top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Neo-pagans



*


Neo-pagans come in two varieties: “Wiccans” and “Odinists”. To be technical, there are many more sub-varieties than that—but they can all basically be divided into Wiccans or Odinists (female or male).


Of the two branches, the Wiccans are genuinely more religious. This is because, in modernity, men mostly worship technology—it’s feminine in essence, that’s why men give their cars and boats female pet names. Men are more spiritual than women, but, in modern conditions, it’s women who have a genuine reaction to astrology and magic spells—whereas men regard that as “woo-woo nonsense” to do with “irrational emotions”.


Hence you often see right-wingers dismiss leftists as “hippy-dippy irrational neo-pagans”—because they’re not for nuclear power. These men really worship technology at core, but they’ll keep the patina of Christianity about so reinterpreted as “reason”—the “logos” means, in this estimation, “reason” and Christianity is true because it gives us “reason”, which gives us nuclear reactors and so on (unlike hippy-dippy postmodernism, which is “not a proper degree” and will never build a nuclear reactor and make you lots of money and so is “paganism”).


There’s a vague truth to the idea that “the logos” is “reason”—but it’s extremely vague. At core, these men worship technology—and Christianity is a “social technology” for them that facilitates that aim (a theme we will return to).


Now, the best astrologers are men and so are the best magicians—but, in modernity, because this stuff “isn’t real” it’s left to women’s magazines and so on. It becomes a trivial joke.


Masculine neo-pagans, “Odinists”, are just like very modern men. They are almost always Hitlerites and they like neo-paganism because they dislike the Jews on a racial basis and so want a non-Jewish faith, not Christianity. Paganism is non-universal, it’s about kin—whereas Christianity is, ultimately, about the brotherhood of man (charity, caritas—love of all mankind).


However, they tend to be the most modern of modern men—which is to say they don’t think religion is real at all. They’ve been influenced by Darwin and Nietzsche—so we live in a “struggle for life”, with the race as the primary unit of selection; and so we need a religion, on rational terms, that supports our race (unlike Christianity—which tells us to love everyone, especially the detested out-group).


They accept Nietzsche’s formulation of paganism—we live for “this world only” (no afterlife), don’t feel guilt about our actions (there is no sin), and have a relaxed attitude to sex (whereas for Christians sex is *the* naughty issue).


Nietzsche’s view owes more to the Enlightenment than to actual paganism—he admired men like Voltaire, and Voltaire was only against Catholicism. He advocated for religion on grounds of social utility—on the grounds that his servants would slit his throat if they didn’t believe in something.


That’s why in the French Revolution you have “the Religion of Reason” enshrined in Notre-Dame. The revolutionaries knew you needed a rational religion—people need “something” (just not Christianity). So they combined some pagan themes, like the Phrygian cap, with Enlightenment thought. But it’s not the same as real paganism—they didn’t see mystic flames on the mountains, followed by images of the goddess, like Pindar. They just wanted to dress up “reason” with some religious garb.


And “Odinists” today are just like that—except more to the right than the descendants of the French Revolution (although there is a connection—because they are nationalists and nationalism comes out of the French Revolution, and so is a leftist movement formerly allied to liberalism).


This idea “invent a religion” never works. There have been many attempts. The extremely bright William Luther Pierce attempted to found a religion called “Cosmotheism” in the 1980s—it flopped, went nowhere. In the 2010s, neoreactionaries liked to talk about religion as “social technology”—so that people should adopt, for example, 17th-century Anglicanism because it was the basis for British and American success (and so we should go back to that). This has also gone nowhere.


In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) this whole situation is alluded to because the eponymous “Handmaid” has a master who, before the “Christian revolution” that ushered in the Gilead republic, was some kind of marketing executive and a scientist. The story intimates that the fundamentalist Christian republic was founded by men like “Fred” on a rational basis—white birth rates and neo-Darwinism are explicitly mentioned.


That is something people don’t quite appreciate about The Handmaid’s Tale. The regime itself is not religious—its religion is cynical, it has been concocted by marketing executives and scientists to save white Americans from racial extinction. It’s not “real”, if you like—partly because Atwood is herself a bona fide witch (just look at her) but also because people have been trying to cook up religions like that on a rational basis, whether pagan or Christian, to “save the white race” for decades now. And they have got precisely nowhere (for reasons I shall explore later).


The problem with these people is that they are not really religious. It’s all a Machiavellian project for them—it’s totally rational. It’s aimed to “save the race”—and they know that we need a “noble lie” to do it, whether that is a neo-paganism or a reconstituted Christianity (whether “fundamentalist” or “trad Cath” or “Russian Orthodox”). In whatever dimension you cut it, this isn’t real—it’s political cynicism, it owes a lot to the Enlightenment.

It owes a lot to that view adumbrated by Gibbon (in loose paraphrase): “To the people of Rome, all the religions were equally true; to the philosophers, equally false; and to the magistrates, equally useful.” What these moderns think is that, like Gibbon’s magistrates, they can find, on a rational basis, a religion that will “arrest the decline in the white birth rate” and “stabilise society”. They try on different clothes—Odinist, trad Cath, fundamentalist, Orthodox—but it is all a rational exercise to “save the race” or to “stop the collapse of the West”.


The whole viewpoint was summed up for me when, a few years ago, I saw a neo-pagan YouTuber, an Odinist, who mentioned in a livestream that the previous day an owl landed outside his window in the daytime and stayed there on a branch. For him this was an odd event, a little amusing—something to relate. He then turned back to his genetic flowcharts about the Indo-European migrations—because that was what was real for him, genetic flowcharts on a screen.


Now, for a genuine pagan, for whom the birds were auguries, an owl in the daytime outside your window would be a major event. The Romans determined actions by cutting open birds and examining the entrails—the flight of birds would determine where a city would be built. Indeed, Rome’s existence itself was tied to a flock of birds (it was said they departed the city soon before it fell).


Yet for him that was not “real”—he was modern to the core. Reality meant genetics, flowcharts, livestreams—and, ironically, it is precisely the worship of that technology that means “the race is in decline” (bewitched by feminine technology that uses man to reproduce herself—sterilises him to build a vehicle for the AntiChrist, “AI”).

There is no religion in this neo-paganism—it is atheism.


**


This is why neo-paganism, especially “Odinism”, will go nowhere—it’s not a real religion. It’s just a modern invention, it’s the same as the Enlightenment “religion of reason”—it’s the same as Comte’s “religion of science”. Wicca is actually more religious, but, being dominated by the feminine, it tends to endorse all the democratic inversions found in leftist modernity—so it’s no better.


And, in fact, it has a strong materialist strain that fades into environmentalism—where to be “one with nature” means solar panels and wind farms; but that’s just to worship “feminine technology” (which is not dirty and smelly, like masculine technology—but is still technology, not pan pipes).


Further, neo-paganism is not very pagan. It tends to treat The Eddas or The Odyssey like the Bible—so these are treated as being like texts of revealed religion. But that’s not what those texts are—it’s not the same thing. These didn’t claim to be “the word of God delivered to God’s prophet on earth”—that is a Semitic way to conceptualise religion. There were many poets and bards in the pagan world—just as Muhammad was a poet in Arabia.


So when I look at neo-pagans I see that they often worship in buildings that look like churches, engage in ceremonies that look like Christian worship but with Christ swapped out for Thor, and they talk like Christians—with a little moral homily (though often they’ve cut out the afterlife, being happy to be relieved of hell—in a Nietzschean vein). However, in the meta-context, it’s the same as the Christians—they are Christians but don’t know it, because they only know the Christian way to conceptualise religion.


They don’t have, for example, gnosis—which is what Jesus had, Buddha had, Muhammad had, and many Roman emperors had. When the Roman emperors were referred to as “gods” that was a literal truth—they were god-men like Jesus who had opened the third eye. The Christian lie, which gained traction because the Roman religions had decayed, was that when saints confronted a Roman emperor who claimed to be “a god” he was humbled before “the true God”. But, in fact, they often were before a god-man who could do miracles as well as Jesus.


It would be a diversion to go into here, but what Jews call “the one God” is really ain soph and that is a component that can be awakened within any person (in theory, though in practice only in an elite)—and quite a number of men have awakened that capacity, Jesus among them (but also many Roman emperors and various holy men and sages). We live in a decayed time, so people think there was “one god-man”—Jesus or Muhammad, but there have been many (perhaps around 144,000 in total).

So that is why these religions, these confected rational religions, are not real—and are really just Christianity tricked out in different garbs, with a bit of Nietzsche added on here and there. Often they engage in autistic attempts to reconstruct the old rites based on academic research (which is wrong, like all academic research, because it is carried out in a modernistic spirit). If you said to them, “I saw the mystic lights on the hills and here is a message from the gods,” they’d just back away from you.


People who talk like that are “mad” or “schizo”—what we’re doing here isn’t “real religion”, everyone “knows” it’s not real, it’s just a materialist game to achieve some political objectives (nationalist in this case). It’s not “real”—we’re not stupid, primitive, or nutcases. This is why they will not succeed.

Real religions in modernity: Crowley’s Thelema and Serrano’s esoteric Hitlerism. I don’t endorse Crowley’s religion because it’s Satanic—but, nevertheless, these religions, though not popular, are real religions. Both men made actual contact with the other side—both “pierced the veil”. Crowley spent the night in a pyramid’s chamber and saw lights manifest there; and Serrano, when initiated, saw, as I saw last time at Hartsfell, a white star rise vertically over a hill in the day.


So these are real religions—and will last, whether popular or not. These will last because they have an actual spiritual basis. But all these confections, all these rational projects to “save the race” or “save the West”, will fail. These are not real—these are modernist to the core, and are still slaved to the Christian meta-context they think they’ve escaped (it’s why neo-pagans bicker with Christians all the time—it’s because they’re so similar at heart).


There is another realm, there is life beyond the veil—modernism, science, and technology are false religions and cannot be used to construct “pragmatic” religions to achieve secular aims. To do so is itself inversion, it’s a symptom of the problem.


But these people worship technology and material success—they’re just afraid, like Peter Thiel, that technology will undermine the social basis for their success, so they hope to use religion to prop everything up. But it doesn’t work like that—because the spiritual realm is real and superior to this realm, and this realm needs “propping up” precisely because of the diversion into materialism and greed.

So attempts to glue “17th-century Anglicanism” or “traditional Catholicism” or “Odinism” back together with reason will all fail—there are actual non-human forces at work behind religions. Christianity has collapsed for a reason, a non-human reason—and Islam has risen for another non-human reason (just as Hitler was sent to us—a man who, like Jesus, left an empty tomb).

It is the very “modernist view” that claims you can treat these things as “rational projects” that we fight against.

* is real




152 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page