Far Right Paganism

[Appius Grey]

I advocate the ownership of the means of production by the whole of humanity, a society in which there is no class.

Capitalism can disappear yet there would still be classes. Societies such as the ancient Vedic civilization had its varnas – priests, warriors/rulers, merchants, and servants – and according to the Rig Veda they came into existence with the primordial sacrifice of the Cosmic Being by the Devas. So for the Vedic civilization class was not so much economic as it was transcendent. Many of today's British people suss out one's class not so much according to one's wealth but one's behaviour, accent, mannerisms, tastes, etc. The concept of class will always exist and therefore there cannot be radical equality.

In such a society, there would be no need to "enforce" equality, because the fruits of human labor would already be owned by everyone.

Does equality totally depend on everybody owning the fruits of human labour? There will continue to be the Muslim and the kafir, the Jew and the Gentile, the Hellene and the barbarian, the priests and the laity, the parents and the children. No society can enforce radical equality between these distinctive people. So what if everybody in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, owned the means of production and all owned the fruits of labour? The laic in an Orthodox diocese will never have the status a priest has, the kafir will never be the brother of a Muslim, and a son will not have democratic privileges in the house of his parents.

Society would be structured on a model of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". In a scenario where the accumulation of wealth is impossible (because capital is dead) and the accumulation of power is impossible (because the state is dead), there's no need force people to do anything.

What if some people simply refuse to work? "I don't owe society nothing!" Do they still receive according to their needs? By the way I am fully aware that most people would not be idle because almost all of us have a creative impulse and do want a pleasant world to live in.

I think that even if capital were abolished there would still be the accumulation of wealth because wealth doesn't have to be measured in legal tender. There will be people who accumulate wealth in the form of precious metals and precious gems, and those things are inherently more valuable than cookies and sweaters.

Power can be accumulated without the existence of the state as we know it today. All it takes is people, weapons, a will, a plan, and just doing it.

As for who maintains it, the workers maintain their own workplace. I imagine there would be some sort of successor to a conventional "state" in the form of a group of professionals trained in making sure goods go to where they're supposed to go, but most of that could probably be taken care of with computers.

If society is synonymous with the market then I don't want to live in that society.

So then a techno-aristocracy? I thought you were an anarchist!

Cheers!

[Appius Grey]

This question is predicated on a falsehood that someone will have to "enforce" anything.

People do have to enforce rules and order.

Just to ask the question, you must assume that the Proletariat cannot control itself. That is the concept of 2000 year old elitism and bigotry, and a self fulfilling prophecy, because when you subjugate people, you create and inspire resentment in them and resentment manifests easily in spiteful ways meant to harm the oppressors.

I did not have in mind your international class of workers not being able to control itself. What I had in mind was simply this: who enforces equality in this Marxist utopia? People of many cultures, creeds, and walks of life all over the world do not believe in radical equality. And as you know equality does not depend on eliminating capital.

Please help me understand how the relationship between the Capitalists and the Proletariat has anything to do with the ancient Solar-Kingship of Egypt, the spread of the Macedonian empire, and the desire for a Caliphate. I would like to know their connection.

Even right now, in this modern world, there are tribes, around the world in what are considered "uncivilized" places, where there are no "workers" and no "Leaders" and no "politicians" and no "bosses".
These tribes get along fine having a council of elders to help with tough decisions, tribunals to deal with personal offences and discussions about situations that affect the whole tribe by talking about it with the whole tribe.

What are some things about those tribes that modern people in the West would find disagreeable?

Even now, with all of the experience we have with organizing people and government around the world, people still consider their neighborhood to be more important than their City, their County, and their overall state.

How is one's neighbourhood more important than the greater society that gives that neighbourhood resources such as utilities, pavements, street signs, and the protection of the police force?

In my opinion people who are concerned with who "Rules them all"... have some ambition or fantasy in mind where THEY THEM SELF, rule them all and they don't want to let that fantasy go by considering a truly egalitarian, system of equality.

I am Imam Mehdi and you will obey my authority, kafir!

Using the terms left and right in political terms should stand out as just one more layer of control that has already been placed on you and worked systematically since before you were even born to convince you that your options are so limited as to only be able to choose as you would your 2 hands. Left or Right. Which ideas do you then choose when you dream, or imagine? Left dreams or Right dreams? Left ideas or Right ideas?

The same can be said about the author of that web page earlier.

I do not situate myself on any of those sides of the political spectrum.

If you have a bowl of soup and you are hungry, which is the better part of the soup? The left soup, or the right soup?

In the perfect Marxist society everybody gets a free bowl of soup with a roll of bread every day!

[HopefulChild]

I'll be honest, there is no discussion here for me. Were it a kicked horse even the dust would be so finely dispersed that no evidence of it's existence could be found.

The systems are as they are because all our predecessors were greedy. So greedy that they would believe any snake oil salesman who comes along promising more for less and only at the incredibly low price of everything the future may hold, in easy installment payments.

I was born a slave, and I will die a slave. My children were born slaves and they are more likely to die as slaves than not.
And so will my grand children and great grandchildren.

But what I hold dear I will pass down, and beg of them to do the same in the hope that one of my line will break their chains.

[Yex]

Capitalism can disappear yet there would still be classes. Societies such as the ancient Vedic civilization had its varnas – priests, warriors/rulers, merchants, and servants – and according to the Rig Veda they came into existence with the primordial sacrifice of the Cosmic Being by the Devas. So for the Vedic civilization class was not so much economic as it was transcendent. Many of today's British people suss out one's class not so much according to one's wealth but one's behaviour, accent, mannerisms, tastes, etc. The concept of class will always exist and therefore there cannot be radical equality.

It seems that you're implying that there is some sort of essentialist nature of inequality, that different people inherently belong to different castes or classes. All I can say is that I wholeheartedly disagree, and that such views are reactionary to the point of being extremely dangerous.

Does equality totally depend on everybody owning the fruits of human labour? There will continue to be the Muslim and the kafir, the Jew and the Gentile, the Hellene and the barbarian, the priests and the laity, the parents and the children. No society can enforce radical equality between these distinctive people. So what if everybody in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, owned the means of production and all owned the fruits of labour? The laic in an Orthodox diocese will never have the status a priest has, the kafir will never be the brother of a Muslim, and a son will not have democratic privileges in the house of his parents.

Does it really matter if there is some remanence of hierarchy in this sense? In a communist society, religion would be voluntary, so it seems kind of beside the point if there are religious divisions. As for the authority that a parent has over their children, this seems acceptable insomuch as children (particularly small children) need the protection and guidance of their parents. Anyway, parenting should, however, stray away from enforcing hierarchy for hierarchy's sake. Anyway, when I speak of radical equality, I'm mostly speaking of radical material equality, ie a society in which meeting people's basic human needs are of primary importance.

What if some people simply refuse to work? "I don't owe society nothing!" Do they still receive according to their needs? By the way I am fully aware that most people would not be idle because almost all of us have a creative impulse and do want a pleasant world to live in.

As you yourself point out, the vast majority of people would not just sit around all day and do nothing. That's not really what human beings want. If someone did want that, it would most likely be a sign of some illness - mental, behavioral, or otherwise - and thus it could be said that that person truly does not have the ability to contribute to the society. So what? Shouldn't such a person still have their needs met?

I think that even if capital were abolished there would still be the accumulation of wealth because wealth doesn't have to be measured in legal tender. There will be people who accumulate wealth in the form of precious metals and precious gems, and those things are inherently more valuable than cookies and sweaters.

I'm not sure that precious metals and precious gems are inherently more valuable than cookies and sweaters, and I also don't see a communist society presenting many opportunities to hoard gold and jewels.

If society is synonymous with the market then I don't want to live in that society.

Society is not synonymous with the market, but capitalism inflicts great suffering on the bulk of humanity. Communism would remove that blight and allow society to function properly.

So then a techno-aristocracy? I thought you were an anarchist!

I imagine most goods and services would be provided by the immediate community, but that trained professional technocrats, and/or computers, would be involved in distributing surpluses, et cetera. They would of course be accountable to the people, and safeguards would need to be in place to prevent mismanagement of goods and resources.

[Lydia]

I thought I'd share this article about confronting far right/fascist tendencies within Paganism/Witchcraft/the Occult.

http://godsandradicals.org/others/confr ... new-right/

Among pagans, only the odinists have a significant portion of national-socialists among them.
Also notable are the Order of Nine Angles (O9A) and the Joy of Satan (JoS), both of which are theistic satanist occult groups that were founded by national-socialists (David Myatt and Andrea Herrington, respectively), though they are not pagan groups. Notably, the linked webpage made no mention of odinists, the O9A, or JoS.

The webpage mentions the 'new right' (i.e. nouvelle droite), not the 'far right'.
I looked into this 'new right' and found that it is based upon the writings of Alain de Benoist and the think tank that he leads, called GRECE, which is based in France. I have furthermore looked into Alain de Benoist's ideology, and it can be summarized as: "ethnopluralism in which organic, ethnic cultures and nations live and develop independently" and "rejection of christianity and monotheism in favor of native polytheist religions". There is nothing inherently right-wing about that ideology, so it is a misnomer to call it 'new right', and it is libellous to call it 'far right' or 'fascist'. But there are some highly sociopathic crypto-fascist individuals, most notably Roger Griffin, Thomas Sheehan, Walter Laqueur, and Martin Lee, who libellously project their own fascist ideology onto this completely non-fascist 'new right' ideology that they are opposed to, so as to discredit it.

[Xiao Rong]

I look strongly askance at any group, Pagan or otherwise, that argues that we would be better off if people of different races are better off "separate but equal", or maybe just "separate", no matter how pretty the name ("ethnopluralism" has a lovely, multicultural ring to it, doesn't it?) I can't speak for European politics, but the types of things that "ethnopluralism" espouses are actually very in line with the right wing in America. Since the US has a very different history from Europe (many people of color here were brought to the New World through violence, and of course the very settlement of the New World was built on violence against Native Americans), "organic, ethnic cultures and nations live and develop independently" pretty much means "send all people of color back where they came from", which essentially boils down to "American should be for whites only". I'm sure we can think of many America conservative politicians (including their presumptive presidential nominee) who are currently advocating that. And, of course, you already mentioned Odinism, which is very appealing amongst white supremacists.

[Lydia]

(many people of color here were brought to the New World through violence, and of course the very settlement of the New World was built on violence against Native Americans)

I see that you are fond of using the word 'violence', a term which deceptively psychologizes objective acts.
Many africans were brought to the americas through force, and the settlement of the americas was built in part upon the killing of native americans. -That is the correct terminology.

You are also fond of using the term 'people of color'- a gross misnomer that should never be used.
ALL humans have color; I have yet to see any human who is black-and-white or greyscale,
though black-haired people have less color by comparison to non-black-haired people.

"organic, ethnic cultures and nations live and develop independently" pretty much means "send all [afro-Americans? non-euro Americans?] back where they came from", which essentially boils down to "American should be for whites only".

I see that you are resorting to lying by using a non-sequiter and putting words into the mouths of the 'new right' group. It is hardly necessary to expel enormous numbers of people when one can simply draw numerous new national boundaries. And the United States already has many semi-sovereign Native American reservations, which can simply be given full national sovereignty.

I'm sure we can think of many America conservative politicians (including their presumptive presidential nominee) who are currently advocating that [America should be for whites only].

Wow, Xiao, that's a highly libelous statement. There are currently no elected politicians in the U.S. who advocate expelling all non-euro Americans from the U.S., much less is Trump such a person, despite all of the libel and slander that has been spewed at him by sociopathic liars. Any U.S. politician who would advocate such a radical and highly unpopular policy would never get elected. Regarding Trump, in all of the many news clips that I've seen from his speeches and tweets, and the full republican debates that I've seen, I haven't even heard or seen him so much as use the word 'white' or 'caucasian' or the equivalent.

[SnowCat]

If memory serves me correctly, the drawing of new national boundaries was a factor in the Civil War. The South seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. That didn't really work out very well.

Snow

[Xiao Rong]

Lydia, first off, I'd like to ask you to review forum rules, particularly the parts about respectful discussion. I would appreciate not being called a liar (and implied a sociopath) for having an opinion that disagrees with yours. Similarly, expressing political opinions can hardly be construed as libel. If basic respect in discussions is difficult for you to deal with, then you may have to find a different online forum by which to express your opinions.

While you have every right to not use the term "people of color" personally if you choose not to acknowledge race, I will also have to ask you to respect people who do identify with that term (including myself, as a Chinese-American woman).

I see that you are fond of using the word 'violence', a term which deceptively psychologizes objective acts. Many africans were brought to the americas through force, and the settlement of the americas was built in part upon the killing of native americans. -That is the correct terminology.

I don't really understand -- using force to enslave and kill is not violence? Umm, okay.

Any U.S. politician who would advocate such a radical and highly unpopular policy would never get elected. Regarding Trump, in all of the many news clips that I've seen from his speeches and tweets, and the full republican debates that I've seen, I haven't even heard or seen him so much as use the word 'white' or 'caucasian' or the equivalent.

It's not difficult to read between the lines and make inferences about what they mean. The whole point of dog whistle politics is to imply racism while maintaining plausible deniability. You might never say "white", "black", or other races directly, but everyone knows that there is a racial connotation to words such as "urban" and "illegals". And I feel like a simple Google search could point out numerous examples of Trump endorsing xenophobic and racist policies (including a plan to deport 11 million immigrants, primarily aimed at Mexico).

[Lydia]

Lydia, first off, I'd like to ask you to review forum rules, particularly the parts about respectful discussion. I would appreciate not being called a liar (and implied a sociopath) for having an opinion that disagrees with yours. Similarly, expressing political opinions can hardly be construed as libel. If basic respect in discussions is difficult for you to deal with, then you may have to find a different online forum by which to express your opinions.

I see that you are now lying by euphemizing your lies and libel as 'disagreement' and 'expressing opinions', and by trying to falsely portray me as 'disrespectful', and then you use that latter lie as a pretense to implicitly threaten to ban me for exposing your lies. Furthermore, your use of the wording "if basic respect in discussions is difficult for you to deal with" is exceptionally sociopathic, being an obvious act of flame-baiting which is intended to provoke me into providing you with some further pretense with which to ban me. It is thus abundantly clear by your innate habitual deceptive and calculating behaviors that you are psychologically unfit to be an administrator or moderator of this or any other internet forum, or to hold any other position of authority. I hope that Starwitch does not approve of such behaviors.

I don't really understand -- using force to enslave and kill is not violence? Umm, okay.

Cease playing dumb, as if you didn't read what I wrote. I will repeat myself:
"[the term 'violence'] deceptively psychologizes objective acts.".
To elaborate further: The purpose of using the word 'violence' in that way is to falsely portray the motive of objective goal-oriented acts (such as killing) as being instead a psychological desire for 'violence'.

It's not difficult to read between the lines and make inferences about what they mean. The whole point of dog whistle politics is to imply racism while maintaining plausible deniability. You might never say "white", "black", or other races directly, but everyone knows that there is a racial connotation to words such as "urban" and "illegals". And I feel like a simple Google search could point out numerous examples of Trump endorsing xenophobic and racist policies (including a plan to deport 11 million immigrants, primarily aimed at Mexico).

The illegal immigrants from Mexico perpetrate crimes at a high rate, so it is reasonable to deport them.
That is very different from deporting people simply because they are hispanic or mestizo, a policy which Trump clearly does not support. Although there may be some general validity to this concept of 'dog whistle terms', you are clearly grossly misusing the concept in order to grossly falsely portray Donald Trump.

[YanaKhan]

Lydia,
Calling someone a liar, sociopath, libel and whatnot is not only rude, but is in fact breaking the rules of the forum. If you continue with that behavior, you are free to find another forum where you can express your opinions more freely. This is not a threat, you obviously aren't happy with people disagreeing with you, so perhaps another place, where everyone shares your beliefs will be more fit for you.

Having a strong opinion about something doesn't give you the right to insult other members, so I suggest you simmer down a little.

[SnowCat]

I know an undocumented person from Mexico who is not only hard working, but chose to serve his country and did two tours in Afghanistan. Painting all undocumented people from Mexico as criminals is unwise and unfair. And this is what can be inferred from your post. And yes, you are violating forum rules with your behavior.

Snow

[Yex]

I haven't visited Everything Under the Moon in a long while, and to my delight, there's fresh activity on this thread? The gods are too generous!

Here's some libel for you, Lydia: it seems pretty obvious that in this conversation, you're essentially acting as an apologist for racialist fascism. Whether you're doing so merely out of a desire to pick a fight or out of sympathy for those views is of no matter. The effect is the same, and it is inexcusable.

Sorry good people of EotM, I hope I'm not breaking rules by being disrespectful to this person, but I'm calling a spade a spade. Using nonsensical linguistic tricks to insinuate that genocide and slavery are "objective acts" is exactly the type of crypto-fascism warned of in the original article that we as Pagans - nay, citizens of the world - need to be wary of. They must be given no ground for discussion whatsoever. Historically, when such voices have been allowed to speak, the result is just more genocide and slavery.

¡No pasarán!

EDIT: Aw shucks, I see that this person was already banned. I guess I'm late to the party. Anyway, my point stands.

[SnowCat]

Your post isn't disrespectful Yex. You're the author of the thread, and your defending your position quite eloquently.

Snow

[Aceso]

Very interesting