top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Zarathustra and belief


Zarathustra is the first man known to have expressed a doctrine that called for universal salvation—that described a struggle between dark and light forces, and a final judgement. It’s the struggle between Ahura Mazda (the good god) and Angra Mainyu (the bad god)—the struggle between Asha (order) and Druj (disorder).

This story is so relevant, so soaked into our minds, that it recurs everywhere—when Netanyahu says that the struggle against Hamas is between “the people of the light” and “the people of the dark” he echoes Zarathustra; and George W Bush expressed similar sentiments in the war against Osama bin Laden.

The very car brand “Mazda” is named after “the good god”, and when Jordan Peterson talks about the struggle between chaos and order he just recapitulates the gospel of Zarathustra in secular scientific form.

Similar themes occur in the Transformers comic book storyline; and in, of course, Star Wars—where the dark side and the light side of the force contend. The name is doubly appropriate, for Zarathustra’s name was said to mean “star man” (which we can reference back to our own David Bowie, himself a skilled occultist—his last album being Dark Star; or, “the black sun”).

It’s the eternal struggle between light and dark that carries on until the end of time when all the children of the light will be gathered together, and all the children of the dark thrown into the pit. Selah.

This strict dualism is a degeneration, though. As I noted before, although Star Wars smacks of Eastern mysticism with its “force” that is divided into light and dark, it is in actuality closer to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in its strict dualism.

Think about the yin-yang symbol, there’s always some dark in the light and some light in the dark—but not in the Star Wars universe and not in our actual religious world, you either “turn to the dark side” or “turn to the light side” (equilibrium, interplay, interpenetration—all are disallowed in this thought mode; “you’re either with us or against us,” as both Bush and Jesus observed).

Zarathustra influenced more than just the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims—he also influenced Mithraism, which was, in the end, the centralised pagan “Church” that contended with Christianity in Rome.

Mithras was born in a cave to a virgin, was heralded by angels, was adored by surprised shepherds—was known as “the good shepherd”. He slaughtered the cosmic bull whose blood would redeem you—you get the picture, the difference between the last pagan Romans and the first Christians was not so great.


Yet it’s degeneration, and not just Christianity. I think Zarathustra’s revelation was genuine: he was the “star man”—he blasted through ceilings with great fires in his hands and on his head (the activated chakras, I presume). He went to the mountains to converse with the star entities—all happened, no doubt.

Yet I think he had corrupted blood, though he was still an Aryan. His revelation opened the way to belief. He is the first man to say in systematic fashion that it’s what you believe that can change you—that a mere belief can change you completely, just like some people in prison say, “Sir, since I accepted Jesus into my heart I’ve changed”; and yet they carry on just the same.

So Zarathustra’s first attempt to gain a follower involved a non-Aryan, a Turan. He began a “transvaluation of values”—rather than it being the case that the Aryan was noble by blood it became the case that anyone who accepted certain values, “the revelation”, became Aryan; and they were now superior to people who were noble by blood but who didn’t believe.

Hence “Aryan” became a title anyone could acquire—the word also means “twice-born”, just as Christians claim to be “born again” (it’s related). If you wash in the blood of the lamb (or the bull, if you follow Mithras) you can become “twice-born” and noble.

Even Evola accepts this view really because he gives priority to what he calls “spiritual race”—and the reason he does that is because his Ur Group, his magic group, practiced Mithraic rites which were themselves related to Zarathustrianism.

Admittedly, Mithraic thought was more elitist and less Semitic than Christianity, Mithras being “the god of the legions” (hence its appeal to Evola’s warrior aesthetic)—but it was actually a kissing cousin to Christianity in most respects.


The problem with this belief-based view is that it is democratic and universal—all you have to do is believe and you’re saved (initiation is negated). I like to inveigh against belief, because belief is pernicious is most cases—you can’t get away with belief in many cases, you can’t sit in an aeroplane and just believe you can fly it really strongly and then you’ll be able to do it (nothing will happen).

However, in many cases, much more abstract, people think that if they say they believe something then that “changes everything”—in this respect religious questions, as usually posed, such as “Do you believe Jesus died and resurrected?”, miss the point completely.

This finds useful illustration in right-wing politics where people will debate the merits of Christianity or neo-paganism to “revive the West”. Yet it is obvious that the belief, however “pure”, remains irrelevant. There are both Christians and neo-pagans who are completely comfortable with the way the West is now, completely happy with leftism (and atheists who think the opposite)—so clearly beliefs are no prophylactic.

“Ah but those aren’t real Christians and/or pagans.” Yet that is just “no true Scotsman” and, besides, it is still stuck in the framework, the Zarathustrian framework, that a belief can change a person. But a belief, whether more or less “correct” or “pure”, can’t change a hyena into a lion—it’s just that, thanks to Zarathustra, we have come to think that belief can do that (as most evident in ideas like “civic nationalism”—and, indeed, liberalism).

The alternative to this stance is usually the Montaigne option (also the Nietzsche option). It comes down to what Pontius Pilate said, “What is truth?”. That is the aristocratic stance, the late Roman aristocratic stance—there is a rabble who begs you to “believe” in neo-paganism or Pentecostalism, but you just shrug your shoulders because “true belief” is ephemeral and blood is thicker than water (as is the astral reality—the natal chart never lies, your stars have fixed your destiny; as Zarathustra should have realised, being into astrology).

However, in contradistinction to that agnostic stance to knowledge, I think there is a way to know, a way connected to the blood—a way to activate the wisdom latent in the blood through initiation. The struggle in all dimensions, even in material dimensions, is to push out people who believe and replace them with people who know.

Even in material domains, thanks to discrimination against Europeans, aircraft are flown by people who don’t really know how to do it (or do it well). But before that, long before, our religion and political institutions were captured by people who just believe in things—they have no wisdom, do not know what they are talking about.

Wisdom is not a state reached by mere belief—it is a way to create seers, not priests who lead a fanatic mob but wise men who see and command (whose eyes can incinerate a man in a flash, as the Brahmans of India could); but it is not an agnostic stance either—it is more than the viewpoint put forward by Pilate, Nietzsche, and the Enlightenment.

That is the real corrective to the Zarathustrian message—a message that is not altogether incorrect, but merely unbalanced.


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


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page