Caustic Ramblings

Interesting little speculative tidbit from Tom Rowsell (Survive the Jive) on the possible origins of Odin/Woden:

My current understanding of the development of the cult of Wodanaz is as follows:

In the Bronze age the pre-Germanic people of Scandinavia worshipped a sky father derived from PIE *Dyḗus ph₂tḗr but he merged with and became indistinct from the dark god of the Männerbund, guardian of the cattle herds and the underworld known in PIE as *Welunos.

By the time Proto-Germanic was spoken in 500 BC they called this god *Wōdanaz " one of divine-frenzy" and his worship was probably widespread in all Germanic speaking regions, which by then included the continent (North Germany).

With the influence of Rome on Germania in the common era, and many Germanic folk serving in the Roman military, the cult of *Wōdanaz took on a Roman character - especially in Germany - with the Germanic comitatus being based in part on Roman military culture and *Wōdanaz himself being depicted in Romanised forms, sometimes even with Roman artefacts. The military Germanic elite represented a changing power structure in the region, and with the increased regional power and wealth of Odinic military aristocratic leaders, many of whom had served in the Roman army, there was a corresponding increase in the focus on the cult of *Wōdanaz.

I don't think this means he wasn't the principle deity before Roman influence, but I think that the cults of other gods diminished in importance as the emphasis on these new military elites defined the Germanic culture. This is the time when the duel raven motif starts to proliferate and also the bracteates which seem to depict Germanic kings in the style of Roman emperors on solidi, but surrounded by Odinic imagery; ravens, swastikas, runes, horses. One runic bracteate inscription even says "he is wodnaz's man". The deliberate invention of the purpose built runic script by an elite literate caste coincides with these events around 2000 years ago.

*Wōdanaz retained this status and the association with runes, ravens and war throughout the Germanic world for over 1000 years until his cult was destroyed by Christians.

"Welunos" sounds a lot like the Slavic god Veles, in both name and speculative attributes. This hints at a very ancient Indo-European theology that had the "Sky Father" bifurcated into Light and Dark aspects. In the archaic Roman religion (prior to its Hellenization), the Jupiter/Veovis pairing may have been another instance of this duality. In the later (Hellenized) Roman religion, most of the archaic Italic elements were memory-holed and this dark aspect was either lost or conflated with other cthonic gods like Dis Pater and Pluto (Hades). In the Greek tradition, I've seen associations of Hades and Dionysus, which may be getting at the same sort of thing; Dionysus being the "dark side" of Zeus makes a lot of sense. As an aside, one thing that bugs me a bit about our modern-day "Germanic" theology that has been cobbled together from loose scraps, is the lack of the "Light side" of the Sky Father; it seems like Thor serves as a proxy for this, though he's more of a son than father figure. A few among the more philologically-inclined Heathens have suggested that Tiw/Tyr once performed this function, but from what I've seen, the evidence seems very lacking for thing, as mere cognates are not really good evidence for theological connections, in my view.

Anyway, this all seems like quite fascinating food for thought.

If there was one book that decisively “ruined” the modern pagan revival (as a serious religious endeavor with any multigenerational staying power) for me it would be The Ancient City by the French historian and proto-anthropologist Fustel de Coulanges. Well, there’s actually been a few, but this one takes the cake. In the book, the author, with what to me seems like an amazing degree of intuitive insight, teases out and explains what he sees as being the foundational element of ancient religion; what we today call “paganism.” I won’t bother droning on with any exhaustive summary of the book, but here is a very brief one:

“Originally published in 1864 as La Cité Antique, this remarkable work describes society as it existed in Greece during the age of Pericles and in Rome at the time of Cicero. Working with only a fraction of the materials available to today's classical scholar, Fustel de Coulanges fashioned a complete picture of life in the ancient city, resulting in a book impressive today as much for the depth of its portrait as for the thesis it presents.

In The Ancient City, Coulanges argues that primitive religion constituted the foundation of all civic life. Developing his comparisons between beliefs and laws, Fustel covers such topics as rites and festivals; marriage and the family; divorce, death, and burial; and political and legal structures. "Religion," the author states, "constituted the Greek and Roman family, established marriage and paternal authority, fixed the order of relationship, and consecrated the right of property, and the right of inheritance. This same religion, after having enlarged and extended the family, formed a still larger association, the city, and reigned in that as it had reigned in the family. From it came all the institutions, as well as the private law, of the ancients."

When most of us modern people think of paganism, we think of the great civic religions and mythological traditions of late-stage classical civilization, particularly the traditions of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial eras. We think of rigid pantheons of rudely-anthropomorphized gods and goddesses and the ossified mythological literary narratives associated with those deities. We also might think of great sages and their elaborate philosophical teachings and great works. In fact, all these things are the product of specific high cultures and their literary traditions. We think today that “paganism” is precisely that. Well, its foundational form was never that at all.

Contra these popular modern (mis)understanding, Coulanges takes us back to a time long before recorded history, i.e. long before writing technology was a thing. He parses out the archaic religion of the Indo-Europeans and their offshoots in the Mediterranean world, focusing particularly on the family cults of archaic Greece and Rome. In his view, the religion of the family is the foundation of all religion in the ancient world; tribal and civic cults are much later developments that evolved as smaller social units continuously merged into larger ones as classical civilization became ever-grander and more complex.

Private Religion, Private Law

As the story goes, religion was once a wholly private affair. By private I mean one confined to the household and its immediate surroundings. Each cultic household (i.e. what neopagans today call “ the hearth”) was an ancestor-veneration religion unto itself. The beliefs and rituals were specific to each individual family; no two families rites and beliefs were ever the same. And it was utterly taboo for anyone outside the household to partake in the rites of the family religion. Marriage and adoption were the only means by which new members could be admitted.

Western patriarchy, monogamous marriage, and archaic kingship (that of the paterfamilias) each derives from this very ancient way. When a woman would leave her natal household and join a different one via marriage, she had to ritually leave the religion of her birth and join the religion of her husband’s household (she must be carried over the sacred threshold of her new house); no one back then could be a member of two household religions at the same time. To do anything other than what ancient custom mandated would be to offend the ancestral gods; if any serious wrong were to be committed, they would become vengeful ghosts and proceed to mercilessly vex the entire household until its participants made a sufficient degree of ritualistic restitution.

The modern atheist-rationalist strawman of Abrahamic religion is that off an all-seeing busybody sky god tyrant watching your every move. Well, the ancients weren’t so different in their belief, it’s just that the all-seeing busybody was a patriarchal ancestor god dwelling under the ground instead of being an abstract all-spirit way up in the sky. Same basic stuff, different epoch. The “fear of God” being the basis of all religious piety and humility is a very ancient teaching indeed.

From Lares and Manes to Culture Gods

In the book, Coulanges supposes that the gods and goddesses we know of today began either as (a) proprietary family deities, or (b) personified parts of nature. It’s on this first supposition that he gives most of his attention to. Over time, the Lares and Manes of a triumphant family eventually become the gods of the whole culture. How this would work is that some particular family grows to prominence and, by marriage or adoptive patronage, absorbs many other families under its umbrella. Thus family becomes a clan. The paterfamilias becomes the clan Chieftain. The patron god of the clan’s leading family becomes the patron god of the entire clan; every clan member now participates in the rites of that deity; the once very-private religion has become a little less private and a little more public. In due time, other clans (for various reasons) join up with the big clan and now it’s a tribe. The patron deity of the tribe becomes the patron deity of every tribal member. The cult of the tribal deity has become even more public. Archaic kingship is born. Tribes settle down and become organized states with elaborate lore traditions and the beginnings of legalism. The same scaling-up process rinses and repeats until we get the mega-states and sprawling empires that our history books tend to lavish with the most attention.

You get the picture by now. The illustrious Athena of the Athenian Parthenon, the awesome protectress of all of Athens, was once-upon-a-time a humble family deity. That family became one of the most dominant and successful families of Athens and because of that, its patron goddess become the civic goddess par excellence. Yahweh was likely once a humble family deity of this type and over time become the clan of Judah’s tutelary god (“The god of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac” can perhaps take on a literal meaning here). And as the saying goes, the rest is history!

Forgotten Inheritance

Speaking on that tangent, it becomes quite apparent to me that the Christians inherited the remnants of these ancient gentile institutions The Ancient City talks about at length. But the early Christians understood very little about the origin of things like monogamous marriage, archaic kingship, and patriarchal families; they saw that those just worked, and left it at that. Humans in general seem to prefer the approach of doing things over and over again by rote over understanding why they do things to begin with (once you have to ask why, it’s obvious the magic has already worn off) Of course the Christians were by no means unique in this regard, as this was how most pagan religions operated as well. By the late decadent era of blustering moralists like Cicero, Cato, and Seneca, the learned Roman understood very little about the why of their venerable religion. Why these religions worked the way they did is a deeply-esoteric topic for another time.

What the author had pieced together more than 150 years ago constitutes a key component of of what ancient Natural Religion actually was. We could use the term Gentilism for this. However this is not the only piece. Animism is the other main part. It’s something that Coulanges briefly acknowledges in a few spots but tends to gloss over. After all, he was a rationalist scholar who followed the popular habit of his time, that is dismissing the notion of an enchanted world as being something more than ancient superstition. However, I’ve found an occult reading of his work to be quite illuminating, to put it lightly. This is something I’ve been working out in my own head for awhile now.

Putting the Canopy before the Roots

Sad to say, but to me this synthesis seems to be something that greatly trivializes modern-day efforts to revive ancient religions. The pantheon-first approach is highly-anachronistic and little more than romanticized classicism (ancient familial and tribal religions didn’t have fixed pantheons, but that’s another topic for a different time!). In practical terms, this approach constitutes an attempt to grow a tree starting first with the uppermost branches (yeah, imagine that). Of course, I don’t intend here to denigrate an individual’s personal spiritual practice that might involve the veneration of ancient deities; you do you! But such a practice sans any familial or communitarian element is really just a glorified occult or mystical practice, or maybe a rogue form of Folk Catholicism. In my humble view, if one can’t get their whole household to participate in whatever it is they do in front of their altar, then it’s not a religion proper.

By this criteria, I think the only successful pagan revival groups here in the Anglosphere are those Germanic pagans (Heathens) who do indeed have their whole families or even mini-communities participating in cultic activities, even if that’s just meeting up a few times a year for ritual feasts and outdoor gatherings. But even Heathens usually default to the classical pantheon approach, when really each hearth and kindred should be working with something unique, if the religion is to be an authentic gentilism (I do realize how massive a tall order this is in our postmodern era).

Back to Basics

For a whole family or household to participate, the aspiring religion has to be something more visceral and relatable than some cultic version of a D&D session or a Renaissance Fair. Fine for the nerds, but boring or just plain weird for everyone else. Whichever pioneering soul can figure out how to harmoniously blend ancestor work with strict family discipline, and with some compatible ethos and world-conception (like perhaps a combination of Nietzschean Vitalism and Animism), might really be onto a working formula that can make for a tradition that lasts for more than half a generation.

On yesterday's Magic Monday post, there was a rather interesting discussion on the several "feuding" branches of today's Germanic pagan/polytheist community. Particularly the question on the merits of the frequent "racism" allegations flung at Folkish Heathens.

Here's the whole thread:
https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/237888.html?thread=41766464#cmt41766464

My lengthily response here, with some follow-up replies:
https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/237888.html?thread=41778240#cmt41778240

I figure I'll use this as an open post to continue the discussion, if anyone so desires to do so. I think there's three interesting sub-topics to be expanded on from that thread:

1. Inclusionary vs. Exclusionary approaches to contemporary polytheism/paganism.
2. The third "tribal" (Theodish) option that's an alternative to the Folkist/Universalist binary.
3. The very fascinating (IMHO) concept of a "Holy Guild" being a new way of terming a religious fellowship.

Of course, any other ideas tangentially related to the above thread is more than welcome! Thank you for not using profanity, namecalling/ad-homs, bad faith arguments, or other cheap troll behaviors.

Ahh, the million cattle-head question.

According to my own peculiar definition of paganism, a “pagan” today might simply be anyone who has spiritual beliefs that are not dependent upon agreeing with or assenting to specific dogmas, doctrines, metaphysical propositions, or special dispensations. This Minimalist Pagan believes that existence is more than just material properties; there is something more out there, but there’s no compulsion to harbor a specific belief about or define what exactly that is. Rather, there’s myriad metaphysical models available to explain or speculate about supersensory phenomena. In essence, specific schools of thought can and do exist within this pagan umbrella, but participation in or adherence to such schools is entirely voluntary.

The following metaphysical propositions can be said to be pagan according to the above definition:

Psychism – is the first level of metaphysical belief above that of crude materialism. It’s the belief in the most rudimentary conception of “soul,” which could be said to be an immaterial “psychic” property or substance; this is a consciousness principle which either animates or supersedes matter. Modern psychism tends to favor an “archetypal” model for explaining such phenomena, and adherents of this line of thinking tend to see psyche as an impersonal force or collection of forces.

This type of belief is adjacent to atheism, agnosticism, and deism, though the admittance of a layer of reality above/beyond matter “psyche” as something that sets psychism apart from the prevailing Scientific Materialist Orthodoxy of this era. In some corners of Establishment Academia, an open belief in Psychism is permitted, or at least tolerated to some degree, though it’s long been fully excised from the field of Psychology – which is of course farcical, considering the fact that “Psychology” according to its etymological roots means, “the study of the soul.” Of course, what passes for “official” psychology today is vehemently hostile toward anything that materialist scientism can’t (or simply refuses to) explain.

Psychism can be both metaphysically-assertive and agnostic. The former approach usually coincides with a position which can be termed Panpsychism, which is the idea that everything in the universe is foremost comprised of Psyche (Soul-stuff). Whereas the latter position refrained from imposing any particular metaphysical proposition.

Spiritualism – is the belief in nonphysical, personal beings who can and do interact with our own world. In it’s modern form, Spiritualism is (1) the belief in nonphysical spiritual entities which are human-like and usually said to be the souls of deceased humans; and (2) the notion that living humans can communicate with these spiritual beings through mediumistic methods (this sometimes involves trance-inducement). Overt Spiritualism of this type became quite popular during the 19th century, through the early 20th, though it has long since fallen into obscurity. Much of this movement has shown itself to metaphysical investigators as being fraudulent, in addition to its practices being rife with psycho-spiritual dangers. Practically speaking, we could say that unacknowledged and semi-acknowledged Spiritualism does indeed play a role in a number of alternative religion/spirituality movements, especially the “devotional” end of Neopaganism, in addition to a few other syncretic neo-religions.

Animism – simply the belief that everything in Nature is “alive with spirit.” There is spiritual essence and even sentient intelligence in and around everything beyond what is apparent to our five senses. Unlike in Spiritualism, sentient spirit entities are not necessarily souls of the human dead, though they can be; in fact most spirits are non-human entities. This is the default belief system of most of the world’s ancient cultures, though animism often overlapped with polytheism. Two clear examples of this blend; (1) the (pre-Greek) ancient Roman religion, and (2) Shinto, which is the indigenous religion of Japan that survives to this day.

Theism – belief in one or more Deities. Of course, what defines a Deity (a God or Goddess) is open to a whole world of debate and well beyond the scope of this analysis. Perhaps a general definition is that a Deity is simply a “divine” being; that is, a nonphysical being who wields an immense degree of knowledge and power compared to human beings and ordinary spirits. Typically, theistic belief differs from that of the preceding tiers, in that worshippers assign archetypal and mythological characteristics to their Gods and Goddess. Deities are specific to an entire culture or polity, whereas a spirit is usually just relevant to a specific locale, physical object, deceased person, or ancestral figure. Traditional cultures the world over have almost always grouped their Deities into distinct pantheons.

Over time, polytheistic religions sometimes morph into more specific approaches like Henotheism (worship focused on just one of the deities), and Monolatrism (belief that only one of the deities is worthy of worship). Eventually this might further narrow into Monotheism, which is a theological arrangement that retains god-status for only one of the original deities of the culture in question. In practice though, Monotheism seems to be built on a bed of semantic gamesmanship. What this means is that monotheistic systems usually retain other entities from their source culture’s original pantheon, though the other divinities are demoted to a “non-god” category of one type or another. The less-than-god entities are re-imagined as being mere aspects, hypostases, emanations, or creations of the (now) “one, true god.” Once we take a few steps back from the new categorization scheme, the monotheistic system seems like an exercise in sophistic gimmickry. In traditional polytheist cultures, the differences between Gods, demigods, spirits, angels, heroes, dignified ancestors, and other entities, were often nuanced, fluid, and full of overlapping definitions and criteria. Taking all of this into account, we can see that what is to be considered a god and not-a- god is more or less a matter of crafty wordplay, not to mention a product of the opinions and agendas of those who get to define who/what is and isn’t “the one, true god.”

Theism (especially Polytheism) can be inclusive of all the prior layers of metaphysical recognition. For example, most polytheisms are infused with varying degrees of psychism, spiritualism, and animism. Thus we can see how this entire schema is somewhat hierarchical.

This is sort of a follow-up from a more extensive entry I wrote awhile back. This is also inspired by a re-reading of an old Ecosophia thread from about a couple of years ago regarding the feasibility of forming a new "Druidic" religious organization that lacks the dysfunctional, woke, and clusterfracky characteristics that defined ADF to the core. I saw some very insightful comments, among many others that expressed a lot of confusion on how a Druidic religious organization might differ from that of an initiatory order. I don't blame them for this confusion, as nearly all Druidic orders (with the exception of RDNA and its offshoots) have belonged to the latter category.

Here is the organizational wish-list JMG posted in the first comment:

- I'd like something with plenty of room for solitary practice. Not everyone is well suited to group activities, and some of us would rather eat live tarantulas than go through round after round of group meetings.

- I'd like something that makes room for Christian Druids. I'm not one, but I know quite a few of them, and I've never understood the attitude that insists that you can take any deity for your patron but Jesus. At the same time, appropriate protections need to be put in place to keep anyone from forcing their god on anyone else.

- I'd like something that doesn't pretend to be ancient. The Druid Revival has been around for 300 years; that's ample heritage to claim.

- I'd like something set up to minimize internal politics. The more energy needed for internal group management, the less will be available to worship the gods. If there have to be elections, let them be at long intervals. If elections can be avoided, even better. A lot of nonprofits have a board of directors that appoints its own new members, and ordinary members can vote with their feet if they don't like the existing policies; that might be a model worth considering.

Well, this sounds a lot like the basis of a Fraternal "Grand Lodge" type of organization; something like Freemasonry. Basically, an organization that requires only a vague belief in a Divine Power(s), with nothing specific beyond that. The inclusion of both "Christian Druids" and "Druids" who venerate non-Celtic pantheons means that a shared liturgy, shared set of holy days and festivals, or shared mythos involving specific divine names is off the table right out of the gate. So then how is this a religion exactly? It seems like we're circling back to the disjointed mess that was/is ADF. And this raises the obvious question that many commenters raised: What exactly makes this organization specifically Druidic? Many ADF members who had nothing Celtic about their own beliefs and practices certainly felt the "Druid" identity* of ADF was rather confusing and nonsensical. If this organization is to use the Druid Revival as a common theme and mythic backdrop WITHOUT an explicitly Celtic pagan spirituality being shared among all members, then this will be a non-religion and essentially a duplication of what AODA/OBOD has already been doing. Then what's the point exactly?

And then we come upon what I found to be one of the most on-point comments:

Perhaps this is just my perception, but I feel like we are discussing two different potential organizations. One being a "druid" religious organization and the other being a polytheist religious organization.

Personally, I don't consider myself a druid or really anything in religious terms but I am a polytheist of the plain old uncategorized variety.

I am not much drawn to organized religion but I feel like I would be interested in a polytheist religion that was actually concerned with how to relate to deities. When you throw druid into the mix though I feel like you immediately start down some well worn paths, for example needing to protect the environment. I am all for taking care of the environment, but I don't necessarily see that as something related to relating to the divine, or at least no more so than any other activity can be linked to the divine.

I think charity is another of these issues. What's wrong with helping those less fortunate? Not a thing but, again, I don't necessarily see that as directly related to relating to the divine.

I think having a polytheistic religious organization that was serious, rather than the aforementioned larp party, could be a great thing but I think that, especially given the current climate, it would need to keep a hard focus on being a religion in order to avoid the slippery slope into a politics, social agendas and the like.

Yes, it does seem like there were two different conversations going on. I think what's really wanted here is a "polypantheonic" religious organization. Basically an Ecosophia version of ADF. And once again we are faced with questioning the logic of having "Druid" be in the name/identity of the organization. If "Druid" here means "Druid Revival" (which is a specific tradition) then this really whittles down the appeal the organization might have to what's otherwise a general polytheist (and open-minded Christian) member base. The Ecosophia community is already tiny and geographically-scattered enough; those among this group who are specifically attracted to the DR tradition is an even tinier slice of an already-tiny group.

I think this is all interesting food for thought. In another follow-up I might elaborate on what a viable "alt spirituality" organization moving forward might look like. In the most general sense, it will be more like a think-tank or a guild rather than a church.

---

*ADF's Druid branding was a holdover from its founder Isaac Bonewits branching off ADF from RDNA (Reformed Druids of North America), of which he was a member. RDNA started off as a joke organization and its "Druidry" was basically an "anything goes" ethos, with a vague nod to environmentalism. By that, RDNA is a social club, not a religion. And so it seems that beyond its obscure RDNA origins, it seems that there was nothing all that "Druid" about ADF. This became an endless source of confusion and disorientation among the membership. In reality, ADF functioned (barely) as a Pan-Neopagan Church.

Using the analogy of seasonal cycles,

Spring (17th century - mid 20th century) -- The first stirrings of anything resembling a Polytheist revival begins with the popularization of esoteric currents, from the Renaissance on through the early modern period. The Rosicrucian movement gives way to the Masonic current, which coincides with the industrialization and secularization of the Western world. We could say that the so-called "Mesopagan" development which coincides with the Masonic movements; this reflects the loosening up that hard-dogmatic Christianity had on the European soul for centuries prior. Though, the rise of a truly "pagan" orientation doesn't really begin until the European Romantic movement and later Neo-Occult groups; featuring authors/poets like Sir James George Frazer, Robert Graves, Margaret Murray, and Gerald Gardner, among others. During the 20th century, the twin influences of (1) the Occult movement (mainly the Theosophical and Golden Dawn Currents), and (2) the archetypal studies of Carl Jung and his followers, helps flesh out the essence of what later "Neopaganism" would become. A lesser known current, one tied to nationalistic romanticism, would come to influence the later non-left/progressive niche within Neopaganism; usually in the form of far-right identity politics.

Summer (1967 - 1995) -- The 1960s counterculture is what gave rise to a "true" pagan/polytheist revival; i.e. that which is completely free of overt Christian influences (though not psychological, which is a whole different topic). Its "Holy Land" began as the San Francisco Bay Area and not long after, it expanded into the Northern California evergreen forests and up through the Pacific Northwest region. Neopaganism's first generation of luminaries was the likes of Starhawk (founder of Eclectic Witchcraft), Issac Bonewits (of ADF fame), and those who followed in their respective footsteps.

As with other things associated with the 60s counterculture, the spiritual impetus behind this movement was largely fueled by a massive rebellion against the Christian past. Because of the great rejection, we could say the Neopaganism was a political movement from the getgo. The very beginnings were infused with the "New Left" political orientation (the youth-wing of the Neoliberal paradigm) that defined the counterculture. Things like feminism and freedom-of-religion were core values from the start. This political ideology would later morph into what we would today recognize as Left-Progressivism. In fact, the Summer period of Neopaganism directly mirrors the Summer period of late 20th-century Progressivism. During this time, it was the progressives who were the champions of tolerance, open-mindedness, artistic inspiration, critical thinking, free speech/thought/expression, and an opposition to rigid dogma, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness. Post-Gardnerian Wicca would emerge as the largest "denomination" of Neopaganism.

Overall, for the Neopagan movement at large and the general progressive culture, the future looked bright, though this belief came to be largely based on an investment of blind faith in the power of industrial/technological progress. The Neopaganism of the early summer period more or less reflected the ecological/environmentalist attitude of the 1970s, but by the 80s, consumerism and tech-mindedness certainly shifted the overall mentality of this movement. Pagan festivals/gatherings during this period reflect the general attitude of free-spiritedness and acceptance. It would be a long time yet until this cultural movement would perceive itself as being under attack, beyond the usual opposition of their main foes, the Conservative Christian/Evangelical movement.

Autumn (1996 - 2015) -- Asatru/Heathenry (Germanic Neopaganism) emerges as a major force within the Neopagan fold; it came to serve as the masculine counterpart to the rather-feminine Wicca. In general, a period of both cultural ossification and rationalistic tendencies shapes Autumnal Neopaganism, and really this begins with the mass-popularization of the internet. The growing "Reconstructionist" approach to Neopagnaism becomes its Rationalist wing; whereas the "anything goes" sentiment of the earlier era is now recognizable as the Eclectic wing. By this time, Neopaganism as a whole appears to be a constellation of "fandoms"*, which we could say are consumerist "subcultural" expressions of affluent North American culture. The various currents become interest-cliques. The mentality of the Reonstructionists seems to align with that of the growing "New Atheist" movement; that is, an almost-deification of academia and its academics, and the specialist-oriented empiricist methods of inquiry those types usually favor. For the Recons, archeologists, comparative linguists, and historical researchers become their de-fact high priests. The Eclectic side seems to mirror extreme Protestant tendencies of rejecting ecclesiastical order altogether, and as the Autumn years roll on, they become ever-more shrill about their rejection of hierarchy and order as such things might pertain to their own practices and studies of Neopaganism. This mirrors the evolution of the general Progressive culture in the direction of embracing "politically correct" ideological dogma, shrill moralism, and self-righteousness. Neopagan book sales peak around 2007 and after this there is just a few remaining years of normalcy and calm with the overall movement.

By 2012-2013, most of the Neopaganisms suddenly become very politicized; the annoying "PC" rhetoric of prior years devolves into the "woke" phenomenon we know of today; which is an totalitarians cult of extreme "us vs. them" dichotomization of everything under the sun. Sadly, since Neopaganism was always tethered to the progressive culture, it was destined to follow along with its trajectory of growth, flourishing, and decline. If we're to take a glance of the most prominent Neopagan blogs of the Autumn period, we could see that posting activity seems to peak between 2010 and 2015, with that last year being the lash hurrah of normal posting activity. After this, blog activity appears to sharply taper off or else become way more about politics than about spirituality.

Winter (2016 - Present) -- This year marks the emergence and ascendancy of the Big Bad Orange Drumpfler to the US Presidency. The Progressive culture, and the Professional-Managerial Class in general, goes into full panic mode as the ideology of progress seems to no longer be following up on its old promises. All of Progressivism feels itself under attack since its now apparent a sizable portion of the American population wholly rejects this pseudo-religion. Well, no actually it was because Orange Man Bad!! In fact, Orange Man is so bad that previously-denounced practices like Demonolatry become commonplace among Wicca practitioners. So we see Witches becoming Literal Witches, i.e. the Straw-woman of old that the term Witch used to mean to the average person.

So I already pointed out several times above how Neopaganism and Progressivism were joined at the hip since the beginning, it's only natural the downfall of Progress would also be the downfall of Neopaganism. The so-called "inclusiveness" of the Neopaganism becomes quite the opposite; it's "inclusive" only of people and ideas that are in 100% agreement of whatever the prevailing Progressive orthodoxy of the month happens to be. Ironically, the Wild Hint became the age-old Witch Hunt, as Neopagans begin to see "Fascists" and "Nazis" and "Racists" and "Sexists" everywhere and under every couch cushion, reminiscent of the way McCarthyite conservatives would see communists everywhere during the height of the Red Scare; and reminiscent of "Satanists" being hidden during every nook and cranny during the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. A movement that once staunchly opposed ideological inquisitions and intolerance of differing opinions now became the a movement of inquisitions and intolerance; this closely mirrors the Progressive Left's takeover of major social, cultural, and governmental institutions on the US. The "oppressed" becomes the opressor. Old Boss, meet New Boss.

From 2016 onward, Neopagan blogs, forums, and other online groups become a lot more about politics than what was once a strictly-religious and cultural focus. Joining many of these groups would require new members to voice repeated loyalty confessions and denunciations of perceived enemies. There was no longer much of a focus on Deities, unless we're to consider Progress and Pathological Inclusion to be the Patron Gods. Finally, I should mention here that these types of ideologies are those who have remained within Neopaganism. In reality, the numbers of people engaged in this fandom-cluster have dropped off precipitously since the 2020-2015 period. Overall interest shifted from the religio-cultural to the political sphere. The charred remnants of this movement seem destined for the dustbin of history; we can even say now that Neopaganism has ceased to be any meaningful cultural force here in the industrialized West. Its final death is probably not far off on the horizon.

Of course, the Gods are not going anywhere. But we should ask, what comes next, as far as any organized movement of recognizing and venerating the Holy Powers?

---
* Here I call Neopaganism a "fandom" instead a religion-proper, since membership tends to have very little to do with nuclear families or local communities consisting of whole families. It's typically only one member of a biological family that would have any interest at all in the polytheist revival; the rest of the family either remaining Christians and secularists/atheists of some variety. In this sense, Neopaganism is no more a religion than the anime subculture, or comic book collectors, or Trekkies, or Furries, or....well, you get the general idea here. Yes, there were in fact a few "pagan families" but these constituted an extreme exception, not the rule.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot as of late; the notion that the system of ethics and morality that governs our lives today in the contemporary West, is based not on Sacred Natural Law principles (what I'd term Ancestral Law), but rather a negative ethos based on the rejection of our older value system, which is the medieval European social order.

The so called 'enlightenment' period of Western intellectual culture which followed the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, largely revolved around the rejection of Clergy and Nobility. Once Roman Catholic church authority was kicked to the curb, next came the various dogmas, theology, and moral presuppositions of mainstream Christianity as a whole.

Now, it doesn't help much here that Christianity itself is antinomian* in character, owing to the fact it rose in opposition of a preceding social order, which was that of the imperial Roman system of polytheistic cults. The old 'pagan' system derived its ethics and morality from various wisdom and mythological traditions which accumulated over a very long period of time; a composite umbrella tradition comprised of divine revelations from myriad sages, oracles, seers, bards, lawgivers, mystics, and other wise men.

So once Christianity was finally jettisoned from the intellectual leading edge of the rapidly-modernizing West, what exactly was there to fall back on? To be fair, the various liberal intellectuals did try to revival the classical Greek and Roman values, but only really in a rationalistic manner, one devoid of any divine pretenses. No one but a tiny handful of weirdos and eccentrics did anything super radical like worshiping the old gods once again! So what we were left with was a dry rationalistic intellectual culture that effectively left anything remotely numinous and magical in the hands of the various competing Christian churches. And the churches themselves were going in a rationalistic, a-numinous direction. No exalted person of 'enlightenment' consequence was really all that interested in renovating and re-distilling the ancient Divine Law for modern times (Thomas Taylor shall get a shout-out here); rather they were more fixated on what they were against rather than what they were for.

What we have today that passes for ethical values is almost entirely negative in nature; it's the ethics of what the individual deserves not to have done to them (the basis of 'negative rights'); very little is said about the duties and responsibilities the individual has to the social order (reciprocity). The infantile ravings of pseudo-intellectual vandals like JJ Rousseau illustrate this general attitude loud and clear. Heirs to Rousseau's 'tradition' (if we dare call it that) like the great scoundrel Karl Marx and his long line of followers, also had zero intention of building anything, much less anything sacred and time-tested. Those on the other side of this coin, like Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, had little to offer in response beyond intellectualized vulgar romanticism of various 'noble savage' fantasies (think: both Warrior and Merchant freed from any obnoxious restraints).

Fast forward to today and we can see precisely how this Lawlessness has been manifesting and wreaking havoc upon 'postmodern' Western civilization. If I may say, the only thing that may save us from total ruin is a rediscovery and re-presentation of the ancient Sacred Laws. Imagine the Delphic Maxims** being taught in elementary schools (Yeah, not gonna happen, as virtue*** and mental slavery mix like oil and water).

Finally, the positive: We do indeed have an Ancestral Law; one that comes from a multitude of sources and cultures which have fed into today's Western civilization. Our 'ancestors,' the Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Teutonics, Celts, among others, have lots of interesting and insightful things to say on Divine Law and human nature.

__

*Yes, I'd say that Christianity is rather antinomian. The New Testament scriptures barely contain anything that could be construed as law-giving tradition; thus Christians end up punting the legal ball to the Old Testament in search of moral precepts. Of course, thanks to the rabble-rouser Paul of Tarsus, Roman Christians (and all the subsequent offshoots of the Roman Church) have always had a rather awkward relationship with the Mosaic Laws, which is a specifically Jewish code of religious laws. Remember that before the rise of Christianity, the Jews were little more than the inhabitants of a marginal Levantine polis; one of little consequence to the rest of the great Mediterranean civilization of the time, beyond the several diaspora communities they had in a handful of Roman cities. And thus their ancestral laws are of little relevance to the rest of the traditions which form the foundation of Western civilization.

**Meditating on these numinous precepts and aphorisms raises the seemingly-obvious notion that Athens indeed has no use for Jerusalem.

***Here I specifically mean Arete, not the warmed-over, secularized fire and brimstone craziness that passes for 'virtue' today.

Short answer: Hell No.

Long-winded answer:

The notion that polytheistic traditions of yore are somehow a direct refutation of the kind of religious hierarchy we find in... say... various Christian churches, is an idea that is quite popular among many self-styled "pagans" of this current era. Of course this is an erroneous and baseless idea.

It seems that so many people in this era who are attracted to ‘paganism’ flock to it because of the perceived ‘lack-of-hierarchy’ or something along those lines. Neopagans of various stripes do a bang-up job convincing themselves that the pre-Christian religions and their practitioners lacked hierarchical structure and were categorically opposed to the entire concept. Umm, no. In reality, the neopagans, who are usually some combination of naïve and rebellious youths, and sometimes outright misfits who fail to make any headway in the competence hierarchies of normal society, are just shopping around for a ‘religion’ they believe to be the opposite of the (likely) Christian environment they were raised in, or some other type of hyper-structured (and possibly dogma-based) upbringing that left a bad lasting impression on them.

Of course the idea that pre-Christian folk religions lacked hierarchy is a totally ahistoric view, and quite ridiculous to those of us who have actually done the relevant homework on this. I often quip the actual neopagan worldview (and obnoxious reconstructionists that I also class as neopagans) who like to make this claim is actually much closer to that of the Protestant Christians they’re under the impression they are running away from (not quite!!), than anything resembling an ancient culture where honoring the gods was the norm.

The second major thing that might give them the impression of non-hierarchy, is that, in practice modern polytheistic movements are actually not very hierarchical owing to the fact that the movement as a whole is so small, niche (compared to the big popular religions) and geographically scattered all over the place; and to boot, it’s subdivided into many different sub-movements based on differing folk traditions. Such small numbers means the lack of resources to establish and sustain brick-and-mortar polytheist religious institutions, which seems to make it appear as there aren't real clerical/priestly hierarchies (though this isn’t really true once we scratch beneath the surface).

This is aslo the major reason why pagan/polytheist spaces seem to be so chock full of Leftists (i.e. people's whose true religion is modern-day secular-left ideology) wearing ‘pagan’ skinsuits. The broader movement seems to attract mostly the wrong type of people, as opposed to genuine seekers and devotees seriously interested in honor the gods, and placing the honoring of the gods above whatever petty contemporary secular political ideology-of-the-week happens to be favored at any given moment. Organizations without clear leadership, a strict vetting process for leadership positions, and a clearly-defined, tradition-faithful knowledge base that can’t be quickly rewritten or memory-holed on a whim, are super-easy for entryists to subvert and pervert. The entryists easily use their tried-and-true emotional bullying and gaslighting tactics to strongarm the typically-easygoing founder of the original group to bend to their will and let them hijack the group.

Finding polytheists these days who are serious and rightly put religion over politics seems to be like finding a needle in a haystack. They do exist though and thankfully I've found a few great people to interact and exchange ideas and insights with.

Some interesting copypasta from the 'Temple of the Hermetic One' FB page, regarding the incapability of most Neopagan groups to actually organize and build anything substantial:

**Begin text**

The Futility of Power Struggles

Let me preface this by saying I will be pointing out something that does not wholly exist in the group I am addressing, or the bright souls I see recently drawn to this temple.

Our founder spoke much before this temple was even named about the problem of self-made priesthood and that there were "too many chiefs, not enough indians". I want to take the opportunity to explain the depth of that problem and its implications to pagan temples.

I took a small meander this weekend. I lurked over a few groups online here, a few websites in the "pagansphere", and was disappointed. If you did look yourself you would recognize many of the same tired issues that come about when Pagan communities form. Issues I had hoped to be past, considering the flourishing of neoplatonism recently.

I recognized these things a couple of years into my almost two decades of life as a pagan. Tomes of pedantic conversations, people peddling their manifestos and constantly trying to establish dominance over one another. I guarantee you will see it in almost every Pagan group. If you've been involved in the Pagan Community you probably recognized those things. As far back as I remember most pagan worship groups fizzle out, strangled in infancy by gossip and the grandstanding of those who compose it.

Power struggle in these groups is always inevitable because those who join the temple see it often as just a means to satisfy their vanity.

Make no mistake about it. Any pagan religious community with any hope of being anything more meaningful than a book club has a mountain of work ahead of it. Too much work to be engaged in wars of gossip, scrabbling for nonexistent social footholds.

There are bridges to build between ourselves and those we are reaching out to. There is stone and mortar to be placed for the foundation of actual temples. If you compared our temples to those built by Mormon communities or Catholic communities, it's downright shameful to even think about. People who had barely a penny to their name banded together to build churches for themselves. There was no question to them that it needed to be done, it was just done.

Our temples need teachers, artists, builders, speakers, and everything between. If you find yourself serious about starting these services, you end up serving several of these roles at once.

For example. The Hindu temple in Louisville KY was built by a loyal group from the ground up, in a metropolitan area no less. They pour their work into their temple, only to have their windows smashed and walls vandalized by ignorant Christian hands. With Christians bashing their property, a growing population of devotees, and constant teaching and ceremonies...there obviously can be no time for the kind of pompous, reality-starved, nagging community of people trying to jostle over one another for a second of spotlight. No, and thankfully most of the people reading these words are likely tired of those sort of communities as well. Yet they are still so prevalent. How worthless!

We must animate ourselves, and compliment the work of each our brethren. We should seek to treasure each other's work, to amplify it. Everything we do now is a gift to each other and the gods. When you awaken in the morning, ask yourself what you will do today to bring hope and strength to your spiritual community. Who needs your aid? Every ounce of effort is precious.

If you find yourself surrounded by playgans and paper men, do not bluster. Take the paternal approach and give wisdom freely from those who ask for it, the rest will fade back into the irrelevance from which they came. Those who are focused and possessing of goodwill will win the day.

The one within all, the all within one-

Brother Nordalah

**End text**

My commentary:

I think the main issue here is twofold:

1. Most of these "Neopagan" movements have very little appeal to the common person. And thus these groups disproportionately attract weirdos, eccentrics, oddballs, misfits, ect.; the kind of people who these days are fleeing or steering clear from traditional religions and the type of structured organizations which sustain those religions. And in addition to the hyper-abundance of "know-it-alls" among these people, they also tend to be the sort of people who seldom have much in the way of extra cash to tithe toward a substantial project, like the construction of a brick-and-mortar temple. In reality, a stable religion needs the support of ordinary people, i.e. a community, in order to grow, thrive, and sustain itself.

2. In this day and age, especially in the West, and most especially here in America, a sizable number of people have very little respect for authority and hierarchy, i.e. the element needed to clearly delineate the cooks from the diners. We live in a largely Protestant culture (whether or not people are confessed Christian believers is largely irrelevant here) where Martin Luther's mandate that everyone be their own pope is still very much alive and well. By that we can say that much of Neopaganism is simply Protestantism dressed up in silly Ren-Fair costumes. On the psychological level, Neopagans are quite alien to the actual pagans of yore. Self-made priesthood is cooked into the DNA of Protestantism, whether the Protestant movement in question is religious or secular.

Someone recently asked me my opinion on the revisionist vs. reconstructionist approaches to modern paganism. Here's my response.

I'm more in the revisionist camp. To me, reconstructionist ethnic paganism is highly reductive, pedantic and pointless. An example would be groups who attempt to reconstruct not just Germanic or Nordic paganism but very specifically Anglo Saxon paganism. First, we have very little info on the exact pantheon or ritual practices of the Anglo Saxon culture, secondly, this culture was very short lived in any purely pagan form, as they invaded Britain in the 500s and were largely Christianized by the 800s. So that's like a 300 year window to reconstruct, which in the history of the British Isles is just a tiny blip...seems rather arbitrary. They might as well go Brythonic pagan, as the Celtic Britons had been established there for a much longer span of time.

We could say that the Anglo Saxon culture didn't simply cease to exist once the people were Christianized. As we know, there were more invasions to the Island (ex, the Vikings and later the Normans) and thus changes to the cultures. The things about cultures is that unless they are in very isolated/remote locations, they tend to change/shift quite a bit over time. The reconstructionist mentality assumes a static, unchanging culture....which is pretty divorced from reality.

A crucial part of Anglo-Saxon (i.e. English) culture includes the importation of Old Norse and Norman French language and culture into the overall mix. Fast forward to today and the modern English language happens to have a vocab that's about 70% derived from medieval French, and much of that French is derived from classical Latin. So we could say that a genuinely "Native English" pagan religion for today might have a lot of Latin/Roman elements to it, not just Germanic, much less a tiny snapshot of one particular Germanic localization frozen in time.

In closing, I'm of the belief that any purely antiquarian endeavor (like reconstrucitonist paganism) taking place today is nothing more than a LARP.