← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar

Thread 7181

Thread ID: 7181 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2003-06-06

Wayback Archive

PaleoconAvatar [OP]

2003-06-06 19:01 | User Profile

Muy interesante (if I remember my college Spanish correctly). Bolded text is emphasis mine....

[url=http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/Conversation%20with%20Dr%20Stephen%20Flowers.html]Wisdom for the Wolf-Age: A Conversation With Dr. Stephen Flowers[/url]

**One of dominant paradigms of modern society is fragmentation. In the world of popular culture this translates into dazzling distractions and endless ephemera, while in the world of academia it engenders over-specialisation and an unspoken refusal to even attempt to understand the “bigger picture,” especially from a metaphysical perspective.

In this atomised environment, anyone extolling a cohesive vision that is marked by traditional values – not to mention high standards – automatically becomes an anomaly. So it is the case with Dr. Stephen Flowers, who is the rarest of breeds: a scholar with spirit, one who is single-minded yet open-minded. For more than a quarter-century he has dedicated his energies toward unraveling the mysteries not only of the ancient symbolic alphabet of the Runes, but also of the deepest realms of the Germanic myth and culture from which they arose. For Flowers, this quest is summed up in a single word, RUNA, which is the old Gothic language form of “rune” and was equivalent to the Greek term mysterion (“mystery”). It was in the early 1970s that Flowers heard this word audibly whispered in his ear, and since that time he has tirelessly pursued a path of understanding its implications.

Following graduate work in Germanic and Celtic philology under the esteemed professor Edgar Polomé (1920–2000), Flowers received his Ph.D. in 1984 with a dissertation entitled Runes and Magic: Magical Formulaic Elements in the Elder Tradition (later published by Lang, 1986). In the mid-1980s Flowers also began a more public writing career under the name Edred Thorsson. His books on the Runes and Germanic magic (Futhark, Runelore, At the Well of Wyrd, Rune-Might, Northern Magic, The Nine Doors of Midgard, and A Book of Troth) have become classics of sorts, and although they are aimed at the occult book market, they reveal a depth of understanding and degree of knowledge that is unusual to find in this genre.

Under his own name he also published less speculative material, for example Fire & Ice, about the German magical order the Fraternitas Saturni, and his translation of the Galdrabók, a medieval Icelandic grimoire. His interest in Germanic topics extends not only to the distant past, but also into more recent and controversial manifestations, such as the völkisch period at the turn of the 19th century or the esoteric aspects of the Third Reich, and his translations of Guido von List’s Secret of the Runes, S. A. Kummer’s Rune-Magic, or the writings of Karl Maria Wiligut (The Secret King: Himmler’s Lord of the Runes) all shed scholarly light on these topics. He has also written Lords of the Left-Hand Path, a lengthy study of darker occult currents, and an innovative analysis of ancient Greek magical texts entitled Hermetic Magic.

Unlike many who possess academic credentials, Flowers was never content to relegate his interests to a purely intellectual level, and thus he has long been active in the contemporary revival of Germanic heathenism, variously called Odinism or Ásatrú (a coinage derived from Old Norse, meaning “loyalty to the gods”). He was an original member of Stephen McNallen’s seminal organisation the Ásatrú Free Assembly (which still exists today as the Ásatrú Folk Assembly), and in 1979 founded his own initiatory group, the Rune-Gild, dedicated toward the serious exploration of the esoteric and innermost levels of the Germanic tradition, as well as the greater Indo-European culture of which it is but one branch.

Underlying all of his work is a belief in the profound importance of traditional Germanic thinking and the eternal relevance of its mythological expression. After all, English is a Germanic tongue, and our society – fragmented or decayed as it now may be – owes its true origins as much, if not more so, to northern Europe than to Athens or Rome. Dismayed at the ongoing erosion of support for Germanic studies at most universities across the Western world, Flowers has recently unveiled his latest project: the Woodharrow Institute. This non-profit educational institution aims to maintain and foster the tradition of Germanic scholarship, offering courses and publications, and interacting with academic circles wherever possible. Besides administering the Institute, Flowers and his wife Crystal also direct the Rûna-Raven publishing house, which issues an ongoing catalog of titles concerning varied aspects of ancient Germanic culture, along with specialised language studies and works in related areas.

– Michael Moynihan**

Michael Moynihan: Can you recall what initial event or events led to your setting out upon the path you’ve taken toward understanding the mysteries of the Germanic tradition?

Stephen Flowers: I started out my “career” in understanding the mysteries of the Germanic tradition as what I would later come to understand as an “occultizoid nincompoop.” I was interested in a variety of pretty nutty things. One of my first passions was monster movies. Perhaps Famous Monsters of Filmland was my first bible. My “favourite monster” was the one created by Frankenstein. There was simply something about the “Gothic,” Germanic origin of the myth that appealed to me. Before that I can remember being drawn to all things Germanic (and Scandinavian) the films The Vikings (which I saw during a childhood trip to San Antonio) and the Fall of the Roman Empire vaguely inspired me with certain scenes of Germanic “barbarism.” Later this slightly matured into an interest in the Morning of the Magicians/Spear of Destiny mythology, and culminated in my “hearing” the word RUNA in 1974. This was a catalyst for a quantum leap in my development. It caused me to delve into the scientific and academic basis of what it was that had so fascinated me from childhood. All of this experience laid the foundation of the nature of my own teaching, following this pattern: (irrational) inspiration, leading to (rational) objective study, leading to (subjective) internalisation, which ultimately leads to objective enactment (= understanding/personal transformation).

Michael: What brought about your initiation into organised Ásatrú or Odinism, and how do you look back on this period now?

Stephen: Back in the mid-1970s there were only a very few individuals entertaining the idea of the revival of the old Germanic religion. My own individual journey started as early as 1972. However, I will say that it remained rather haphazard and undirected until 1974 when I heard the word RUNA whispered in my ear. But even then, with the inspiration from a higher source, the struggle to understand the full significance of it all was a significant one that had to be carried out in the earthly plane. I saw notices in places like Fate magazine for the Ásatrú Free Assembly and was intrigued, but for some reason I thought it unwise to contact this group until I had something significant to offer. By 1975 my work had taken the direction of being more guided by scholarly discipline. Once I had made significant progress in the reformulation of my runic philosophy (which found expression in the manuscript that became Futhark) and in my graduate studies at the University of Texas at Austin, I felt prepared to make contact with Ásatrú groups.

I first met the leader of the AFA, Stephen McNallen, at the first AFA Althing in the summer of 1979. Meeting Steve was a life-changing experience for me. He is an embodiment of a kind of Germanic spirituality that puts words into action. It was at that time that I was named a godhi [the Old Norse designation for a spiritual leader] in the AFA. It is now the only credential that I hold as being of any significance in the world of Ásatrú /Odinism. Despite whatever history might have passed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there can be no doubt that Stephen McNallen is the guiding light of American Ásatrú. I count Steve McNallen as a friend and colleague and very much value the fact that it was from him that I received my godhordh – or “authority as a godhi.”

Michael: You have often spoken about how essential disciplined scholarly training can be for understanding the esoteric aspects of the religion and how to most effectively put these into practice. Presumably, such an exchange also functions simultaneously in the reverse direction – in other words, what positive ways did your active involvement with the religion impact your academic work?

Stephen: The esoteric, spiritual aspects function as initial forms of inspiration to the mind. This is essential to the Odian approach to life. First there is an “irrational,” or supra-rational, impulse – a bolt out of the blue that sets the conscious mind on its mysterious course. That impulse can, for many, be a disorienting stroke from which they never recover. They simply sink deeper and deeper into a sea of subjectivity. For another group, the subjectivism is eventually re-balanced with rational work. Understanding of the inspiration is gained, without “explaining it away.” The allowance of subjective inner experience and insight to coexist with objective, rational analysis is essential to the process of truly understanding the tradition in a scientific way, as well as to the process of personal development based on the traditional symbology.

It was noted by outside observers, my mentors in the academic world, that I had an uncanny ability to make sense of obscure myths and to apprehend the hidden connections between and among various mythic structures. This ability stemmed from my inner experience which was constructed on a basis lying outside the purely rational models. If one is trying to delve into the mysteries of the symbolic culture of an archaic world – one very much separated from our own contemporary society and values – then obviously some key must be found which is something other than plodding logic or wild speculation. For me this key is the balanced openness to the mythic spirit of Odin. I was lucky enough to have academic mentors who supported me in this approach, who were themselves spiritual men. Without their inner support I could not have achieved whatever it is I have achieved.

Michael: Why is the notion of a scholar of pre-Christian religion who actually adheres to the spiritual ideas that he also studies such a radical one? Is this simply a byproduct of the situation in the West where any religious path outside of the “mainstream” monotheistic faiths is painted as cultic and marginal?

Stephen: I think this attitude stems almost entirely from two sources: 1) the antagonism of the materialist worldview toward the traditional spiritual one, and 2) the opportunity the adherents to the materialistic worldview have taken to attack the spiritual view based on historical events surrounding World War II. This materialist worldview is “monotheistic” in the sense that it allows for only one set of orthodox values. In this way it is really a secularised form of monotheistic religion. The Judeo-Christian system of thought has lent itself very well to being secularised in such a way that it can be turned into a model for modern political and economic theories. As a side-note, Islam has been much more stubborn in its adherence to its original values, which has caused it to be very much “out of step” with its monotheistic cousins.

Judaism and Christianity can be tolerated by the establishment scholarly world because they can be viewed as theoretical prototypes of the materialistic and positivistic model that now dominates thought in the West. Earlier traditional models are seen not so much as a threat to religion as they are seen as a threat to the monolithic political and economic order. The pre-Christian, traditional philosophies are too divergent and multivalent to be coerced into one single “market” of ideas. This points to the fatal hypocrisy of the current crop of modernistic “thinkers,” who spout off about “multiculturalism” and tolerance, but who exclusively support monolithic socio-economic models that enact the opposite of what they publicly espouse. Surely the ancient, traditional and pre-Christian world is more in line with what really sounds best to most people. Are not ancient, pre-Christian Athens or Alexandria more ideal models for the future over medieval Rome or Constantinople?

Clearly the animosity to those who see value in pre-Christian models stems not from the religious side of the debate, but rather from the secular challenge traditionalism poses to the current political order. What is needed is a campaign for the re-education of the academic world to show that the idealised future is one that is more likely to be based on the mosaic of pre-Christian traditions than it is to be based on the monolithic Christian model.

Scholars of pre-Christian tradition must indeed be sympathetic and even empathetic to the paradigms they are studying. If they do not have a subjective link to the paradigm they are seeking to understand, then they have categorically placed an insurmountable barrier between themselves and the “object” they seek to understand. Hence they have in fact disqualified themselves from ever being able to really understand the patterns of thought in question.

Michael: You have always tried to encourage those involved in neo-heathenism to uphold a higher intellectual standard, and whenever possible to actively pursue serious academic study. Have you noticed any significant number of people willing to rise to the challenge?

Stephen: To this point I would say that there has indeed been a significant number of people who have taken up the challenge to pursue academic goals as a way to put their inner, spiritual lives on a more firm foundation. The number may be significant, but not large. It is hoped that with the advent of the new Woodharrow Institute a greater number of people will “get” what it is I am trying to convey in this trend. The whole “neo-pagan” world has been made a part of the Bohemian “underground” sort of mentality of the Anglo-Saxon (this includes the imitative American) culture. What I am trying to do is simply call the Anglo-Saxon culture back to its more organic Germanic roots. This includes the way in which the idea of “neo-paganism” is approached.

As I outlined in my essay “How to Be a Heathen,” printed in the volume Blue Runa (Rûna-Raven, 2001), there was a time when “pagan knowledge” indicated something that was rigorous to begin with, and gradually evolved to higher realms of the ordinarily ineffable. “Christian faith” was something which opposed “pagan knowledge” and was characterised by subjectivism and infinite appeals to unverifiable authorities from the beginning to the end of the process. In this way it can be seen how the typical “New Ager,” or “wiccan” [sic] is in fact paradigmatically much closer to the original Christian model of thinking than is the average “Christian believer” today. Serious Christian seminarians would not think of ignoring the study of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, yet the many aspirants to the “priesthood” of Ásatrú today think that learning Old Norse is an unreasonable thing to require. It is remarkable to note how many people don’t even get the grammar of their supposed “Norse name” right!

The reasons for this apparent virtual hostility to learning are a part of the Anglo-Saxon “anti-egghead” mentality. By contrast it can be noted that some of the turn-of-the-century German revivalists were in fact professors, e.g. Jakob Wilhelm Hauer (Tübingen) and Ernst Bergmann (Leipzig). This inner cultural bias must be first recognised before it can be overcome. Do not think for a minute that I am extolling the great wisdom or character of the typical modern academic. The academy is presently in decay. However, the basic and systematic knowledge possessed by those who have spent decades in specialised studies, and who have been the traditional recipients of knowledge handed down from several previous generations of scholars is a resource that is indispensable to us.

Michael: While your focus is usually on traditional Germanic or northern European culture and religion, you have also addressed other areas in some of your work, such as with the book Hermetic Magic. What was your reason for doing so – and how do these seemingly distinct realms fit together or cross-fertilise?

Stephen: In Hermetic Magic I concentrated on the operations from the Greek magical papyri that made use of the symbolic power of language and the alphabet (i.e., the more Greek-influenced operations). Indeed there is a great deal of possible cross fertilisation between the Germanic and Greek traditions of verbal and alphabetic magic. The book Hermetic Magic was an experiment in the use of the principle of RUNA in the decoding of a tradition other than the Germanic. It proved to be generally successful. Much of what Hermetic magic was all about has been lost in the Golden Dawn/OTO-style magic of the Victorian gents. Hermetic Magic is an attempt to go ad fontes, i.e., back to the sources of what Hermetic magic is, in order to arrive at a fresh and eternal perspective on the power of the human will. This is an exercise in the power of RUNA, Mysterion, as I see it. Hermetic Magic shows what can be done with the principle of RUNA/Mysterion. That it has been generally ignored by the run-of-the-mill “hermetic” crowd is a sign of just how esoteric the actual tradition is.

Michael: The work of Georges Dumézil, the French scholar of Indo-European comparative religion, has been a strong influence on your own outlook. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of his work, and why did they resonate with you to such a degree?

Stephen: First of all, I suppose I came to it as a matter of tradition. My own teacher, and Doktorvater, Edgar Polomé, was a (qualified) Dumézilian. Beyond what I learned in his classrooms, however, I saw that his objective studies (which involved making detailed dossiers of the various Indo-European Gods, etc.) coupled with his structuralist approach allowed for the beginnings of a contemporary and living synthesis of ancient ideas with those of Jung and others. The ideas of Dumézil are 1) accurate and objectively verifiable to a great degree, and 2) are potent tools for current self-transformational work.

Michael: In recent years there seems to be a consistent effort on the part of certain segments of the academic community to discredit Dumézil’s work, and especially his formulation of the tripartite/tri-functional model. Such attempts are reminiscent of those directed against Mircea Eliade and other scholars of religion and myth. Why this animosity, and what are these discreditors so afraid of?

Stephen: They are afraid of the resurgence of Indo-European culture. They have intellectually invested in the idea that internationalism is good and that anything that glorifies the non-European world is preferable to anything that seems to lend prestige to European culture. All of this is so ironic because the ideals from which they draw are entirely of European origin. Nevertheless, as a matter of ideology, but probably more as a matter of an intellectual fashion trend, the academic establishment frowns on anything that they see as “glorifying” the European culture. They would probably argue that their reasons for this vaguely have something to do with Germany in the 1930s. In conversations with German academics in runology I discovered that the same things are happening at German universities now as happened in American ones in the 1980s and 1990s – anything relating to ancient or medieval northern Europe is being dismantled.

There is also the fear that Europe will really be able to make peace within itself based on the Indo-European model, rather than the Christian and/or Marxist model. This would discredit their intellectual prejudices once more. Specifically on Dumézil and the tripartite theory, his theories have the potential of forming the basis of a pan-Indo-European cultural unity. They are the greatest challenge to Christianity and to materialistic positivism in the 20th century. So it is not without some justification that Dumézil has been so widely attacked. His theories do pose a challenge, and are not merely intellectual curiosities. They call for some sort of action and some sort of change on the part of the reader of his ideas.

The dirty little secret is probably merely that in academia the study of old languages and ancient history is hard, whereas what they are replacing all of this with is relatively easy. So that the “war on the Indo-Europeans” is really part of the general “dumbing down” of the academy.

Michael: Not so long ago you attended an international scholarly conference on runology in Denmark. What were your impressions about how this discipline is faring in today’s academic world?

Stephen: The academic field of runology, like any other academic discipline, is subject to the dictates of fashion and changing intellectual trends. (This is where an academic discipline differs from a Traditional discipline.) Most of the 19th and early 20th century runologists accepted the relationship between religion or magic and the runes as a given fact. They accepted this uncritically because it appeared to them (perhaps rightly) as the most obvious conclusion based on all prima facie evidence. Because they were uncritical in their acceptance, however, this left the door open to a subsequent generation of runologists to question the earlier generation’s assumptions. In the world of science this is a good thing. If those who did not question the “magical” nature of the runes had not been so uncritical, then a deeper and more insightful exploration of the idea of runes and magic might never have been undertaken.

I was very gratified to have younger individuals – many still students – at the runic conference discreetly approach me and tell me that part of the reason they came to the conference was to meet me, and that they had first been exposed to the wondrous world of the runes and the esoteric Germanic tradition through my more “popular” works.

The changing face of academia dictates that what is “in” today, will be “out” tomorrow. The seeds of the next generation of runologists have already been planted. On some level, perhaps, those who are foes of tradition have sensed this. Their strategy is perhaps to prevent the seeds from growing by not allowing the seeds to exist in fertile soil. The whole fields of runology, comparative religion, Indo-European studies, etc., are being systematically rooted out of academic institutions. Especially in America this is occurring with simultaneous impetus both from the “right” and from “left.” The international left sees the European tradition as being in power, and their myth of the dialectic determines they should seek to disestablish whatever is in power for “revolutionary” reasons. The right, on the other hand, is dominated in America by a Christian sentiment, which sees interest in our ancient traditions as being hostile to the Christian model. It is interesting to note that these apparently divergent interests of the “left” and “right” are, in America at least, in agreement that at least one of their common “enemies” is the organic national traditions of Europe.

This is occurring not just in America, but in Europe as well. Recently the position of Prof. Dr. Klaus Düwel at the University of Göttingen in Germany was terminated by the administration of the university. At the runic conference in Denmark the runologists signed a petition aimed at the university administration to ask that this prestigious position be maintained. The roots of the academic study of runes at that institution go back to the Grimms.

Michael: Is the founding of the Woodharrow Institute for Germanic and Runic Studies in some ways a response to the current situation regarding these areas of study?

Stephen: The Woodharrow Institute is not only a response to this current situation in academia, but also to shortcomings, as I see them, in the “esoteric subculture.” The Institute stands apart from the current “magickal subculture” in that it is informed by, and on its most basic level must conform to, all the legitimate rules and regulations of scientific procedure – all of which are beneficial to the overall process if kept in perspective. These methods infiltrate our way of approaching esoteric areas, or areas of inner work, as well. As has always been the case with the Rune-Gild – which in the future will be re-established within the context of the Woodharrow Institute – we start with what is objectively known and move from that base into an exploration of the darker corners of the unknown.

So the Woodharrow Institute is intended to meet a challenge from two ends of a pole: it is to bring an objective and scientific basis to the beginning of inner work, and to re-envision the final purpose or aim of intellectual work itself as a completion of the self. It is to bring objective standards to a morass of subjectivity (the occultizoid culture) and to bring inner purpose to the often sterile and pointless pursuits of academia. This is a formidable challenge, to be sure. Yet this is what makes it worth undertaking.

Michael: What role do you see the Institute ultimately fulfilling, and how might it interact with more established or formal academic institutions?

Stephen: It is clear from what has already been said that the academic discipline of runology, as well as those of older Germanic studies and Indo-European studies, etc., are in trouble. If scientific runology is left to its normal cycle of intellectual fashion, there is no harm done. The radical traditional runologist would be free as always to partake of the fruits of that intellectual labour and have his inner work enriched by it. However, if the traditional academic fields are uprooted and marginalised to extinction then this would no longer be possible.

The Woodharrow Institute is designed to be a refuge for the academic tradition – and to foster to some extent a sort of guerrilla scholarship. The basic work for the Institute must not in any way be compromised by “occult thinking”; it should be entirely historical and academic. We will “play the scholarly game” according to its rule and according to its standards. Then and only then can the Institute fulfill another of its major tasks: to act as a “think tank” for those interested in inner work. The fact that the word “academic” is used to describe only that kind of work which is “purely scientific,” is in a sense a misuse of the term. Plato’s school, the Academy, from which our modern use of the term is ultimately derived, did not have as its final aim the production of scientific data limited to what can be quantified and objectively known. That was only a stepping stone to the true purpose of the school, which was the transformation of the individual into a higher form of being – in other words, the final “product” was the completed soul. This whole ultimate purpose has been lost in the modern academic institution, except perhaps where secret pockets of scholars might preserve it unofficially.

The Woodharrow Institute seeks to restore the complete model of the old Academy in a Germanic context. As such its ultimate purpose is transformational, and not merely “scientific” as understood in modern parlance. Participants in, or members of, the Institute will, however, not be required to pursue this inner work as any sort of prerequisite for membership. The Institute will develop a full range of areas of interest and research.

It is hoped that the Institute will in the future be able to establish good relations with mainstream academia. We could offer practical programs in language study, experimental archeology and, most importantly, experimental or experiential ideology. Our mission in mainstream academia would be merely to restore traditional areas of study where they have been lost and to help retain them where they are in jeopardy.

The Institute then has two main purposes in the world: 1) to act as a refuge for displaced scientific work in the fields of runology, Germanic studies, and general Indo-European studies; and 2) to act as a think tank for individuals interested in making use of the scientific work as a basis for inner development. The Woodharrow Institute is a weapon in the struggle against both modernism and occultizoid subjectivism.

Michael: In the ancient Germanic cosmology, a cyclical dynamic exists where the old order collapses and is torn apart from both within and without, but this is a necessary step that precedes the unfolding of a new beginning. Is it a stretch to look at contemporary events in this light? And if not, what is the best way for the aware individual to approach the present situation?

Stephen: It is my contention that traditional views are eternally valid and ever-meaningful. The Germanic cosmology, ragnarök, which can actually refer to the beginnings, middle or end of the cosmological process, involves at the end of the process certain ages. These are referred to in the poems of the Elder Edda with terms such as the “Wolf Age,” which refers to the “greedy,” “covetous,” or “appetitive” nature of the age. Clearly the world as a whole is in a “Wolf-Age.” The individual, and certain groups of elect, can, as Julius Evola put it, “ride the tiger.” This means that certain individuals and groups can, exercising their will against the grain of consensus reality as informed by Tradition, lay the personal and transpersonal foundations for the next (inevitable) cyclical development. This next cycle will (naturally) be more imbued with Tradition, as the developmental wheel turns.

Portions of this interview with Dr. Flowers have previously appeared in the British journal Rûna: Exploring Northern European Myth, Mystery and Magic, available from BM: Sorcery, London WC1N 3XX, UK. To learn more about the Woodharrow Institute, or to request a catalog of books available from Rûna-Raven Press, contact PO Box 557, Smithville, Texas 78957, USA.

Michael Moynihan is a writer, artist, and publisher from New England. He is co-editor of the annual journal TYR: Myth – Culture – Religion, published in Atlanta, Georgia. He regularly contributes to cultural and music periodicals worldwide, and is also the North American Editor of Rûna. He may be reached at: dominion@pshift.com.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 19:33 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 15:18 A New York leader in the Church of Satan, Peter Gilmore, has said that Moynihan claims to be a racialist for shock effect to boost publicity for his rock band.

Octopod! Why am I not surprised you'd have this sort of information ready at hand? :lol:

Sounds like a wild crowd. Who'da thunk that engaging in racial politics would be seen as "trendy?"

Actually, I didn't know about the "Church of Satan" thing re: Moynihan, but only about the whole Indo-European/Evola/underground racial politics type stuff. Now I'll have to do some Googling because I'm intrigued. I got this off New Dawn magazine, which has an anti-New World Order bent, but is also into some, er, unusual stuff as far as ghosts and UFOs and all that type of "fringe" stuff. It doesn't scare me away.

I posted this over at LF for the zany characters over there to munch on, and I noted that whatever the Establishment (or the Immaculate 'They,' Avon aside) tends to suppress or want to keep away from me, I can't get enough of.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 20:04 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 15:40 Swastikas and the like can definitely add to shock value. There's a discussion in Satanist circles as to whether Moynihan is simply a con man (like Levey) using "neo-Nazi" ideas and symbols for shock value (read: higher record sales), or if he's the genuine article trying to hijack the Church of Satan and move it in a fascist direction.

I'm sincerely impressed with the array of knowledge you possess. You're no slouch. It would seem that you and I have yet more in common in that we both poke and prod into obscure and unorthodox areas.

Yes, it does work both ways, as to the issue of which ideology is being used as a tool in service of which ideology. Of course, the "agent" can't tell you, otherwise it would give the game away. Or if they did tell you, then they're probably being deceptive and they're really the opposite of what they say. But then again, they know you'll assume that, so maybe when they tell you, then they are telling the truth thinking that everyone will assume it's deception--sort of "hiding in plain sight." The second-guessing never ends. :lol:

Anyway, I've seen racialist attempts to infiltrate "goth" or "satanic" youth cultures and influence their impulses in right-wing directions. I'm familiar with that newsgroup, and have not been surprised to see that there are Jews there working their magic (no pun intended) by accusing the "Nazi" satanists of not being "true Satanists." It would seem that even in that community, there is the constant debate of who is the "true" adherent. The quest for ideological purity seems to dominate every anti-Establishment doctrine out there, across the board. There is no front, no matter how remote, on which Jews are not out there advocating their tribal interests. I have to hand it to them--they are a remarkably consistent race.

I'm sure you've heard of other cases of "infiltrators" who external observers can't figure out what their aim is. David Myatt in Britain is famous for that--the "neo-Nazi" who set up a "Satanist" group known as the Order of Nine Angles, which espouses anti-NWO and racialist doctrines. Then he left all that behind and converted to Islam and praises bin Laden. Some say he really means it and is now a true Muslim. Others say this is all part of his right-wing, anti-NWO strategy. And yet others still claim that both Myatt's "neo-Nazi" incarnation as well as his Muslim incarnation are "insight roles" that help him probe the limits of darkness in the human experience as a Satanist. So which of the three is he really? Who knows? :lol:

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 21:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 16:36 Indeed. There's another factor to that, though. Jews created the Church of Satan, and they're loathe to watch "neo-nazi" currents tear apart at their creation.

Very true. Isn't it an interesting thing to watch how the Jewish collective strategy twists and turns down through time? I mean, the CoS was established in the 1960s, at a time when the Jews were pursuing a countercultural revolution against the West on all fronts. They were also against the Vietnam War (in hindsight, I am too, but they opposed it for different reasons), and eschewed "patriotism" and such. Now that their efforts in the 1960s have paid off, suddenly it's cool to be patriotic and support wars, and of course, it's cool to be a pro-Israel-style Christian like the spaced-out kind you find over at FR.

The Jews are a terrible threat to Western continuity, but they are breathtaking in the way they operate, so smooth and seamless. It's almost admirable. But for all their wiles, I still feel blessed to have been born into the Indo-European family (to use the PC term for the "A" word), and wouldn't trade it even for their filthy power. Those chords of memory are more important and valuable than any flashiness at the mundane or temporal level. And we all have our cards we've been dealt and our duty stations.

**There's an offshoot of the Church of Satan led by Tani Jantsang that takes philo-Semitism to a new level. This is called the "Satanic Reds." Apparently, Jantsang and her Jewish associates (one of them named Jeff Gerber, a former ADL member) thought that the Church of Satan was moving in a "fascist" direction, and thus no longer sufficiently friendly to Jewish interests. Check out this truly nauseating rant by Mr. Gerber:

We gained that state [Israel] by having to fight the British. And if not for these goyim in Britain, we'd have been in our State long before that.  By that I mean that 6 million of my people would not have perished at the hands of the goyim in Germany and Poland, about which Daniel Goldhagen has finally_told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  We have enemies.  We have always had enemies.  Ever since the goyim in Rome caused our dispersion we have had enemies.  We had never bothered your people, we never tried to convert you or harm you.  We wanted to have our own lives, sing and dance and interact with our own.  But the nations of the Christians would never let us do this.  Despite all this, the Jewish people were more alive than any Christian in your nations.  Where were we to go?  As such, we live in the nations of the goyim and do _whatever it takes to preserve our people.  You think this is not "satanic?"  That the Jewish People have survived intact is proof of our SUPERIORITY!  We are THE ELITE - and we are THE ALIENS in your nations, sir.  We did not choose this, this was forced upon us for almost 2 thousand years.  You can only persecute a people for so long until they gather together and make sure it will happen NEVER AGAIN!  NEVER AGAIN!  You satanists speak of the alien elite.  We Jews are the alien elite and the Elect of The God, the One God, the Only God.  Even this, the goyim tried to steal from us. Our God.**

The name is familiar to me, both her and that organization. Yes, I've caught the way that the Jews will use the "elite" theory to claim esteem and authority in Satanic circles.

All I can do is laugh at my computer screen and say, "those fools." If they buy into that and ascribe "elite" status to the Jews just because their power-oriented ideology tells them to, then they've gotten nowhere in their quest for independence and authenticity. They're as much the authority-driven, taboo-bowed, deluded sheep that they criticize the Christians for being [no offense meant toward you, of course]. What I mean by this is that they think they're a cut above the rest because they "think outside the box," but all they've done is find themselves a new box.

This inconsistency leads me to believe that their adherence to these sorts of philosophies stems from their status as rebellious teens. They just haven't thought things through, nor have they acquired the capacity for self-reflection. They think they've "figured it all out," then they congratulate themselves for it, and then they stop looking and thinking. They rest on their laurels, and that's the most dangerous and blinding thing one can do. I see this pattern everywhere, from the "mainstream" MTV types, as you put it, to the furthest reaches of the "underground." I remain an optimist, though, because at least that kernel of rebellion that led them that far might yet lead them yet further. Hell, they might even find their way back to El Cid. When people make changes based on their learning experiences, they often make 180-turns.

Myatt is indeed a difficult one to fathom. I suppose since some Christians regard Islam as a form of Satanism, his position isn't totally inconsistent.

:lol: Quite right. I'm sure you caught that FrontPageMag article around here somewhere that attacked Bill White and assorted "anti-Semites" as being part of a "Satanist-Nazi" alliance, with Islam thrown in for good measure. We all dismissively laughed at it as a case of the neocons making mountains out of molehills given the small numbers of these unusual people, but maybe the neocons see something we don't.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 21:22 | User Profile

We had never bothered your people, we never tried to convert you or harm you.  We wanted to have our own lives, sing and dance and interact with our own.  But the nations of the Christians would never let us do this.  Despite all this, the Jewish people were more alive than any Christian in your nations.  Where were we to go?  As such, we live in the nations of the goyim and do whatever it takes to preserve our people.  You think this is not "satanic?"  That the Jewish People have survived intact is proof of our SUPERIORITY!  We are THE ELITE - and we are THE ALIENS in your nations, sir.  We did not choose this, this was forced upon us for almost 2 thousand years.  You can only persecute a people for so long until they gather together and make sure it will happen NEVER AGAIN!  NEVER AGAIN!  You satanists speak of the alien elite.  We Jews are the alien elite

Actually, if anyone's ever seen the "Deep Space Nine" Star Trek spinoff-series on TV, the quoted portion of this Jew's remarks reminds me of the alien race in that show called "The Founders." The comparisons between "The Founders" and the Jews are so strong that I often wondered if it was more than coincidence.

"The Founders" were a race of shape-shifters who could alter their form at will, take on the appearance of any other object or species. They saw themselves as enlightened, benevolent explorers but faced persecution in their part of the galaxy by those who distrusted them (because of their shape-shifting ability). So The Founders retreated to a remote planet and cloistered themselves, and then genetically bred an administrative/diplomatic/servant race called the Vorta and a race of shock-troop soldiers called the Jem'Hadar. The Founders never would leave their safe confines, but created a vast Empire and subjugated every other species using their Vorta and Jem'Hadar go-betweens, so that by exerting total control from behind the scenes over their part of the galaxy, they would feel safe from future persecution. And, the Vorta and Jem'Hadar revered the Founders as gods, even though many of them had never even seen a Founder in person, and often thought they were just a myth and didn't exist.

Javelin

2003-06-06 21:43 | User Profile

Paleocon:

You shouldn't have fallen for the Octopod troll's ploy. He immediately starts off by attacking Moynihan-the interviewer- rather than Flowers-the interviewee. Typical Jewish, freeper style tactic.

I found the article very insightful and these will be the kind of insights we need in the post Semitic world to reconstruct Paganism.

Javelin

2003-06-06 22:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 21:49 Javelin: You shouldn't have fallen for the Octopod troll's ploy. He immediately starts off by attacking Moynihan-the interviewer- rather than Flowers-the interviewee. Typical Jewish, freeper style tactic.**

Actually I'm neither a troll nor a Jew. Since you echo the ADL's line on Christianity, you should think before accusing others of being Jewish.

Octopod**

Why did you immediately bring up allegations of Satanism against the interviewer?

I could mention the fact that most Catholic priests are turd-burglars anytime a Catholic says anything. I could mention the fact that every single mainstream protestant denomination is pro-Jew, anti-racist and pro-miscegenation. I could mention the fact that Christians are in the forefront of racial destruction in every single social policy in America even if they're only fronting for their Jewish masters. Why bring up Satanism unless your real motivation is to drop turds? :dung:

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 22:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by Javelin@Jun 6 2003, 17:43 ** Paleocon:

You shouldn't have fallen for the Octopod troll's ploy. He immediately starts off by attacking Moynihan-the interviewer- rather than Flowers-the interviewee. Typical Jewish, freeper style tactic.

I found the article very insightful and these will be the kind of insights we need in the post Semitic world to reconstruct Paganism. **

I can see how that interpretation might arise, but don't be so hard on him--he's only acting in defense of things that are important to him, after all.

And some interesting material came from the exchange, since it was handled in a civil and mature way, and with light humor. There's the key: the parties involved can't take it all so seriously that the posters themselves end up occluding the ability of readers to view the material itself. OD readers and lurkers are going to expect Octopod to play his role, and others of us will play ours (whatever those roles are). Independent thinkers will see the material for what it is despite any tangents or distractions either party introduces, while those who are unable to filter and focus will get lost along the way. This is just as well, since certain material isn't meant for everyone's consumption anyway. Not all have ears to hear, so to speak.

Of course, by mentioning that Octopod didn't focus on Dr. Flowers, you've now dared him to do it. Now I'll have to beat him to the punch and "out" Flowers before Octopod can do it: Flowers was part of the Temple of Set, which is an offshoot of the Church of Satan that he'd mentioned before. Specifically, if I recall from my readings across the Internet, Flowers was the head of a special order in the TOS called the Order of the Trapezoid, which focuses primarily on Indo-European mysteries, the Grail myth, Arthurian legends, runes, Atlantis, and so on.

Personally, I bear no animus toward Christianity, although I don't think it's fully for me since I'm too proud to "submit." At the same time, I feel a sense of loss upon reflecting that Christianity itself caused the loss of a lot of cultural artifacts in European history. How many texts were burned that we'll never be able to read? How many other artifacts, like statues or works of art or pottery or what have you, were smashed? Regardless of one's spiritual inclinations, those pagan artifacts and libraries were a part of our history, and contributed to that which makes us us. Of course, Christianity as we have it today is a Christianity that also had to come to terms with that paganism, and a lot of pagan ideas and ritual and holidays were "baptized" with a Christian facade. Hence, Christianity was "Europeanized." Of course, it still would have been nice to have the original materials still around rather than tossed into the fire by church authorities, but all we can do is move forward rather than crying over spilled milk.

Personally, I'm for peaceful co-existence. I haven't the desire to aggressively root out Christianity. At the same time, one would hope that they won't stand in the way of that reconstruction you mention. I can see much benefit arising from getting back in touch with the distant parts of our heritage that have been lost.

I am glad that you liked that interview. Once I gather the discipline and the time, I'll probably take up the runes myself instead of just reading about it.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 22:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 18:12 ** "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) **

"The Church of Jesus Christ, Hitlerian" doesn't seem so bad. Quite resonant, actually. :lol:

Javelin

2003-06-06 22:33 | User Profile

PaleoconAvatar

**Personally, I'm for peaceful co-existence. I haven't the desire to aggressively root out Christianity. At the same time, one would hope that they won't stand in the way of that reconstruction you mention. I can see much benefit arising from getting back in touch with the distant parts of our heritage that have been lost. **

I'm for peaceful co-existence also- but by default, that means Christianity goes away. Nobody here wants to admit that the Jews to a large extent are propping Christianity up. Consider: 1) John Lennon said the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". 2) Ted Turner called Cristians, Bozos. 3) Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of the Pope on national tv. 4) Jesse Ventura said that religion was a "sham and a crutch for weak-minded people". In each one of these cases, Hym*e gave the rabble permission to spew a torrent of hatred against the offending party. Only in a profoundly dumbed-down society would anybody have gotten bent out of shape. In Europe nobody cared about these offences. In the case of tv preachers, a deal was struck for support of Israel. The Jews can pull the plug on the preachers anytime they want.

Christianity is absolutely dependent on the dumb for its sustenance.

Javelin

2003-06-06 22:51 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 22:40 Javelin: I'm for peaceful co-existence also- but by default, that means Christianity goes away. Nobody here wants to admit that the Jews to a large extent are propping Christianity up.**

ROTFLMAO!

You can't possibly be that stupid. The Jews are doing (and have always done) everything possible to destroy Christianity. Are you so blind as to not see the anti-Christianism of the ADL, ACLU and other Jewish organizations? Do you think it's just a coincidence that the decline of racial consciousness has been exactly parallel with the rise of secularism? I have difficulty believing that even you could be so ignorant as to think that Jews have anything but hatred for traditional Christianity.

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God." -- Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf**

You must be that imbecile Richard Barrett or maybe you're just a Jew who recognises that Paganism is Hyme's deadliest enemy. No, Hyme is not afraid of Christianity. Christianity is just about dead in Europe because morons don't have to be pandered to, in America they do. Look at all of the social statistics and you'll find that the Europeans are far more "moral" and "family-valued" than Americans.

And stop quoting Hitler, nobody cares. You seem to be desperate to win "legitimacy" here by quoting Hitler. Why?

You still haven't answered my question of why you attacked Moynihan.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 22:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by Javelin@Jun 6 2003, 18:33 I'm for peaceful co-existence also- but by default, that means Christianity goes away. Nobody here wants to admit that the Jews to a large extent are propping Christianity up.

But a frontal assault upon it isn't likely to make it go away. Frontal assaults cause people to circle the wagons, and cling stronger to it in a defensive reaction. People don't like to feel that they've had something taken from them, nor do they feel safe in the knowledge that there are those afoot plotting against them.

A more profitable course of action would be to pursue a quiet strategy of simply building structures for one's own, promoting learning, teaching, and so on. Going on the offensive makes one appear as though one is insecure and has no alternative to offer. Better to focus on one's own development than focus on the affairs of the Christians. That's how you attract flies to the honey--people will be more inclined to take an interest in what's going on over the other side of the fence and check things out for themselves.

Christianity is absolutely dependent on the dumb for its sustenance.

There are more charitable ways to express this. Given the examples you cite, I suspect that much of what accounts for Christianity's staying power is inertia--the fact that people are brought up in it since childhood, and that's all they've known. Often it's all they've needed and serves them well. Political scientists have concluded the same thing about political inclinations--children often adopt the political stances of the parents.

This is why any public promulgation of matters spiritual must be approached delicately, since there's a lot of emotional investment. People feel like you're insulting their families, grandparents and the like.

Javelin

2003-06-06 22:56 | User Profile

National Socialism is profoundly Pagan with roots deep in the Romantic movement. Stupid people among the Germans were told that it was Christian lest they be spooked.

Yes, I think you are Richard Barrett.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 23:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by Javelin@Jun 6 2003, 18:56 ** National Socialism is profoundly Pagan with roots deep in the Romantic movement. Stupid people among the Germans were told that it was Christian lest they be spooked. **

I could see this being true. The practice is an old one, going back to the "Noble Lie" idea advanced by Plato. It's not unreasonable to believe that one "official line" was offered merely for public consumption, while the true secrets remain hidden for the initiated.

Javelin

2003-06-06 23:11 | User Profile

Richard Barrett aka Octopod:

**ROTFL! Which is why Jew has agitated against Christianity since its beginnings, right? **

The Jews invented Christianity as a way of destroying Roman civilization. See Nietzsche.

** Which is why Jewish organizations like the ACLU and ADL are radically opposed to Christianity, or any expression thereof. **

Didn't the government of Israel buy Jerry Falwell a Lear Jet? Don't Jews allow the tv preachers to do their fake miracles?

**Which is why Jews overwhelming support "separation of church and state" --in far higher percentages than any other group. **

Jefferson coined the expression, "seperation of church and state". John Adams once referred to the cross as, "that engine of grief".

The Barrett argument style is getting tiresome.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-06 23:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 19:05 PaleoconAvatar: I could see this being true. The practice is an old one, going back to the "Noble Lie" idea advanced by Plato. It's not unreasonable to believe that one "official line" was offered merely for public consumption, while the true secrets remain hidden for the initiated.**

Then why is it that Jews are doing everything they can to destroy Christianity? National Socialism, MacDonald wrote, was the greatest threat that Jews ever faced. If National Socialism were anti-Christian and pagan, you'd think that Jewish organizations like the ADL and ACLU would be working overtime to strengthen Christianity. But they're doing the exact opposite, and you know it. Why is this the case?

Octopod**

I'd always surmised that the Jews were hostile to what you've called "Traditional Christianity," since the Jews felt there were "anti-Semitic" elements to it, such as charges of deicide and the like. This is why they're upset about the upcoming Mel Gibson movie. But the Jews have not totally set out to undermine Christianity in the sense of completely stamping it out, but merely neutralizing the aspects they are uncomfortable with and then turning the remaining rest of the hulk toward their own purposes. The Jews have fostered the creation of forms of Christianity that they feel are "Jew-friendly," both in the post-Vatican II sense for the Catholics and the pro-Israel Protestant sects.

The Jews have used the ACLU and such as a device for getting Christianity in all of its expressions out of the public sphere, not the private realm. That creates a "safe space" for Jews in the public realm and things of government, and they took care of the private realm by promoting the neutered versions of Christianity I mention above.

So, it's a tale of two Christianities, and I suspect the "Jew-friendly" version is quite dominant these days. The article that began this thread touches on how Christianity and modernism get along quite nicely these days, and why the stubborn Muslims are considered the "odd men out" by the Regime.

That aside, who knows what the future held for the Nazi regime's treatment of Christianity, as Okie pointed out on the other thread? I can see it both ways, it's hard for me to definitively get into the middle of that and assert any truth claims. There's so much hype and falsehoods spun about the Nazis from all sides that it's hard to separate the fact from fiction. Keep in mind I didn't say any side of this "was true," only that "it could be true." Emphasis on the indeterminacy of the "could."

There is one concern I have that I'd like to share with you. I've noticed you often say that critics of Christianity are "doing the work of the Jews." You also mentioned the possibility of Christian-keyed membership requirements in the Euro nationalist parties. I am wondering, were militantly Christian factions of nationalists to one day take power, would you have them forcibly impose Christianity on the entire White population in the country?

Let's take Dr. Flowers' books, here, for example, in which he outlines the theory and practice of rune magic, as he estimates the ancient pagan practitioners might have held to. Would you ban the sale of those sorts of texts? Would you make it illegal for someone to practice those forms of spirituality? Would "divination and sorcery" be punished by law? Would there be "blasphemy" laws?

Would you allow Professor Flowers to teach classes on Indo-European mythology, or teach the Old Norse language (and cultural studies), in public universities (I think he was at UT Austin)?

Tell me you'd have a "live and let live" legal structure, and would let Flowers teach his material undisturbed, and you've won an ally today.

heritagelost

2003-06-07 00:15 | User Profile

Just to clarify; Anton Levay's group is for deviant homosexuals and not for decent white people.

Levay was a Jewish con-man out to make money.

The purpose for religion is for a society to pass on it's culture, morality, and codes of conduct to future generations and for a societies leadership to control the masses.

The Gods and rituals of a religious belief are just window dressing.

The Church of Satan does not therefore qualify as a religion. It is an excuse for degenerates. The Church of Satan and other deviant groups promote materialism and indulgence wich is in opposition to all classical Aryan religions.

Javelin

2003-06-07 02:25 | User Profile

Octopod

You really are a disgusting little retarded turd. OK I'll dig up some links on all of the crimes your bible thumping Jew worshipping retards have committed.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-06-07 02:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by heritagelost@Jun 6 2003, 18:15 **Just to clarify; Anton Levay's group is for deviant homosexuals and not for decent white people.

Levay was a Jewish con-man out to make money.**

What's your source on LeVay being Jewish (not a fan of his, just wondering).

The Church of Satan and other deviant groups promote materialism and indulgence wich is in opposition to all classical Aryan religions.

Classical Aryan religions? Like what?

Ragnar

2003-06-07 02:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by Prodigal Son@Jun 7 2003, 02:31 ** What's your source on LeVay being Jewish (not a fan of his, just wondering).

**

This is from Jewish Tribal Review:

**What about Anton LeVay's influence upon modern morals, particularly in attracting alienated youth? LeVay, born Howard Stanton Levey, and known as the "Black Pope," founded the Church of Satan in San Francisco in 1966 and was bathed with media attention. Creating a web of lies about himself, "'he has constructed,' noted one reporter, 'a personal history untruthful in every fact that can be verified.'" [GRACE, K., 7-28-97] "'His Satanist's Bible' (1967) proposed a sub-Nietschean philosophy wherein might equals right, and immediate self-gratification constitutes the chief duty of man. 'Be simply animal man,' the Satanist's Bible instructs, 'hate your enemies, and if someone smites you, smash him ... Susie Atkins, one of [Charles] Manson's knife-wielding groupies, blames La Vey for her descent into depravity and murder." [DAILY TELEGRAPH, 11-11-97, p. 25] More than a million copies of Levey's books have been printed. [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 11-8-97, p. 8] LeVay, who died in 1997, notes the Church of Satan's web site, was "a self-loathing man of Jewish descent who embraced fascism toward the end of his life." [CHURCH OF SATAN/1] His own daughter, Zeena, notes that he "routinely beat and abused those of his female disciples with whom he had sex, forcing them into prostitution as part of his 'Satanic counseling' and collected their earnings. In 1986 [Levey] was a passsive witness to the sexual molestation of his own grandson by a long time friend." [CHURCH OF SATAN/2] The traditional Jewish animosity towards Christianity is reflected by Levey in almost cartoon form. Levey's Church of Satan teachings are of course antithetical to those of Christianity. "Behold the crucifix," wrote Levey, "what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree ... [Levey's book] advocates ritual masturbation, rites 'to summon one for lustful purposes or establish a sexually gratifying situation,' as well as rites 'to cause the destruction of an enemy'" [HARPUR, T., 3-5-97, p. A7] "For more than a decade," notes the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in evaluating Levey's influence, "scholars have noted a growing interest in Christianity's archenemy of goodness. **

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-07 03:25 | User Profile

** Susie Atkins, one of [Charles] Manson's knife-wielding groupies, blames La Vey for her descent into depravity and murder."**

Always hard for me to take claims like this seriously, because Morris Dees and his ilk love to blame controversial books for people's illegal behavior. Specifically, they love to pin the blame on people reading The Turner Diaries. Somehow, I think it takes more than just a book to motivate people to commit heinous acts. If a book is enough of a catalyst, then the book is irrelevant, since the person has to be unstable to begin with to be that affected by a book. Buy into the book-banning mentality, and soon you'll have to ban a lot of other common household objects that might "disturb" or "excite" susceptible personalities.

It is much more rare that I hear about television programming causing bad effects--and when it is discussed, such as the influence Beavis and Butthead and Jackass has on egging kids on to perform dangerous stunts, it's played down and explained away. Of course, we also know who's behind television programming by and large.

An excerpt from the typical FReeper mentality:

**To: Free Speech Hmmm...when I tried to connect Tim McVeigh and The Turner Diaries like this, the "patriots" on this board flamed me to a crisp. This may have been a wee bit before your time.

However, it's valid. It speaks to the motive for the crime--and motive is required (in addition to evidence that the accused actually committed the act in question) for a criminal conviction. Couple the act, the actor, and the book together, and Perry Mason himself couldn't get the perp off the hook.

Do I support banning The Turner Diaries or The Satanic Bible? Not even, for the next step down the slippery slope of censorship is always "...we need to ban (thoughts I personally dislike or disagree with) that MIGHT LEAD to (fill in the evil of choice)...it's FOR THE CHILDREN."

However, if someone I know expresses ANY statement regarding The Satanic Bible or The Turner Diaries as guiding his life, I'm going to keep a close eye on the person...again, the fact that this person structures their life around this sort of stuff indicates that they MAY be up to nefarious deeds.

23 Posted on 07/18/2000 13:59:37 PDT by Poohbah [ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ]

... and ...

To: Steve Van Doorn It's a book McVeigh was reading and recommending to his friends. Outlines a neo-Nazi "race war" in America, with the neo-Nazis as the good guys.

I read it because one of my collateral jobs in the USMC was to head up a terrorism threat assessment team, and decided to see the world as one branch of the potential OPFOR looked at it.

I read it all the way through in one sitting. I threw up as soon as I was finished. This book was the sickest piece of trash I have ever read. 'Nuff said.

31 Posted on 07/18/2000 14:30:20 PDT by Poohbah [ Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | Top | Last ]

[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3974bb244a8f.htm]http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3974bb244a8f.htm[/url]**

Sure it's not about banning books. Then why the hell even mention the books? It's about watching the readers! Someday they'll be able to install GPS microchips in the books for 24/7/365 monitoring pleasure. I'm sure there will be cheers issuing from the corner of the "law and order" and morality types.

Avalanche

2003-06-07 03:38 | User Profile

PaleoconAvatar: ... Jews were pursuing a countercultural revolution against the West on all fronts. They were also against the Vietnam War (in hindsight, I am too, but they opposed it for different reasons), and eschewed "patriotism" and such. Now that their efforts in the 1960s have paid off, suddenly it's cool to be patriotic and support wars, and of course, it's cool to be a pro-Israel-style Christian like the spaced-out kind you find over at FR.

Act V Scene ii, Hamlet Osric: I thank your lordship, t'is very hot. Hamlet: No, believe me, 'tis very cold; the wind is northerly. Osric: It is indifferent cold, my lord, indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is very sultry and hot for my complexion. Osric: Exceedingly, my lord; it is very sultry,—as 'twere—I cannot tell how.

What shall "we" all be led to believe next?! :( <_<

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-07 03:42 | User Profile

Originally posted by Avalanche@Jun 6 2003, 23:38 ** > PaleoconAvatar: ... Jews were pursuing a countercultural revolution against the West on all fronts. They were also against the Vietnam War (in hindsight, I am too, but they opposed it for different reasons), and eschewed "patriotism" and such. Now that their efforts in the 1960s have paid off, suddenly it's cool to be patriotic and support wars, and of course, it's cool to be a pro-Israel-style Christian like the spaced-out kind you find over at FR.

Act V Scene ii, Hamlet Osric: I thank your lordship, t'is very hot. Hamlet: No, believe me, 'tis very cold; the wind is northerly. Osric: It is indifferent cold, my lord, indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is very sultry and hot for my complexion. Osric: Exceedingly, my lord; it is very sultry,—as 'twere—I cannot tell how.

What shall "we" all be led to believe next?! :( <_< **

Indeed. Dizzying, watching lemmings twirl in circles.

Walter E Kurtz

2003-06-07 04:08 | User Profile

Moynihan is a strange character. I read his book "Lords of Chaos" which was partly a history of satanic influences in European heavy metal music, and partly a case history of Burzum frontman Varg Vikernes (who is now in prison for murder).

I tend to doubt that Moynihan is feigning allegiance to Racialist/Fascist ideology in order to garner publicity...its not as if such a strategy is a quick road to commercial success. I think that he represents the occult wing of modern Fascist thought. I believe he has published many English translations of Julius Evola's more obscure essays.

Thanx, Paleocon (and all the rest who have contributed) this is some fascinating reading.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-07 04:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz@Jun 7 2003, 00:08 **Moynihan is a strange character.  I read his book "Lords of Chaos" which was partly a history of satanic influences in European heavy metal music, and partly a case history of Burzum frontman Varg Vikernes (who is now in prison for murder).

I tend to doubt that Moynihan is feigning allegiance to Racialist/Fascist ideology in order to garner publicity...its not as if such a strategy is a quick road to commercial success.  I think that he represents the occult wing of modern Fascist thought.  I believe he has published many English translations of Julius Evola's more obscure essays.

Thanx, Paleocon (and all the rest who have contributed) this is some fascinating reading.**

And thanks to you...very cool info being raised on this thread. One of the things I like about OD is that you get a lot of meaty material and dialogue.

Speaking of fascist influences and "Black Metal," y'all knew about the bulletin board called [url=http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi]Dark Legions Cafe[/url]? There are a number of interesting and literate threads over there.

heritagelost

2003-06-07 04:20 | User Profile

A long time ago I read an interview with Anton Levay that was in a mainstream magazine like Time or Newsweek I think. They asked him if he really believed in Satan and he said something along the lines, "no I'm actually Jewish."

heritagelost

2003-06-07 04:23 | User Profile

Originally posted by Javelin@Jun 6 2003, 20:25 ** Octopod

You really are a disgusting little retarded turd. OK I'll dig up some links on all of the crimes your bible thumping Jew worshipping retards have committed.  **

Yeah, you sound real superior

Walter E Kurtz

2003-06-07 04:41 | User Profile

Octopod and others:

How can you state, in good conscience, that the NSDAP was Christian? The SS represented the Pagan elite of the party-state in Nazi Germany, and by 1944, the "Black Order" had become a literal state within a state with Himmler (an avowed pagan) at the helm. The icons, pageantry, marching songs...every aspect of public life in the Reich reflected a pagan ethos.

The fact is that...Hitler recognized that in order to garner the requisite support to achieve a real majority in the Reichstag, he would have to pander to the Christian believers. He occasionally appeased them later by invoking the name of their savior.

You cannot tell me that the SS "death cult" religion that came to rule over Germany's national consciousness was in any way, shape, or form related to a semitic belief system that is based upon love, pacifism and humility.

Its not very Christian to vow to exterminate your enemies, adorn yourself with the totenkopf, bear the runes of your pagan fathers, and wage war without remorse, now is it?

Ragnar

2003-06-07 06:14 | User Profile

****I read it because one of my collateral jobs in the USMC was to head up a terrorism threat assessment team, and decided to see the world as one branch of the potential OPFOR looked at it.

I read it all the way through in one sitting. I threw up as soon as I was finished. This book was the sickest piece of trash I have ever read. 'Nuff said.

31 Posted on 07/18/2000 14:30:20 PDT by Poohbah****

Har! Threw up, no less?

Only if he was a Marine training to be a literary critic. My problem with Diaries was staying awake.

Javelin

2003-06-07 09:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=heritagelost,Jun 7 2003, 04:23 ][ [/QUOTE] Yeah, you sound real superior[/QUOTE] Thanks lostboy. Now go back to that funny migrating Antartica of yours.

:dung:

Javelin

2003-06-07 10:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 7 2003, 09:58 > Classical Aryan religions?  Like what?**

Christianity.**

Once again, Moynihan is the interviewer. My IQ has to be a good 50 points than yours punk.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-07 15:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 7 2003, 06:08 Goebbels stated that he wanted to  reverse the French Revolution, and erase the year 1787 from history.

Yes, that's one of my favorite quotes. If only he'd succeeded in that endeavor....

grep14w

2003-06-08 02:38 | User Profile

Interesting thread, but sometimes more heat than light; certainly a bit too much over-generalization and projection.

What many here do not seem to grasp is that there is no one single "correct, true, anti-Jewish, pro-white" position - that goes for Christianity, Paganism, atheism, and the rest. All of them are pro- or anti-Jewish, pro- or anti-white, depending on how much they let themselves be controlled by the Jews.

Both sides seem to ignore that the Jews attempt to control and neuter both Christianity and paganism/atheism/occultism. Read the pagan or occult or even Satanist publications - as I used to do on a time - and you will find the same Jewish and liberal "Jew enabler" tactics, trying to silence any dissent on race or racial politics, trying to eliminate any tendencies toward white racialism. It isn't just Christianity that has been "lobotomized" and taken over by the Jews. The Jews attempt to control and subvert all white movements that could potentially serve as focal points for white nationalism.

Yes, Virginia, there are not only atheist and pagan white nationalists, but even some Satanist white nationalists (R.K. Bolton in New Zealand, for instance) though in the long run their white nationalism tends to become more important than their satanism. If Jews could found the Christian religion and have it transform itself into a gentile, anti-Jewish religion, the same could happen to any movement, including Satanism, regardless of what Jew "founded" the movement.

Personally I find Satanism to be pretty disgusting or worthless when it adheres to the "Hollywood Satanism" model (much as some Nazis adhere to the "Hollywood Nazi" model), and at best Satanism is nothing more than a kind of occult hyper-libertarianism merging into quasi-fascism. But that does not mean that there are not a few good minds that have passed through the experience and come out the other side, if not better for the experience, at least wiser for the experience.

Even at the beginning of Levay's Satanic Church, he had people like Kurt Saxon involved in it; Saxon was with Rockwell's American Nazi Party, and later went on to be one of the founding figures of the 1980's survivalist movement (well, okay, Saxon does strike some people as being a little strange). People like Moynihan or Boyd Rice are important people in their own right, and to dismiss them just because of the association with the Church of Satan is rather silly. They are not political types, but in their own way they have done a lot to undermine the occult roots of the Jewish system.

I myself have talked to Moynihan a few times on the phone and by email and snail mail, over the years. He's neither a loony nor a phony. He's closer to a Nietschean, or even a Jeffersonian, "natural aristocrat" than some loony trying to summon Satan. He's willing to follow ideas and associations that interest him, following them wherever they lead him, without fear of what those who operate on the "guilt by association" premise will say about him. His efforts to get Evola published in English alone are enough to exonerate him from the "guilt by association" smear, IMHO.

And for the record, I've never participated in any Satanic or even pagan groups. I have read their publications and knew (past tense) something about their opinions and internal differences. To paint them as all tools of the Jews whilst exonerating the Christians who are just as guilty in that regard simply betrays a sectarian refusal to see both sides of reality.

Edit: or to put it another way, one side (say, the pro-Christian side) is blind and trying to determine what the elephant is, and declares it to be a snake; the other side (anti-Christian) is similarly blind, and determines that the elephant is a tree trunk, etc. Meanwhile, the white nationalist elephant remains what it is: neither snake nor tree trunk, but simply and completely an elephant.

grep14w

2003-06-09 07:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 8 2003, 13:52 Thanks for the interesting comments, grep14w. I should point out that I've never said Moynihan was a phony for sure, only that some members of the CoS claim as much. I also said that his CoS affiliation could end up backfiring.

My "phony" comments were just a reaction to some intimations some were making that perhaps Moynihan's writings were "controversial" for the sake of profit, rather than for his genuine interests. Moynihan is the real deal; real "what" you may ask. He's a kind of investigative journalist of the extreme and the occult and other topics "real" journalists won't touch, except with the usual phony formulas. As to the CoS, no one cares what some of their members say. The CoS was insignificant when Levay was alive (they were a fringe of a fringe of a fringe movement), and is even more insignificant now. But I'm sure Moynihan does not mind meeting some interesting people and making interesting connections along the way, even if the CoS "backfires" on him from time to time. Experience has to be earned somehow.

I don't understand this fixation with the Church of Satan. I'm not aware of Moynihan having anything much to do with the CoS in ages. He "joined" it when he was hanging out with Boyd Rice in California, which must be over 12 years ago now. In fact, I doubt that Rice has had anything to do with the CoS for ages, either. Rice hung out with the American Front skinheads in SF around the same time period too; odd how some people are fixated on "nazis" and others on "satanists".

It is odd too, but humorous that even here on the fringe, where past Nazi, KKK, or even anarchist or communist associations can be forgiven or overlooked, that somehow "satanism" is beyond the pale. I don't see much use for the CoS, but 99.99% of the negative things you hear about them (incest, rape, human sacrifice, etc.) are complete bullsh_t. Especially during the "satanic ritual abuse" mass insanity during the 1980's, people like Levay would have been thrown in jail the instant he was accused of doing anything illegal.

Levay was a typical carny showman, titillating the crowd with just enough cardboard "horror" to make them think they were seeing "evil" but staying well within the right side of the law. As jews go, he's not even in the top 1,000 in terms of real evil. His "evil" was all for show, part of the media circus, helping to beat an already dead Christian horse with a little bit of pretend "evil".

Of course the "problem" for people like the Satanists is that people take them literally, with rather nasty results for the Satanists in the long run. Same goes for those bent on imitating the "Hollywood" image of Nazism. One might as well place a "kick me" sign on one's back. I have no problem with a few intrepid, teflon coated individuals like Moynihan moving through "extremist" movements for the literary value they derive from it; rather it's the attempt to base a mass movement on symbols that the vast majority of potential recruits have been taught since birth to associate with evil which is crazy. Bad marketing, you might say.

Hence, whatever side you fall on the atheist-pagan-Christian debate, it's best to agree to leave religion out of politics. Which is not to say that it should be off limits for an obscure web forum! No one here should confuse this forum with real politics.

triskelion

2003-08-06 20:27 | User Profile

A long time comrade ask me to post to this thread which I had not noticed before. Basically, my position has always been that theology must take a back seat to a folkish restoration and that it is vital that anyone that cares about the future of our nations realize that religion is a supra-rational matter and that in order to be viable politically and culturally the forces of National Restoration must accept and actively court people with varying religious outlooks or none at all. My realization that spiritual maters are supra rational has resulted in my understanding that religious debates acheave little and are often destructive which is why almost never attempt to promote mine publicly. I've invested a great deal of effort organizing conferances designed to bring togeather National Revolutionaries from various non/religious backgrounds togeather by pointing out the common stake that we all have recognizing common enemies and oppertunities for effective activism.

I am perfectly accepting of the idea that Christians of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox backgrounds as well as some segments of Heathendom are totally consistant with racialism and the folkish vision. At this late hour it simply is not an option to drive away potential supporters by insisting other wise. That recognize as much I will accept and those that refuse to, no matter what their religion, I will allow to wallow in their absolutism in the face of national destruction while I continue to dedicate my life to that which benifits us all.

Paleoleftist

2003-08-06 22:13 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 7 2003, 04:21 * ** As for the loaded phrase "death cult," have you ever heard of the Crucifixion? **

Octopod, I am glad you are on the side of Christianity, but that is not an apt comparison.

There is a lot of a difference -a hell of a difference, so to speak! :) - between the sacrifice of Christ and the human sacrifices preferred by ancient pagans, satanistic cults and the Black Order.

Christianity and the SS are at different ends of the morality spectrum.

Lane

2003-08-06 22:33 | User Profile

**. My realization that spiritual maters are supra rational has resulted in my understanding that religious debates acheave little and are often destructive which is why almost never attempt to promote mine publicly. I've invested a great deal of effort organizing conferances designed to bring togeather National Revolutionaries from various non/religious backgrounds togeather by pointing out the common stake that we all have recognizing common enemies and oppertunities for effective activism. **

You made a very good post. I have read your various posts and regard your writings as very valuable.

I once read about the White generals of Russia who fought the jews. I observed that they spent a fair amount of time fighting and arguing among themselves.

The more fortunate members of the White army ended up driving taxi cabs in Paris. The less fortunate ones ended up with a bullet or in torture chambers or gulags.

It is certainly interesting and educational to read the various debates about religion. I do hope, though that the debaters remember who the enemy is and what happens to movements that lose to the jews. Whether pagan or Christian or atheist, I am sure no one will enjoy working in the tundra and there won't be time to make clever quips and philosophical points against ones religious opponents.

If you are ever of a mind to do so, would be interested in hearing about your spiritual views.

Keep up the good work.

Paleoleftist

2003-08-06 22:37 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 6 2003, 17:05 * ** If National Socialism were anti-Christian and pagan, you'd think that Jewish organizations like the ADL and ACLU would be working overtime to strengthen Christianity. But they're doing the exact opposite, and you know it. Why is this the case?

Octopod **

Valid question. My opinion is this: The success of the Zionists has gone to their heads. From a completely rational viewpoint, they should probably not work overtime to undermine Christianity. However, they hate Christianity too much to be rational about it, and they now also think they are bullet-proof. Just watch Sharon. Watch the Neocons. It´s pretty clear they have lost their marbles.

Their behaviour will create a backlash that will make them nostalgic for the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition. :)

triskelion

2003-08-07 02:29 | User Profile

I am pleasantly surprised to see my comment on this thread not be flamed and thankful for the comments. It seems to me that paleo-leftist and those support my broad vision of National Renewal have much to agree on as he represents the remnant "ethical left" which shares my values of autonomy and freedom from economic coercion.

With respect to Lane I thank him for his kind comments and will be happy to quickly address the matter of my personal spirituality. Such a statement should be prefaced by my stating that in so doing I have no interest in debating spiritualism per say and that I hope my views on the matter will not be an affront as they are not intended to be.

At it's foundation my religious valves stem from an acceptance that the meaningfulness of one's existence lay in large measure with an understanding that the individual is a "link in a chain" between one's ancestors and descendants who in turn derive much of their meaning and value from the communal folkways and mores that provided the societal environment they came from (i.e the Nation Organic) and the folkways and mores that express and preserve that which makes them unique as people (i.e Tradition). As such, an individual is born with a very weighty set of responsibilities to add to and assist in the evolution of that which I term traditionalism. Thus I view the value of an individual as a product of the extent to which he recognizes and serves Tradition.

It must be stated that Traditionalism is not a static, nostalgic condition but rather the expression of the intertwining of a folk with it's history and as such evolves in accordance with the basic temperament of a people. Contrary to Traditionalism is Modernity which is nothing else then a purely egotistical and transient faith in the material combined with the myth of the inevitability of progress and positivism. One should note that Modernity should not be confused with technological progress although it's implementation can hasten the effects of societal decay just as it's suppression can leave a folk defenseless in a hostile existence. Neither is static but rather both have always been and always will be contesting currents in human society and neither is static as the means by which they represent them selves in terms of a Kirkian perspective of Order and Permanence vary in accordance to a given folk's Traditionalism being able to meet the challenges wrought by a given folk's destructive internal dynamic. Within the various manifestations of Occidental Traditionalism the chief internal mechanisms of destructive internal dynamics rest with our creative impulse under mining societal stability as detailed by Martin Heidegger and our strong propensity for individualism leaving us vulnerable to cohesive aliens and nihilism.

As to the matter of the indigenous deities of my folk I subscribe to the notion that they represent archetypes of primal being and dynamics rather then actual entities which are described in the Mythic sense covered by Odalist site mentioned in the Heathen thread. An understanding how these forces impact upon existence I refer to our literary canon whose major works consists primarily of: the Soga Friðrik The Seiðr Paradigms Œra Linda Bok, Midhvingas, Fjölnismenn, Føroyskt Antologi and the Poetic Eddas (primarily the Havamal and the Voluspa) and the Heimskringla to a far lesser extent. Of equal importance are the revelations presented about the world via scientific discovery and methodology. The Mythic combined with Traditionalism gives a context from which to apply the scientific. Occasionally one sees a clear overlap between the Mythic and scientific can be found. The most prominent is the closeness of the description of Ginnungagap's expanding gasses being startlingly similar to what is commonly called "the Big Bang theory" as described in the Midhvingas.