haven't met yet." Maybe in the comparatively idyllic White America of his time that mighta been true, now in Obamaworld, it's insanity. The inability to name an enemy as an enemy --especially if he's Brownish-- is part of our immorally foolish "ethics."

A wisdom-based faith would give up the high-minded ideals that do not match actual terrestrial life. Or at least relegate them to monastic practitioners who have no control over other peoples' lives.

Second, the phrase Sons of Europa well captures the intent of what I am about: this has to be a religion for men. For all its flaws, Islam has a great survival advantage in that it appeals to natural manliness. Even traditional Judaism, which fostered intellectual power over physical strength, was a male religion. Christianity, even though pilloried by feminists as a patriarchal power structure, introduced a powerful and eventually fatal dose of the feminine. It is totally common to see a church pastored by men but populated --and hence emotionally dominated-- by women.

What is true in religion is true in the larger society: a great many of the indignities and pathologies we endure --from Clown Masses to the Kardashians--would be unthinkable if men truly ruled.

Even at the risk of making non-conventional males like myself more unwelcome, I'd like to see a faith that men would not be embarrassed to embrace and practice. Christianity was once a faith like that. Witness its history. But those days, at least in the Catholic/Protestant West, are over.

How can a White Man now live through the Churches' double betrayal of his people and his sex?

----




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...