Caustic Ramblings

In the first installment of this series I started grasping at an idea – that our popular understanding of “paganism” (i.e. Natural Religion) today comes from a very distorted perspective. We generally look at these ancient religions from several thousand feet up in the air; we see the rooflines and treetops rather well, but have nary a clue about how the buildings of the towns and cities are constructed, or what types of trees we are seeing in the surrounding woodlands.

This misleading perspective stems from out tendency to look first at fixed pantheons and standardized mythologies and then other aspects second. Modern academics and enthusiasts typically gloss over the “on-the-ground” building blocks of the religion or at least downplay these fundamental elements in terms of overall importance.

Over the past several years I have read several books which starkly challenge this popular set of assumptions. The first I gave a very brief look at in my first post in this series. The Ancient City by Fustel de Coulanges, the author presents a compelling thesis – a proposal that ancient religion begins first with the family cult, and then over time, it gradually scales its way up to the “high” civilizational forms of paganism most of us are familiar with today. I found this to be a sound thesis, though missing an important element; namely that of the actual numinous experiences of the people participating in these ancient religions. The book is written from a wholly detached, secular perspective; the implication seems to be that these religions primary served as a social technology; one that was utilized for a very long time to propagate and uphold a culture’s family structures and civic institutions.

As a “believer” in all sorts of numinous things, I’m inclined to mix in some missing elements to the half-empty cauldron that is Coulanges’ insights. Well, I’m thinking of one missing element in particular. I propose that even older than the family cults (gentilism), was the massively-shared understanding which says that the world around us is quite alive; that everything in our environment, including trees, rocks, rivers, springs, hills, mountains, ect., is imbued with some sort of numinous life force, or even active consciousness. Today we understand this set of assumptions as being “animism.” The specific flavor of gentilism Coulanges explains in great depth was a likely something specific to various offshoot nations of the ancient Indo-European people. Integral to those cults was animistic belief. Animism itself is something found in every single native religion in all times and places the world over. The universality of animism is something that points toward a shared reality that anyone can experience.

I’m inclined to propose that gentilism arose in response to animist spiritual experience; the family cult came about as a way of making sense of our weird experiences with the rather-murky spirit world that surrounds and interacts with us. Once we start assigning concrete meaning to our hazy, dreamlike experiences, it becomes much easier to explain away all those chaotic things that’s an ever-present wellspring of anxiety and uncertainty. Those odd spirits lurking about can be (temporarily) satiated with material offerings of various sorts. Shamans, mediums, and diviners can communicate with those spirits to figure out what it is they they want and what benefits they can provide for us in return for creating and maintaining a gift cycle. Telling the people that at least some of these spirits are in fact ancestral ghosts, adds several layers of piety and familiarity to the practice of keeping these beings content and willing to help out out from time to time.

The second book I’d like to mention is The Deities are Many, by Jordan Paper. It does a great job (in my opinion) of getting at the sorts of things I’m talking about in the above paragraph.

What’s really neat about this book is that the author himself is both an academic and a practitioner of polytheism. Not only that, but he is a practitioner of several living polytheisms, as opposed to merely being involved with neopagan historical reconstructions. In other words, this isn’t just another dry academic work! The pages are quite alive and full cross-cultural propositions based on the author’s own personal, “hands-on” experiences with the book’s subject matter. I’ve read a bunch of very dry academic books on pagan topics and those tend to bore me to no end. This one is quite the opposite.

In the very early chapters he speaks of direct experiences with nature deities in Appalachia. He then tells us how he studied closely with Native American practitioners of their traditional religions. After that talks about how he lived in Taiwan for several years and studied the traditional Chinese folk religion in close detail. During that time he married a Taiwanese woman and got to partake directly in her Chinese family cult and the venerable temple traditions of the surrounding community. He tells us all sorts of interesting stories about trance mediums being possessed by deities and then those deities relaying rather concrete tips and tricks to their human devotees. He also gives us a much more holistic understanding of shamanism then we are used to hearing about from the usual sources. One gripe I have is that he often speaks very negatively about everything-Western (in a typical leftist-deconstructionist sort of way) and makes some crude generalizations about Western culture as a whole, but overall I found this to be a minor annoyance and doesn’t really detract much from the work as a whole.

To me, the book is a fascinating summary of the living traditions Paper studied and worked with. It would take me way too many words and posts to accurately summarize this work here. I will say though that after my first time reading it, I experienced a significant perspective-shift as far as my “paganism studies” are concerned. And without reading this book, I likely would have had a more difficult time properly contextualizing the insights of Coulanges. Paper’s observations tell us that it is in fact animism that constitutes the basic building blocks of these religions. I’m currently about ¾ the way through my second reading and that’s really helping me grasp some of the finer details I might have missed the first time around.

Paper’s book will probably take at least a few posts, as far as unpacking its main highlights is concerned. In the meantime, I think I can sign off with a very general statement – that it’s today’s living polytheisms which give us the best insights on how and why Natural Religions actually work.

I've gotten myself into a particular substack rabbit hole as of late. Specifically, on the topic of how "Monotheism" arose during late antiquity and how the many manifestations of this new movement interacted with the traditional cults of the Hellenic/Roman world.

The thesis of this substack author and the academics he cites is that the (once-popular) notion that "Monotheism" arose as uniquely-Judean phenomenon is simply dead wrong. In fact, according to this hypothesis, there was an indigenous "Pagan Monotheism" in and around the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East that become quite popular throughout Anatolia, Thrace, and Greece during the Roman era. The primary evidence for this is a cult that Christian church fathers referred to as the "Hypsistarians"; in reference to the object of their worship, Theos Hypsistos, which translates as, "God Most High" (sound familiar?)

Modern archeologists have found more than 300 inscriptions throughout the aforementioned geographic areas that can be linked to this cult. Some scholars in the past have claimed the Hypsistarians were simply gentile "God-fearers," i.e. Greeks and Romans who worshipped the Jewish god but were not actually a part of the Jewish community. The evidence from the inscriptions totally contradict such assertions, as we can see Hypsistarians venerating Apollo as an "Angel of God Most High." Nothing we know about their worship seems to point to them being Jews or Christians. If the Hypsistarian movement (and other similar cults) arose out of indigenous paganism then this would put to bed the once-popular notion that "God Most High" was a unique insight of the Judeans and that any religion or movement based on this concept somehow owes its origin to Judaism (the mere existence of Zoroastrianism already disproves that idea, but I do digress). Anyway, if these Hypsistarian folks poured one out for Apollo, they undoubtedly did as well for other pagan deities. To make a long story short, I think this three-part series of posts explains the hypothesis much better than I can:

https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-case-for-pagan-monotheism
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-hypsistarian-church-of-god-most
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-theology-of-the-hypsistarian

This is all quite so fascinating (as least I think so), but one objection I must voice is the use of the term "Monotheism" for this movement. To me, "Monotheism" simply means the belief in one and only one god. The author however expands the definition to include systems of belief that feature a "big G" God and include many "small g" gods. I understand this reasoning. He does this for pragmatic purposes, as he wishes to make a case for "uniting the right" of religious believers of various stripes. He sees the constant online infighting between Christians and Pagans as silly and counterproductive, and that they have more beliefs and goals in common than what might seem apparent. I get his intentions and I think they come from a good place. But the idealist in me is very sketchy about muddying the definition of words for the sake of practical or political expediency. Examining the concept of Monotheism though does open up its own can of worms: Is Christianity really Monotheist? (trinity, angels, saints, ect.). Is Zoroastrianism Monotheist or Di-theist? (that religion has a whole pantheon of divinities as well).

I instead propose a more neutral term, "Megatheism," to account for belief systems which have both the big-G God and little-g gods. This creates a very big tent that can include lots of different religions, philosophies, occult theories, ect. Embracing Megatheism can theoretically put to bed all the silly back-and-forth sniping "Monotheists" and "Polytheists" like to fling at one another. By this, great thinkers and sages like Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Cicero, Plutarch, Apollonius of Tyana, Valentinus, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Julian the "Apostate" (among so many others), were Megatheists through and through.

One the above hypothesis as a whole, I see the Hypsistarian movement as being part and parcel of the broader (then ascendant) "Magian" culture that the German historian Oswald Spengler wrote much about. According to my own intuition-based headcanon, the original Magian "ground zero" was a region that spanned from Upper Mesopotamia to Central Anatolia. The ancient Assyrian city of Harran was a key nexus of what was then a new religious awakening. The original cultures to partake in Magianism were the Arameans, Chaldeans, Medes/Persians, Cilicians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Thracians, Armeneans, and perhaps some other groups. The Jews were the first people to codify Magian ideas into a concrete, book-based religion, however none of the core elements of Magian spirituality originated with the Jews (they were however instrumental in spreading Magian religious sentiments around to many different locales).

One useful thing I can see coming out of this discourse is the possibility the we can finally put to bed the popular adherence to the silly idea that a single historically-marginal people had unique and exclusive access to correct ideas about the Divine and Divinity. What we do really need now is an intelligent and principled form of ecumenism; 1000 boats each going their own way does not a community make! In that sense, I believe the above substack author really does have his intentions in the right place.

I’ve blogged exhaustively in the past about Neopagans, particularly the woke form of it, which I believe accounts for a good portion of Neopagans who use their “religion” is a shallow front for the expression of their political beliefs and overall worldview that’s mostly rooted in modern-day pop culture. Since I’ve more than put that issue to bed, I won’t drone on about it any further.

Starting several months ago, out of curiosity, I took to social media (ugh, I know..), read a few books, and a listened to few podcasts, in order to check out the right-wing side of the Neopagan scene. You see, I have been something of an amateur anthropologist since I can remember. I’ve always had a blazing curiosity about whatever this or that “scene” is up to. Anyway, back on topic; I had already been aware of the so-called “Folkish vs. Universalist” ideological war within Heathenry, (Germanic Neopaganism) and in my investigations I learned that this has spilled over into some of the other Neopagan ethnic ice cream flavors. Below, I’m mostly going to be talking about American right-wing Neopagans. I believe that Europeans (who tend to live in countries with mostly-homogeneous ethnic ancestry) have a lot more of a legitimate claim on the things I will be talking about.

All in all, I found the American iteration to be ruled by an incoherent mob mentality and a very pronounced disdain for philosophy and intellectualism (no, Frederich Nietzsche quote-memes don’t count). Instead, I found plenty of the following:

*Pseudo-masculine sentimentalism
*Shallow collectivist yearnings
*The copious use of reheated 19th century romanticist leftovers
*Repetitive yapping about “ethnic gods”
*The shrill insistence that ideas and beliefs derive their validity from the ethnic pedigree of each respective idea (as opposed to inherent truth value)
*Lots and lots of grievance politics (sound familiar?)

As far as I can tell, the lion’s share of right-wing Neopagans are Heathens and their common themes I’ve seen coloring their paganism are:

*”The Folk” (that is, the yearning for ethnic collectivism as form of social organization)
*The idolization of their claimed ancestry; typically revolving around ethnic groups (ex: the Old Norse culture) that ceased to exist many centuries ago, or have evolved into modern day ethnicities that have very little in common culturally with their pre-Christian forebears, despite maybe a few preserved vestiges of the older folk culture.
*The notion that a person's blood content determines which gods they should worship.
*Appeals to “might makes right” morality
*”Blood and Soil” nationalist tropes claimed as spiritual teachings
*Hard Polytheism taken to absurd extremes
*A literal interpretation of myths and other literary source materials

And these themes are what we see before even getting into the political side of this particular niche subculture.

By “folk” they are referring to their attempt, as European Americans (i.e. Whites), to create a modern-day collectivist, neo-tribal identity based on this-or-that European ancestral stock the group in question claims descent from. The main issue I see with this is that they are appealing specifically to pre-Christian ancestry; which in practice means appealing to ancestry from so far back in time that it’s nearly impossible to know much of anything about such ancestors. So this “ancestry” they talk about all the time is little more than an abstraction, in practical terms. This abstraction fails to correspond with any modern day lived experience. On the contrary, virtually all of their knowable ancestors are Christians, for better or worse. There’s a huge gaping historical void between the Christianized present and the very distant pagan past these people are hearkening back towards. I’ve come across more than a few right-wing Heathens with very mixed European ancestry (i.e. “Amerimutts”) acting like whatever Germanic ancestry they might have as being their only spiritually-significant ancestry. One of the leaders of a sizable East Coast Folkish group has an Italian surname. The founding father of American Folkish Heathenry (Asatru Folk Assembly is his organization) is a man by the name of Stephen McNallen; yeah, I’ve seen no shortage of Irish and Scottish surnames among the followers of these groups. Yet, the Germanic deities are the only ones they seem find relevant based on ancestral appeals.

An Instant Coffee Religion

If I am going to take a wild guess here, I’d say that most participants in these groups aren’t exactly genealogy aficionados, nor are they history buffs. Rather, the guiding ideology is White Nationalism, which is a form of identitarian grievance politics based on White American racial identity. Because of this we see bizarre claims like that the specifically-Germanic deities are somehow the “folk gods” of all white people. It really just means their main criteria for letting people in their groups is that they are passably-white. I doubt anyone is being subjected to a DNA ancestry test. Really though, I think the folkist adoption of the Germanic/Norse pantheon and folklore originally came about as an arbitrary decision based on the fact that the collection of medieval Icelandic sources (Eddas, Sagas, ect.) is the closest thing we have to any detailed documentation of pre-Christian Northern European religion. So those materials are simply “good enough” to appropriate and claim as an instant pan-White, non-Abrahamic religion to latch onto for identity purposes. Don’t let the contradictory appeals to ancestry get in the way of that! Also, on the resurgence of Germanic Neopaganism in general, we should remember this first came about in the wake of the 1960s counterculture. The hippies were big on the whole “noble savage” thing. From the Summer of Love onward, it was high time to get back to nature and simpler times! Neopagans could have just as easily adopted the Greco-Roman pantheon as a basis for a Western pagan identity, but no, that whole thing was all about High Civilization, cosmopolitanism, multi-ethnic empires, cultural and religious syncretism, and other complicating factors. You see, this is all about feelings and aesthetics. Spirituality whaaaaat?

One last word on ancestry. I, myself have done a DNA ancestry test, and later on I built myself a dandy little family tree. Actually, it’s quite elaborate and detailed. I’ve been able to trace many ancestors on the British Isles side of my family back to the 1500s. These ancestors hail from every single British Isles ethnic group. This raises an important question in my view; why are my Highland Scot ancestors (Campbells, represent!) any more special or meaningful than my English ancestors? What about my Welsh and Irish ancestors? Why would any one of these ancestral ethnicities have any special bearing on what form of spirituality I study or practice today?

You are more than your physical body's molecules

I guess what I’m getting at is that I think that for Americans, appealing to ancestry is a rather shallow way of deciding on which spiritual path or pantheon of gods to follow. In a recent Magic Monday response, John Michael Greer explains this quite well from an Occult perspective:

“Yes, I'm familiar with [the belief that ancestry should define one’s sprituality], but I consider it mistaken. The genetics of your present material body simply don't have that much to do with your spiritual and occult practices. Past life connections tend to be considerably more important, and it's fairly rare these days for anyone to have an unbroken series of lives in one and only one ethnic group -- far more often, it's a complete jumble, and appropriately so, since one point of reincarnation is that it gives you the chance to explore many different ways of being human.”

I’ve seen some rather entertaining “Twitter battles” between pagans who utilize elaborate systems of thought like Platonism, Hindu philosophy, or Buddhism to guide their pagan practice, versus the kinds of ethno-cosplayers I’ve describe above. The usual retort from the latter tends to be the assertion that the philosophical belief in question is DEAD WRONG because those ideas happened to have originated from the “wrong” ethnic group. For example, Platonists were Greeks, so to mix in Platonism with Germanic paganism is outright heresy! Yes, the absurdity reveals itself immediately. Not only is this crude materialism masquerading as spirituality, but according to them, ideas have no independent merit; ideas just means to an end for some mundane concern or agenda. Ideas are nothing more than a reflection of some group’s will-to-power dynamics. Sound familiar? Yes, such utterances are a direct product of the postmodernist paradigm. Like their leftist Neopagan counterparts, right-wing Neopagans are very often atheists who use their “playganism” as a perma-Halloween costume to gallop around in.

Anything to bring back a sense of enchantment

Honestly, I can understand what motivates this kind of cosplay act. In today’s postmodern industrial Western world, there is a crushing level of anomie which has been brought about by mass social atomization and the rise of rampant consumerism, “dog-eat-dog” rat race economics replacing most forms of community cohesion, ubiqutous and hegemonic materialism, the loss of a coherent civilizational identity, the steep demographic decline of the core Western ethnic stock (i.e. White Europeans), and the overall uglification and vulgarization of nearly everything in the physical environment. So yeah, I get it. Turning back the clock and retreating into a “noble savage” fantasy world might seem like a rather appealing alternative to those who aren’t especially gifted in the imagination department.

On a more charitable note, the sort of ideas and behaviors I pointed out in the above sections are mostly associated with a handful of social media personalities who are vocal proponents of said ideas (in addition to their followers who frequently post comments). As many of us know quite well, loud people on social media don’t necessarily define the whole or majority of whatever groups they associate with or claim to represent.

I did look into a few Folkish Heathen organizations, and for the most part these seem like very wholesome, family-oriented groups. Their events are centered around weekend camping activities and outdoor worship of the gods. In other words, very cool stuff! The members appear for the most part to be working class people who work in the trades and other honest occupations that are closely connected to the physical economy. This stands in stark contrast to the leftist/woke/universalist camp, which (as far as I can tell) is populated by people associated with the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), who are generally-affluent, university-educated people and very often employed in salaried office jobs, i.e. work that deals with abstractions and tends to be rather disconnected from the physical economy. Leftist neopagans see the folkish types as being evil incarnate and hurl the usual angry slurs (racist!!, sexist!!, bigot!! nazeeeeeeee, ___phobe!!, ect.) in their general direction. What I think is really going on is the usual class bigotry we see from PMCs toward white working class people; of course very thinly clad with moralistic pretense. From what I’ve observed though, Folkish pagans tend to be rather egalitarian on most issues; for example, the men treat women as equals in terms of worth and intelligence, which seems to be a healthy balance with their very positive attitude toward masculinity. But of course that doesn’t at all stop the hysterical accusations and incendiary invective woke Neopagans keep spitting in their general direction.

Left-wing heathens are extremely paranoid and hyper-reactive when it comes to past associations of Germanic pagan elements with National Socialism. In many ways I don't fault them for this. The reactions are quite predictable though when any form of not-leftist neopaganism is even hinted at in their online spaces. The moment the leftist pagan group begins to suspect even an ounce of sympathy (or even tepid non-denouncement) toward the Folkish side of things from a newcomer, that newcomer is immediately dogpiled and then very quickly ejected from the group. Worse, if the newcomer was unfortunate enough to share photos and personal details about themselves, they just might become an immediate target of doxxing and harassment. But yes, the Woke Neopagans have now become the witch-burners and heresy-hunters that just prior generations of Neopagans would vehemently decry. The hunter becomes the hunted, and the hunted becomes the hunter; this is human nature in a nutshell.

It seems I have digressed much and that I’ve only touched on one particular subculture within the fold of Right-wing Neopaganism. In the next installment, I’ll explore the Hellenic quarter of this post-liberal counterculture that has a thing for dressing up in historical pagan garb.

I’ve been steadily working my way through (what I can only hope is) a broad survey of the Germanic Pagan Revival (GPR). My interest in this has ebbed and flowed over the past couple years, but once I got over the initial hurdle, my interest has seemed to only intensify. So what was that hurdle? I’d call that the Asatru problem. By this, I’m referring to the fixation much of the GPR has had on the Viking Age Norse/Scandinavian culture, due to the obvious fact that most of the surviving source materials we have on the pre-Christian Germanic religion comes from the medieval Icelandic sources anyone today even somewhat familiar with the GPR already knows about quite well.

The main issue for me is that I don’t find the Viking Age stuff to be the least bit appealing. I have zero desire to LARP as a Viking or pretend I even have a slight clue what it was like to be part of a harsh warrior culture from 1000 years ago in a far off land. Search anywhere on the internet for Germanic paganism and nearly everything that comes up is saturated with Viking themes and sources. I think this leads many to conflate “Germanic” with Norse/Viking; when in fact Germanic culture is magnitudes more broad and expansive than that. I think this problem is due to a problem inherent in all of Neopaganism; namely that the whole edifice is build on a seething aversion to Christianity and Europe’s long Christian past. So here we have a religious paradigm that defines itself by what it is not, as opposed to what is it. That’s never a good way to start things off, in my view.

( Read more... )

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.

Periodically I like to ask myself just for kicks, "So, what is my religion?" Then there's a few alternatives to this self-inquiry that might go something like, "What's my philosophy?" or "What's my political ideology?" After a few minutes of thinking back and forth on the matter, the vague answer that comes back seems to always be, "none of the above." In other words, "don't even try and put me in a box!" Yeah, that does sounds kind of snowflakeish, but oh well.

It seems to me in this day and age of non-compulsory metaphysical beliefs (though currently under threat, I might add) that the aspiration of independent-mindedness and the self-identification with some prepackaged set of beliefs are two things that stand in opposition to one another. If I'm to identify with an "ism" then it seems that I cease to be a free inquirer and instead must function as an apologist, shill, or sophist in service of the "ism" in question, whenever I'm to speak in the company of others about said "ism." Also, when I do identify with any philosophy or belief system, then the person or people I'm conversing with will automatically assume I support ever position popularly-ascribed to that doctrine or school of though.

No, I'm a Metaphysical Free-Agent, or as I like to put it simply, a Seeker. Does this mean I believe in nothing? Or that I'm some kind of milquetoast fence-sitter who is incapable of settling on a position on whatever issue? Or that I'm some kind of postmodern relativist who doesn't believe there is a such thing as objective truth? Or that I'm a perma-rebel who refuses to accept an external epistemological authority?

Well, maybe there's some truth to that last one. But for the other rhetorical-hypotheticals? No. In fact, I would say the idea that one must identify with a concrete belief system is something peculiar to an era encapsulating roughly the last 2000 years. Prior to that, it was quite normal for philosophers, seers, and other thinkers to professor their own peculiar beliefs and most especially to clash with the other known thinkers of their time. I'm reminded of Cicero, who was a sort of philosophical eclectic, drawing many influences from the Platonism from his time, and some ideas from the very popular Stoicism, yet not strongly identifying with any particular school. Many other Greco-Roman intellectuals of that time took a similar approach. Yet, most of these men were very pious, conservative, and patriotic. It's only in the modern era that it's popularly-assumed that to be conservative and loving of one's own culture/society, it's imperative to be "religious" in the dogmatic sense. Not being a "religious" person of this type must mean giving into the political opinions of liberals/leftists who are out to erode society, or whatever it is they are doing.

I don't think so.

The other charge that conservative and pseudo-traditional tryhards tend to issue forth is that not being "religious" though being "spiritual" at the same time must mean one buys into the usual grab-bag of "New Age" fluff that religious sectarians associate with any and all non-canonical spiritual ideas of the current time. No, in fact, the spiritual ideas I give most credence to tend to be rather ancient, yet they don't need to be boxed up in a book or some convenient collection of writings. So, yeah I think the implication that not "believing" in some closed set up beliefs makes one a "libtard" is quite silly and groundless. As if independent thinking and epistemological chaos are one in the same. Rather, it seems this sort of reflexive "conservativism" is just the usual lazy thinking and desperate search for easy answers that most people tend to default to in times of confusion. The kind of dogmatic religion we know too well, just be the only kind of religion, because that's what seemed to work in the recent past. Any inquiry beyond that is asking too many annoying questions and trying to introduce too much nuance and debate into what should be such a clear-cut issue.

On my own "beliefs" I could say that I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic ideas compared to the ideas of other philosophical schools. Yet I'm loathe to declare myself a "Platonist" partisan and box myself into a a limited set of concrete propositions on the nature of reality. I'd rather just keep asking questions and see what insights then come to me (for better or worse). With regard to any specific religion, the answer is a resolute "none of the above." I think all the big religions that have survived to this day are highly flawed and ill-suited to the present times we live in; not to mention, many of them are plagued/burdened by what I see is as just plain bad doctrines and dogmas. I'm sympathetic to polytheism as a concept, but I will not pretend for one moment that I hail from any of the cultures the old pagan cults came from. I like some ancient Greek motifs, but I am of course not an ancient Greek. Nor am I an ancient Germanic/Norse person. Nor pre-Christian Celtic, or anything of that nature. And I'm not going to start randomly cold-calling the various deities from those old traditions anytime soon. Again, I'm going to be patient and see what insights might or might not come to me.

In summary, I think there's much to be said for taking the humble position of being a Philosophical Independent, or simply a Seeker.

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.

Some recent thoughts of mine on why occultism (psychism) is can be such a dangerous path for the type of people who exist in this age and culture:

1. The practice of Psychism devoid of Spirituality always leads to disaster, in my estimation. Many people have enough trouble navigating the material plane without any solid principles to live by; taking the same condition to the astral is going to be even worse by many degrees. It's simply too easy and common for the ignorant and egocentric to get seduced and tricked by the various classes of baddies who dwell on the subtle planes.

2. Spirituality devoid of religion (which doesn't necessarily have to be a big, organized one) offers very little in the way of an intelligible means for the average seeker to distill spiritual principles into concrete rules, precepts, guidelines, advice, ect. Yes, more mature seekers, ones who are at least somewhat self-directed, and philosophically-minded, can do this on their own (granted they are practicing an established system or method) but this doesn't really work for the untrained and clueless, which is the vast majority. I would consider myself a lower-level seeker and I've come to terms with the idea that I'm struggling quite a bit with trying to practice spirituality in a self-directed manner; even using established methods has proven to be quite the challenge. But on that last part; this is why reputable teachers and written sources are so crucial. I almost hate to admit that I find myself religion-shopping (A cringe term, I know...) once again. For most, I don't think the esoteric can be practiced safely in lieu of an exoteric doctrine or set of precepts; and if two are combined then they cannot be too symbolically dissimilar, lest the unfortunate combination might amplify the pre-existing elemental imbalances of the immature seeker.

3. The degenerative culture we now live in is one of hyper-atomized individualism; people by and large reject competence hierarchies when it comes to the qualitative sciences. Ever since the late 60s, we've been mentally programmed to think it's "cool" to see the Critical Parent archetype (which in Spirituality, is the Hierophant or Guru) as something to constantly mock, deride, and act in defiance of. And since then, any formal type of social organization (except the state or one's big corporate employer, funnily enough) scaled higher than the nuclear family is something that's to be seen as suspect. And now the family itself is under this same type of attack. So, by all of this, the notion that one must defer authority and experience in spirituality to a reputable grand master or high priest or even a humble teacher with a lot of sweat equity under his or her belt, is something to be harshly rejected; because after all, it's an affront to modern sensibilities! There's no question why the vast majority of those butting their nose into occultism these days have no clue what they are doing. In fact, they probably pride themselves on this, though likely that part takes place subconsciously. In our Brave New (Woke) World, Truth is subjective and everyone is their own pope. The legions of astral critters chomping at the bit out there in the shadowy mists must absolutely adore this arrangement.

4. With this arrangement of inverted and broken-down social hierarchies being the norm now, most attempts to organize a group of seekers along sane principles and a proper baseline respect of knowledge and skill, is bound to devolve into chorus of shrieks, howls, and general psychodrama. The so-called "alt spirituality" scene, the place where those interested in occultism tend to flock, are the kind of people who were raised by the TV, online social media, and the sort of mind-rotting garbage that passes for "education" in today's government indoctrination centers. In other words, the kids sure weren't raised by knowledgeable and caring elders, much less ones they've personally met face-to-face. As a result, when the misguided moderns and postmoderns dive head-first into things like occultism and the attempt to venerate the Old Gods, they're bound to see things like deities, spirits, spiritual powers/attainments, psychic abilities, ect. like they are pokemons or power-ups they easily grab in their favorite video game. No one is around to teach them otherwise, and even if they were, their knowledge would surely be spat upon with puerile defiance.

5. I think the relative anomaly this is JMG's Ecosophia group/commentariat , helps illustrate some of my above points. Through years of JMG's diligent comment-weeding and troll-banning, we have a nice little group of respectful and open-minded people who can respect expertise and knowledge without falling into the opposing extreme of blind guru worship or devotional madness (typical Piscean pitfalls). This I think might be good template of how spiritual order gets reestablished in the Aquarian Age. But most seekers today aren't fortunate to have found a group like this. Or they lack the character and maturity to behave courteously in such a group.

6. No matter how much I rant about how occultism today is too dangerous for most people, those curious people are going to do it anyway. And may the universe have mercy on their souls when they screw up big or just do something really stupid. I've been taught that the Gods don't really have a plan for this, or really any sort of systematic mitigation process in place. The notion that most of the Gods are uncaring is another factor that's brought on my new round of religion shopping. The Eastern religions in particular all tend to be anchored around transcendent principles that aren't dependent on mythological particulars and peculiarities from 3000 years ago.

From a conversation I was having in a chat recently:

In my own view, Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul of the Christian tradition) would seem to be a rather tragic personage, and on his own abilities and personality, a sort of pseudo-knower (Gnostic). Granted, he must have been quite wise and intuitively-gifted, and probably had a fair number of profound spiritual experiences of his own. However, like many other failed initiates of his era, it seems apparent that he never bothered to master any of the systems of practice he had been involved with prior to starting his own cult (classic blunder of failed initiates). And thus he never effectively dealt with his own ego issues prior to having the bright idea (on the Road to Damascus, surely) of starting his own religion. And predictably, the cult he did found ended up being permanently tainted by his own ego-flaws. Paul could be seen as a classic example of the junior initiate who betrays the mysteries by sharing some of the teachings with the masses; which he most certainly did when he dumbed down some of the inner teachings (which he undoubtedly pilfered from whatever mystery cults he did actually belong) into into silly parables and simple doctrinal talking points. He would have called these digestible tidbits, 'milk for babes.'

Yes, it seems Saul was a rather complicated character. He was caught between two worlds, the Jewish and Hellenic (Platonic, to be more specific), and as a result had an inner identity conflict he tried to resolve though the hybrid cult he ended up trying to spread all over the Mediterranean. I suspect that earlier in his life he was an avid reader of both Plato and Philo's Jewish take on Plato's philosophy. And as I alluded to above, he probably also belonged to one or more Hellenic mystery cults, likely each with a Platonic or Neo-Pythagorean core theme; his lifetime and geographic region would have made a plausible case for him possibly having been a student of the great 1st century CE Neopythagorean sage Apollonius of Tyana, or perhaps a student of an offshoot school of his.

So at some point Saul had the bright idea of trying to convert fellow Jews to his own peculiar, rather dualistic and partially-Judaized interpretation of Platonic doctrines. And when that mostly failed he took his strange new cult doctrine to the non-Jews; mostly the Hellenes of various Anatolian cities of the Roman Empire. And for one reason or another, disaffected Hellenes were eventually joining his cult in droves, though in the letters we're clued into the probable reality that the laity and clergy were taught very different doctrines. In other words, the common rabble, with their vulgar, wordily understanding of reality, were starkly differentiated from the initiates who had tasted the first fruits of Gnosis. At this point in early Christianity, the Knowers and Hearers (to use the old Pythagorean organizational model) were members of the same Church body. At the new religion spread around further and gained more members it started schisming off into different sects. Undoubtedly, there were many hearers who were deemed unsuitable for initiation into the ranks of knowers, but that didn't stop them from thinking they had things figured out on their own, and the more egocentric among them would go off and forms their own churches, sans-knowers. And we all know how history proceeded from there.

I would agree with Nietzsche's assessment of Pauline Christianity being 'Platonism for the people.' This does indeed seem like what Saul was attempting to accomplish in spreading his new cult ideology around the Eastern parts of the empire. But this all raises the question, what did Saul actually himself believe? My best guess is that his beliefs were a combination of what I mentioned above (Judaic Platonism), coupled with a grab-bag of mystery school doctrines which were circulating around during the 1st century. Two primary ideas he would have understood were, (1) the cycle of rebirths human souls experience over countless lifetimes, and (2) the Precession of the Equionixes, which is the esoteric doctrine which informs on the Astrological Ages we experience here on Earth. A thorough understanding of the latter doctrine would inform the initiate that humanity at the time was entering a long 'dark age' and thus the next 6,000 years or so would be a time of sorrow, ignorance, crass materialism, degeneracy, non-virtuous living, and a whole host of other spiritual ills. In other words, a terrible time to incarnate on this planet. Perhaps to Saul, the best viable alternative would be to gain sufficient Gnosis in order to ascend into 'The Kingdom of Heaven' which really was just his own quasi-Judaized way of referring to Plato's realm of Perfect Forms. The idea was, "we must get out NOW, before it's too late!!" And here Saul conveniently borrowed the immanency and urgency of Messianic Jewish time-perception and incorporating it into his own bastardized set of public teachings. He may of purposefully withheld the (true) doctrine of reincarnation from the Hearers, possibly thinking that telling the truth would undermine the sense of urgency he was trying to convey to his followers. Though some of the later, more mystically-inclined Church Fathers like Origen (along with many of the so-called 'Gnostics') would openly profess the reality of reincarnation. Again, the problem with the teaching of reincarnation is that it undermines and subverts the sort of microscopic time scales Abrahamic religions revolve around (this is the #1 reason why the post-Nicene Roman Church tried so virulently to expunge this doctrine from the written record). If there are indeed countless lifetimes available to a human soul to grow and evolve, then the message of "Immediate Salvation in this very lifetime, noowwwwwww!!' is rightly seen as being immensely infantile, especially when foisted upon less-mature human souls.

In summary, I believe Saul of Tarsus was a failed initiate of the higher mysteries and an ardent popularizer of Platonism (or rather, his own understanding of Platonism). He tried in vain to share some of these teachings with the masses and as a result ended up creating countless more problems than he solved. Hell, even the New Testament (a direct product of Paul's teachings) warns against this very act!!

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
-Matthew 7:6

As we know, the original core of initiates that constituted the leaders of early Christian movement were eventually trampled underfoot by the uninitiated literalists and dogmatists who later took over the church and remade it in their own cruddy image.

What a tragic figure indeed Paul was!

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.