Monotheistic terror

On September 11th, Opnion Journal had a very interesting piece by Bret Stephens, named "Red terror, green terror". It compares the terror reign in the seventies by German RAF (= red terror) with the terror wielded today by Bin Laden's Al Qaeda (= green terror). And the similarities between the two seemingly opposed terrorist organisations are indeed frightening many.

However, even Bret Stephens doesn't see the whole picture. Because he lists some differencies between the two organisations, differencies I fail to see and don't agree exist. I do concur with the essence of the article, however, that there are no fundamental differencies between the two. But I would like to expand a little on where he goes wrong in my opinion.

Bret Stephens finds a difference between RAF and Al Qaeda in the fact that the former strived for a Marxist regime, while the latter works for a worldwide caliphate. And he finds that while RAF was a domestic organization, Al Qaeda is a global one. Both assesments are wrong in my mind.

There is no fundamental difference between a Marxist ideology and Islam. Both are manifestations of monotheistic intolerance, and as we all know, monotheists are always waging war against "non-believers", even – or maybe even especially – against other monotheists of the wrong creed. So to see a difference in methods and/or purposes between RAF and Al Qaeda is therefore completely wrong. They're extremely similar, when you dig just a bit below the surface appearance, and consider their common monotheistic makeup. Their religious devotion to their faith is similar, and their complete mixing of religion with politics are the same. And yes, I consider communism to be a (political) religion !

As for the notion that RAF purely was a domestic terror organization, Bret Stephens fails to appriciate, that RAF was just one of a multitude of similar organisations around the world. Each may have worked locally, but they worked together and helped each other, and together worked for a world wide Marxist regime, backed by the Sovjet Union, China and other communist dictatorships. This is as global as you can get, in my opinion. And Al Qaeda is constructed in the same manner, with multiple independent cells, working locally, but striving for a common goal.

A third difference Bret Stephens see, that RAF targeted very specifically on single key individuals, while Al Qaeda targets and indescriminately blows up scores of civilian bystanders, is again only a difference in surface appearance. I'm sure that RAF would have loved to blow up many people, and that Al Qaeda would love to be able to target single key individuals like RAF did, but it's only a question of sophistication, or maybe even only a matter of time.

RAF worked the way they did because they more or less had to. The needed some sort of public support among the German population, and even their strongest supporters would most likely have turned their backs on RAF had they created one blood bath after another. Al Qaeda certainly doesn't have that problem, their supporters are secure in their brainwashed state of mind. Al Qaeda on the other hand, lacks the sophistication that RAF needed to muster, but in a pessimistic view ahead, they'll most likely attain this sophistication along the way, i.e. in due time, if not stopped before they reach that level. As the article points out, the killers from 9/11 weren't stupid low lifes, they were educated people. So Al Qaeda has brain material to use, so when they smarten up and find a better use for them than just blowing them up, we better watch out and be prepared.

So my conclusion must be, that monotheists are monotheists. And that monotheists are the wagers of terror in the world. MONOTHEISM is the common thread. But we all knew that already, didn't we ??

Women bashing

There seems to exist an ongoing campaign these years to belittle and suppress women on all levels of society. In everyday life, language among teenagers and too many adults include more and more abusive and derogatory terms that is meant to subjugate girls and women, destroy their self-assurance, and put them in an inferior position. And the recent hate campaign against an outspoken female blogger named Kathy Sierra by anonymous males is just the latest outbreak of this pervasive campaign.

This is not an IT political blog, nor even a technology related blog, this is a religious blog. Nevertheless, the sad case of Kathy Sierra resonates with some of the deeper religious beliefs that I and other polytheists have. And so, this is my religious angle and opinion on what is best described as "women bashing".

It is obvious to me, that "women bashing" is a result of uncontrolled male dominance. History is full of examples of low life groups that feel better about themselves by finding someone to subjugate. But this uncontrolled male dominance doesn't come out of the blue, it's not a freak occurrence is a post modern era. This dominance comes from the never ending monotheistic campaign – especially these years - to assert their dominance over all people on the face of the Earth. Militant muslims are just the most outspoken ones, it is fast becoming a pervasive ideology in most males in our societies, also the Christian dominated ones. So in my mind, rampant monotheism is without any doubt whatsoever the cause behind "women bashing", and always has been.

To affirm that monotheism is hateful of women at its core, just consider the status of women under the two major monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam. The former may seem "soft" on women these days, but this is caused by the fact, that most westeners aren't really that Christian anymore, like their ancestors were just a couple of hundred years ago. The latter is even today completely relentless in its condescending attitudes toward women. The belief that women are inferior to men, even outright misogyny, is one of the cornerstones of both monotheistic beliefs, and "women bashing" in societies dominated by monotheism is – in my opinion – an inevitable and unavoidable result of monotheism itself.

Polytheism is based on an inherent respect for both the female and the male sides of existence. It's no wonder that women flock to polytheism these years, be it Wicca, Goddess beliefs or other variants. It's actually a constant wonder to me, that not more women (they do account for the majority of the worlds population) speak out against the pervasive male dominance, but hopefully they do so at lower levels. Unconditionally respect for women, and an acceptance by males of the vital role of women in all aspects of life, should be the basis which our societies are built upon. And all actions that counteracts that, even if it's "just" domestic violence, should be punished severely. Adopting a polytheistic belief is in my mind the only assured way of accomplishing that.

The Hindu beliefs, that are polytheistic in nature, unfortunately have many traits of abuse against women, and as such is a sad exception to the rule for polytheism. Their historical burial rites, in which wives were burnt with their dead spouse, are abominable, but hopefully extinct. However, the many current examples, where women are beaten, maimed or even killed due to petty dowry disputes, need to be stopped at once, and all perpetrators punished severely by the law, if Hindus are to be taken serious as polytheists.

Anyone, women as well as men, that specifically target women for no other reason than that they're women, be it by verbal abuse, threats of violence, or outright physical violence, should themselves be beaten senseless, in my honest opinion. There is no excuse for their actions whatsoever, and everyone should stop make excuses for people engaged in "women bashing" of any form. And specifically other women should immediately stop assisting perpetrators of "women bashing", even if it's abused mothers that help to destroy the life of their own daughters.

Völkish / Universalist Asatru

There seems to be a never ending debate in Asatru circles between two opposing views of our religion, whether it's "völkish" or whether it's "universalist", i.e. whether it's ethno-centric or not.

I support the völkish view, simply because it makes sense, which I think the universalist view does not. Asatru as an indigenous religion is ethno-centric, simply because its roots are indigenous to a few specific ancestral nations. To claim that the revived Asatru suddenly is universalist, is a modern invention which has nothing to do with original and ancestral Asatru.

Every single religion on Earth is ethno-centric at its core. Buddhism is ethno-centric, christianity is ethno-centric, and islam is very ethno-centric, even hinduism is ethno-centric. So what's so wrong with being ethno-centric ? The proof of my claim is easily obtained by observing the actions of people who convert.

A convert to buddhism often changes or extends his/her name with an Indian or Tibetian name, signalling his/her new status as a Buddhist. The same is the case with christianity and islam, where converts also often adapt their names to fit their new faith. If you disagree that christians adapt their names, just consider where the names Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, Jacob, Simon, Mary, Adam, Eve et.al. comes from, not to speak of "Christian".

And in the case of islam, Arabic language is considered the language of Allah, and so becomes an absolute requirement and considered the only suitable language to be used for worship. If that's not an ethno-centric view, I don't know what is.

What are the usual claims made by universalist Asatruar in favor of universalism, against the völkish view ? It can be summarized into one claim, namely that völkism leads to racism. But that's a false claim, which just shows the claimants own ignorance and/or prejudice.

Racism is a supremacist view, claiming that one's own race/religion/culture is superior to all other cultures. This is how islam sees the world today, and how christianity saw the world a few centuries back. This is not how modern Asatruar, or any other polytheists for that matter, of any political persuasion, sees the world, so why is this blatant prejudice even being worded again and again ?

Völkish means that one acknowledges the link between the culture behind the religion and the religion itself. It's not a chauvanist view, because it doesn't include any notion of being better than others. E.g., we don't require people to exchange their christian names with a nordic one (Like Eric or Sven) when becoming Asatru, we don't ridicule people for being named John or Peter or even Christian, and we don't require anyone to only worship the Gods in old Norse tongue. And as all people on the face of the Earth, we also have the right to better ourselves and seek to improve our conditions, to thrive as a people and nation. To assume that this right doesn't exist for us specifically, is pure auto-racism, i.e. a demeaning form of self hatred that I personally strongly reject and loathe.

My counter-claim agninst universalism, is that it's a direct road to missioning. I.e. to a situation whereby Asatruar can expand their faith to any people in the world by persuasion or force. If one, as the universalists think, doesn't acknowledge the ethnic root of Asatru, they've in fact reinventing Asatru as a culture-less religion, and then what should hinder anyone as missionaries from trying to actively convert anyone to such a culture-less faith ? Christianity certainly has tried that road, and polytheists everywhere has suffered the dire consequences. I think this path is both inherently false and dangerous.

Then, why does this divide even exist ? Well, to be quite frank, I belive it to be a mix of misplaced politic correctness and secular force of habit. For a long time, the people of European descent, (often dubbed "white", but I like "westerners" better) have been pounded upon, to apologize for this and that. And this apologetic state of mind are so pervasive today, that many Asatruar seem to have no objections to continue this pounding upon each other, for any perceived wrong-doing. And all just because they've been brought up with a vast guilt complex, and aren't able to "kick the habit".

Yes, westerners have been very succesful in building world-wide empires for the last 500 years, and yes, westeners have extensively exploited both natural and demographic ressources (people as slaves). But this is past history, perpetrated by our (late) ancestors, not us. And as very few colonies remain today, and as very few of the descendants of slaves e.g. in North America even want to return to ancestral Africa, what's left to apologize for ?

The only thing I feel that needs to be apologized for, is the chauvanistic christian destruction of indigenous cultures, in Africa, in the Americas, and elsewhere. Even today, surviving indigenous cultures struggle to regain their cultural heritage. And this includes our own, because we Asatruar today are also victims of the christian rampage. We were just brutalized 500-1000 years earlier than most others.

I read a piece a while back, about an "apology" offered in 1986 by the churchs in Canada to native Americans (http://www.united-church.ca/aboriginal/relationships/apologies.shtm), but at the same time "invited" them to rebuild their devastated culture within church doctrines. It made me sick to the bone to read that piece. Their apparent apology was pure and intentionally fiction, not a real apology by any measure, and it proves that the monotheistists are very unwilling to offer any true apologies for documented past misdeeds, even when they've benefited hugely and directly from them. Why is it then, that we Asatruar should be apologetic, we have no cultural share in these monotheistic misdeeds. Let the monotheists offer apologies if they want.

As for the secular force of habit, almost all current Asatruar are brought up in a monotheistic environment. And we've grown up being taught to regard animism and polytheism as "lesser" and more "primitive" religions than the pervasive monotheism, although most Asatruar is unwilling to recognize this as a fact. This in-grown habit is very, very hard to rid oneself of, but it can be done. One must just constantly question any little assumption when faced with it in everyday life :Why should I accept this (pre)condition, why should I accept this decision, why as this choice better than the other etc. Only that way do we have any real chance of rid ourselves of basically discriminating habits. And then we can hopefully also rid ourselves of the misconceptions and prejudicies leading to the völkish/universalist divide.

--
Irenessøn

All polytheists in the World are my extended kindred.

Having a monotheist explain polytheism, is like having a deep sea fish explain life on land.

Definitions

It occurred to me, that people reading my posts would benefit from seeing my definitions of some of the key terms I use, or will use, in this blog, instead of reading dubious explanations from questionable sources like Wikipedia.

--

Monotheism is NOT belief in one god. Monotheism is belief in the ONLY god, the only "truth". Why is this distinction important? It is, because a claim to worshipping the ONLY god automatically excludes all other gods. Worshippers of all other gods are deemed heretics, infidels, idol worshippers - or even heathens. This monotheistic intolerance has a dire consequence: all non-believers must be either converted, subjugated or killed. And monotheists are very diligent in carrying out this intolerance: missionary work, persecution and holy wars are the very backbone of all monotheistic history.

Polytheism is NOT belief in multiple Gods. Polytheism is believing that multiple Gods EXIST. Again, why is this distinction important? It is, because a polytheist may easily worship a single god, always or most of the time, but he/she does not reject other Gods, and does not reject other that worship different Gods. Polytheism is therefore about tolerance of fellow polytheists, about respect for other Gods and ultimately the cultures the dwell in. Except of course any monotheistic such.

Henotheism is worship of a single god, but without the rejection of other Gods. A henotheist is just a devoted to his/her single god as a monotheist, but lacks the inherent intolerance of the latter. Henotheists can easily co-exist with polytheists, and are most likely welcome among polytheists. Henotheism may equally be regarded as the tolerant and non-missionary cousin of monotheism, or - more to the point here - as a special case of polytheism. I tend to use the latter definition.

Atheism is the belief that NO god exist. This is a belief that looks very similar to monotheism in the eyes of a polytheist. Again we're dealing with believers, that reject all other "truths" than their own, believers that rarely miss an opportunity to "teach" religious people of the "mistakes" (mission), and belittle religious feelings as humbug and delusions (holy war). As a polytheist, I have no warm feelings toward millitant atheists.

Nihilism is also a belief that no god exist, but only for each individual. Again this is the non-missionary, tolerant version, of atheism this time. I have yet to encounter a nihilist in persona, but will welcome him/her when I do. It's indeed a lonely life without any help and support from friendly Gods.

--

I hope this little reference are of use for all that try to get a grip on religious differencies. Remember, don't automatically believe the definitions written on Wikipedia and elsewhere, they're most likely all written by monotheists or atheists. So bookmark this post !

The monotheistic scourge !

-- Polytheistic battle cry --

Monotheism is a 4 millenum old scourge, that threatens the freedom of every man, woman and child on the face of this planet. It's only and always a tyrannical regime regardless of its disguise.

Monotheism come in many forms, some come as religion, some come as poltical ideologies. They all have a single trait in common, namely the limitless intolerance toward all people outside their particular form of montheism. This is justified by their claim to posess the "only true path", and the supported claim that all other "paths/truths" are false. Monotheism is about mind control and power, nothing else.

The first surviving religious montheism was hebrewism or judaism. It was followed by christianity, and then later islam. The latter two have a long history of war, murder, genocide and barbaric suppression on their conscience. Unfortunately about half the world's population today suffers under their combined tyrannies.

Political monotheism include nazism and communism. Both horrible regimes that has humiliated, suppressed and destroyed countless human lives, all in the name of their proclaimed "truth", whether it's a führer/nazi party or a polit bureau general secretary/communist party. It's no wonder that the major two of these regimes were able to strike a deal in WWII, it makes all the sense in the world to me.

Atheists have monotheistic traits too, also claiming to possess the only "truth". But they at least have a choice, whether they want to be tools ("useful idiots") for the real monotheists, or whether the want to stand by the polytheists in opposing monotheism.

As a polytheist, monotheism simply makes me sick. It's an ideology that is so anti-human as it can be. It disregards and suppresses true human nature, have no respect for the very Nature we're an integral part of, and it readily and gladly brings war and mayhem to everyone it dislikes, including other monotheistic fractions. And it gladly cripples the lifes of their own followers. It encourages the lowest traits human nature, and perverts human emotions. Monotheism is truly evil.

As a polytheist, I regard all version of monotheism as one. I see no reason to worry myself over petty nuances in monotheism, whether this monotheistic god is better or more true than the next. I look at the grander picture, and judge all monotheistic replicas to be parts of the same evil stock.

I see signs, that polytheists worldwide are beginning to understand their enemy, the monotheistic scourge. This is good, this is necessary. If we polytheists, we free men and women, don't wake up now, and start fighting by pushing back the monotheistic tide, we'll be drowned by it.

Polytheism has a single flaw, namely that it's acceptance of multiple Gods can - and will - be abused to try and make us accept monotheistic gods. But polytheists should never accept any monotheistic god or its followers, as they don't and never will respect our own Gods. Intolerant and jealous gods have no place in any polytheistic pantheon, they should always be excluded.

I personally fear that fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist moslems will join forces in the near future. They have so much in common, that it only takes one bright kid in every camp to reconcile them. That'll surely spell the doom for mankind. Humankind under a worldwide monotheistic regime will turn everbody into suppressed serfs. Is this what everybody wants? NO!

Hail to the Gods !!!