Sometimes what goes on in international politics these days seems incredibly puzzling. If you look at contemporary wars as an example it seems that the “bad guys” are fighting other “bad guys”, while both sides are claiming to be fighting for a righteous cause. In this article I will attempt to give an explanation as to what the underlying reason for these wars is.

Modern War & Ideology.

Most of the readers of this blog are aware of the fact that there were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and that the American government knew it before invading Iraq. The so-called weapons were just a pretext. They were part of the rhetoric about protecting the ‘free world’ (especially the United States) from the ‘evil dictator’, Saddam Hussein, who could ‘threaten our freedom’ to consume what we like in unlimited quantities and thus our very ‘way of life’. Thus, Mr. Saddam was declared part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ and removed by the righteous forces of ‘God’s own country’. The same thing happened in Afghanistan and may or may not happen in Iran.

If we asked the Taliban why they are fighting the Americans, or if we asked Mr. Ahmadinejad why he is so hostile towards them, then I am sure they would say that the Americans are the actual axis of evil (or the “big Satan”), manipulating their allies (the “small Satan”) into fighting for them for an unrighteous cause.

Superficially it seems that there are conflicting views and ideologies causing conflicts and wars.

Ideology: Real or Pretext?

On one level this is certainly correct. But I think most of the readers of this blog will agree with me that neither side really is righteous by any real standard. It is probably not necessary to discuss the American situation in detail save to say that its government is among the most degraded in the world, being habituated as it is to lies, manipulation, double-standards, cultural imperialism, and deep hypocrisy. The above example concerning ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is sufficient to show that.

American soldiers fighting the unholy war

What about Iran and the others? Are they righteous? I wish they were, but it really seems doubtful. Saddam was just a petty old-fashioned megalomaniac dictator - nothing righteous about him. The Taliban? Well, in my understanding genuine religious governments (for the most part even Islamic ones) were, in the ancient world, always rather liberal. The reason is that the rules of a religion are followed due to cultural conditioning - people follow the tenets of religion because they were brought up with them and because the rest of their family and society around them do. The culture - not external force - was what maintained the sanctity, decency and morality of traditional, religious societies. It was therefore never (or rarely) necessary in Islamic societies to forbid men from shaving or to collapse walls on top of barbers, to shoot or harass girls studying in primary school or dismember women who chose to wear jeans (the last example, to be fair to the Taliban, is from Iraq). Then there is the fact that the rules the Taliban are enforcing are almost certainly not genuinely Islamic. So the Taliban cannot be said to be righteous.

The Islamic Republic? This is probably the one with the most legitimate claim to being a righteous government. On the face of it they have a semi-traditional political system, where the clerics supervise the politicians and make sure all law is within the purview of Islamic teachings. But in practice in Iran’s Islamic teachings are often pushed on a partially unwilling population in a forceful manner - often leading the teachings to be followed in an external, ritualistic way by people who by mentality are modern and would not have cared for tradition if not for state enforcement. This enforced conformity was amply demonstrated with the latest rigged elections and the way demonstrators were brutally arrested, tortured, and even killed. It’s not really that the Iranian opposition is less Islamic than the current conservative government. So if the present conservative, Revolutionary Guard-led government were really concerned about Islam (rather than their own interests) why would they cling to power so desperately? So, even if Iran is better than the others I still think they are at most only 50% righteous.

In conclusion, one could say that although the different parties accuse each other of being unrighteous and use some ideology to justify their war they fall short of the standards they purport to be setting themselves. The whole thing appears to be nothing more than a simple struggle between power-hungry men with big words and big egos but no sense of ‘practice what you preach’.

The Supreme Vishnu

Introduction

Finally I am ready to introduce myself to our readers, and to Motpol.nu. This is my first post, and I will keep this introduction in English, although I will also post in Danish in the future.

I will not dwell too much on my own history and background, as it is in many respects similar to that of Dharma. Since my early teens I have been alienated from modern society, and this alienation took me on a personal journey, that was at first merely existential, nihilist, and for a short period even ’satanic’. Already when I was around 15 years of age I was drawn to the Nordic tradition, with its view of nature and life - a view that deeply resonated with my own. I read the Eddas, learned to write the Runes, dabbled with Old Norse, and sought a deeper understanding of the Nordic mysteries and secrets (ON: Runar). I took up the runes so to speak (nam ek vp rvnar, Havamal, 139), or at least I tried to. I would later come to realise that this was not an easy, and maybe even an impossible task.

From Asatru to Traditionalism

Along with my interest in Asatru and heathenism, came a growing interest in politics, and a glowing desire to do something actively to change the current world order. I was in my teens quite influenced by authors such as Steven McNallen and Varg Vikernes, and the concept of Odalism as presented by the Heathen Front. Vikernes presented a view of Asatru as more than just a religion. It was a way of life, a way to organize society politically, and a system meant for protecting and nourishing a people. I learnt that Vikernes had been influenced by the Italian author Julius Evola, in particular a German translation of his book Heathen Imperialism and Evolas most important book: Revolt Against the Modern World. This book together with Bhagavad Gita is probably to this day the book that has influenced me the most.

Evola and what I later learned was called ‘Traditionalism’ presented a view of the world that in almost every respect was identical to my own. It contained a fierce critique of the modern society, its egalitarian values, consumerism and the lack of higher values. In contrast to this it presented the age-old ideas and beliefs of our forefathers, the Indo-Europeans, as a consistent and valid alternative to the modern malaise.

The Aryan Tradition

The traditionalist principles, combined with the lack of ground-breaking results through my Asatru practice, led me to reconsider my chosen path. I found that although there exists some important sources on Nordic Tradition, such as the Eddas, the sources were not sufficient to revive Asatru as an authentic tradition. Furthermore the chain of initiates, that had carried whatever information that was not directly accessible through the Eddas, did no longer exist. The chain was broken, and I saw no easy way to restore it. That however did not mean that all hope was lost, as I would soon discover. Asatru is not the only authentic Indo-European tradition, and other traditions on the same tree are for example the Greek, the Celtic and the Roman traditions, as well as the one where I found my own roots, namely the Indo-Aryan or Vedic tradition. Reading Bhagavad Gita, was my first step into a deep and living world of ancient languages and traditions. I studied Sanskrit at the University, and I soon came to realise how huge and rich this Vedic or Indo-Aryan tradition in fact was. The amount of sources detailing both religious and societal aspects of our own past is staggering. The epics such as Mahabharata and Ramayana are several times bigger than the Bible or the Illiad and the Odyssey combined. The amount of preserved literature of this ancient high-civilisation, is more than 50 times bigger than the complete collection of Greek, Roman and Latin sources preserved from Antiquity. Only a small fraction of this has even been translated into modern European Languages, and I believe we have a big goldmine of ideas, practices, philosophy, laws etc. that are resonating with our Indo-Germanic roots and identity.

It is the purpose of this blog to bring forth the ideas of our ancestors, through the sources, so that they can again become part of what we consider our identity, culture and tradition, and thus help us as a people and as Scandinavians, to present viable alternatives to the current era, based not only on new inventions, but on the ideas inherent in our genes and our traditions.

Let us begin our mission!

Kalki

From Bhagavat Purana

Jeg har fået en del opfordringer siden jeg skrev min ‘introduktion’ til at skrive på et nordisk sprog, så jeg vil skrive dette indlæg på dansk. Jeg håber dette vil være til glæde for Aryavarta’s læsere.

Jeg er i tidens løb stødt ind i et par folk, som tror at “hinduisme” er en slags demokratisk religion, hvor alle er ‘lige’, at religionens højeste påbud er, at man skal være blødsøden, og at enhver kan tro på hvad han (eller hun) har lyst til. Disse misforståelser skyldes nok i højgrad Gandhi, som jo er kendt for sin ikke-voldssekt. At Gandhi - som var kendt for altid at have ‘Bhagavad Gita med sig hvor end han gik’ - skulle basere sin filosofi på Bhagavad Gita er i øvrigt besynderligt, fordi bogen - fra kapitel to til den slutter - er en dialog på en slagmark, hvor Krishna forsøger at overbevise krigeren Arjuna om, at han skal kæmpe. I det første kapitel udtrykker Arjuna sin modvilje mod kampen, men i løbet af de følgende sytten kapitler får Krishna ham overbevist, og resultatet er, at Arjuna går i krig og dræber ca lige så mange, som der døde i løbet af hele Anden Verdenskrig (mange milioner). Dette har fået en ortodoks brahmin til at kommentere, at Gandhi måtte have nøjes med kun at læse det første kapitel. Under alle omstændigheder findes der denne her new-age-agtige idé om, at vedisk religion er noget blødsødent, demokratisk noget, der handler om at være lige venlig over for alle mennesker, især de kasteløse, fordi vi jo alle er Guds børn. 

Det er rigtigt at vi alle er ‘Guds børn’ (hvis man vil udtrykke det på denne måde). Og ‘ahimsa’ (’ikke-vold’) er da også en dyd ifølge Bhagavad Gita, om end den kultiveres ikke på samme måde af en brahmin, som af en kshatriya (kriger, statsman - i bedre tider to sider afsamme mønt). Men dette betyder ikke, at alle er lige gode, og burde behandles på samme måde eller have samme rettigheder.

Bhagavad Gitaens indfaldsvinkel på lighedsspørgsmålet kan reduceres til to grundlæggende principper:

1.   Alle levende væsener er (ikke ‘har’) en sjæl, og alle sjæle er i princippet lige. 

2.   Men alle betingede sjæle er bundet til en krop, som ikke er lige i forhold til andre kroppe.

Lad os se på et eksempel. Krishna siger i 9.32, at:

“BG 9.32: O son of Pṛthā [Arjuna], those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth — women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] — can attain the supreme destination.”

Når jeg læser dette kan jeg næsten se for mig en frustreret45-årig pebermø og feminist sige: “se, alle kan opnå det højeste åndelige mål, det er ligemegetom man er kvinde, eller afsåkaldt lavere fødsel”. Dette er både rigtigt og forkert. Det er rigtigt, at kvinder og de lavt-fødte kan opnå åndelig success. Men læg mærke til, dette kan opnås “på trods af” og ikke “lige så godt af”. Der ligger en slags ‘nåde’ i, at selv kvinder og sudras kan opnå ‘the supreme destination’. Det er altså ikke rigtigt, at det er lige meget, hvem man er - eller rettere, hvad for en slags krop man er i. Den højeste destination eller lettere opnåelig for nogen, end andre.

Derudover er der selvfølgelig “kastesystemet” (Vedaerne bruge udtrykket’varna-asrama-dharma’), som påbydes i Gita:

BG 18.41: Brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras are distinguished by the qualities born of their own natures in accordance with the material modes, O chastiser of the enemy.

BG 18.42: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work.

BG 18.43: Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and leadership are the natural qualities of work for the kṣatriyas.

BG 18.44: Farming, cow protection and business are the natural work for the vaiśyas, and for the śūdras there is labor and service to others.

Det er selvfølgelig rigtigt at det nuværende kastesystem i Indien ikke repræsenterer det system, Krishna påbyder i Gitaen, men til gengæld må man påpege, at Krishna ikke ligefrem anbefaler ‘frihed, lighed og broderskab’ eller ‘én person - én stemme’. Tværtimod.

Der er mange andre eksempler. Når Arjuna af sentimentale grunde ønsker at forlade slagmarken frem for at kæmpe siger Krishna:

BG 2.2: My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy.

BG 2.3: O son of Pṛthā, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.

Ordet oversat til ‘a man who knows the value of life’ fra Sanskrit er i øvrigt ‘an-arya’ - ikke-arisk.

Så jeg ved ikke, hvor de bløde idéer er kommet fra. I hvert fald ikke fra Bhagavad Gita. Og heller ikke fran oget andet vedisk skrift jeg har læst. Den blød sødne snak om demokratisk, egalitær ‘hindusime’ er altså ikke andet end ‘grama-katha’ - landsbysnak - ideas without substance.

Jeg kan i øvrigt henvise til bloggen The Vaishnava Traditionalist, som går til angreb på de demokratiske og egalitære tendenser som gennemsyrer det moderne samfund.

Teens

As far back as I can remember I’ve always been opposed to the way society functions - its unspoken rules - stubbornly refusing to conform to them. It really began in my early teens, when I began questioning things that everyone else took for granted. I would wear different clothes from everyone else, not carrying much for their notions of fashion; I would listen to different music, mostly heavy metal and rock; by the time I was sixteen I thought the very notion of modern life to be completely meaningless. My peers at the time were very enthusiastic about going to parties, going out with girls, getting drunk and competing for being the leading male in the herd. I always found this to be so shallow. An orgasm, after all, only lasts for a couple of seconds, and after that you’re back where you started. ’Time is moving’, I thought, ‘the days are going by - before they know it these people will find themselves married, looking for a job, having children, and living a possibly even more meaningless 9 - 5 life, each day being a replica of the previous one’. I read Sartre and, understanding that ‘life is absurd’, became a nihilist.

Although Sartre was the starting point for me (in case Sartre makes my readers frown, I say in my defense that I didn’t know about his communist association at the time) I quickly gained an interest in other philosophers. Plato, in particular, but also Kant and others influenced my thinking at the time. Still unsure of what it all meant, and gazing at the stars like a child, wondering what is out there and how it all came about, I started searching for answers. I thought there must be something here to make life meaningful and worthwhile.

I was into black metal and related genres in my nihilist days and so naturally took an interest in Varg Vikernes. This is where my ideological journey started. I read Vikernes’ own ‘Vargsmål’ and ’Lords of Chaos’ by Michael Moynihan. I was quite impressed at the time, but then - not being from a Scandinavian background - didn’t really feel I could relate to Varg’s notions of religion, nor did I really feel that interested in it, even as a subject. Varg did influence me to look into National Socialism, though, as well as my own, Slavonic pagan pre-history.

My Slavonic phase was short-lived as there is very little information on Slavonic mythology. The Christians destroyed most of the documents associated with it, and so all we know is what was passed down by Christian chroniclers and folk customs, none of which is particularly reliable, or, for that matter, complete. My interest in National Socialism (and related ideologies) did stick for awhile, however, and led me to join the National Alliance, then led by Dr William Pierce.

I was 18 at the time - very idealistic, and hopeful that I had found my purpose in life: to save the white race from extinction. ‘How could there be anything more important that this?’, I thought. But it was not just about race. It was also about the moral decay of the West, the ignorance of my peers of what was going on in the world, and a vision of a greater, more ideal society based on higher values. Science, of course, helps establish that whites have higher IQs than blacks and all that, but what really inspired me to join and begin developing a Danish National Alliance chapter was a speech by Pierce called ‘Our Cause’, where Piece talks about getting back to the essentially religious path of conscious evolution of the race, the gradual realisation of ‘the Creator’. With time however, I got disillusioned with the movement. I felt something was lacking, and Pierce’s ‘Creator’ didn’t really satisfy my existential search. When Pierce died I left the movement.

Integral Tradition

At about this time a close friend of mine began reading authors like René Guenon and Julius Evola. When I read Evola’s ‘Revolt Against the Modern World’ my worldview completely changed. As I read each page I felt that this was something I had always known to be true. At the same time the Guenonian notion that one has to follow a spiritual path to gradually increase one’s understanding of the ultimate Truth really resonated with me. When my interest in philosophy first started I felt helpless: I could see how philosophy couldn’t bring one to realise anything - if one could read two equally persuasive philosophers with opposite conclusions then how could one know which one is actually correct? But Guenon and Evola were saying that one could come to ’realise’ what the truth was.

I felt drawn to spirituality for the first time in many years. But which spirituality? I had come from a Catholic background, but had a lot of reservations about Catholicism and especially about Jesus. At the same time I still felt it was a Semitic religion - and I wanted something Aryan. I did give Christianity a half-hearted chance but in the end came to the conclusion that it just wasn’t for me. I was about 21 at this time.

The Aryan Tradition

In the mean time, a friend - the same one as above - had given me some books on Vedic philosophy, which he was now practicing. I read the books, liked them and thought: ‘the Vedic tradition is the only bona fide living tradition among the Aryan ones which still exists - I have to give it try’. I did - in 2004 - when I went to a temple in London (of all places). It was a bit exotic - they had deities of Radha and Krishna, the divine couple, I had come late in the evening, and the deities were being worshipped with ghee lamps - but at the same time I was very moved by the experience and decided to begin following this path shortly thereafter.

Modern Society

My views on morality, society, politics, and so on, developed in parallel to my philosophical search - although the different ideologies I followed are not as different from each other as their  epistemologies. I always had a vision of a better society, based on something deeper, and I always felt disgusted about modern society, with its petty mass politics, mass production and mass consumerism.

This is the realm of ‘becoming’, as Evola says - or, as the Vedas put it, the realm of the ‘chewing the chewed’. Modern life is a constant repetition growing up, finding a partner, having sex, having children, who in turn grow up and propagate while you grow old, get sick and die. Surely there is a way of organising society so that both it, and the individual, can ‘tap into’ that higher consciousness - the realm of ‘being’ - which gives meaning to life, frees one from the circle of samsara (or becoming) and leads one to know the Absolute Truth.

In this blog I will be considering how such a society is organised, and how it is different from the present one, which I will be analysing ‘with a hammer’.

Dharma