If it is to war we go, and war for our Gods and Traditions, than we must follow tradition and make offerings unto the Gods. But as this is a war of and upon ideas and traditions, physical offerings (though good) are not what I shall offer as sacrifice today. Instead, this day I offer unto sacred Olympus and Asgard not just any sacrifice, but a sacred cow of my foes, and I shall offer it up on an alter of counter ideas (and some dank memes). Praise the Gods, and may this sacrifice please them such that they aid us to gain victory for their cause and traditions!
Back in the original “Fascism” post Rhyd and G&R made a big deal they were Anarchist, Feminist, Marxist egalitarians, and this was what was driving them to take their position and say these things. Now, while I would like to look at all three of these things, the truth is that we could look at merely one of them as it is the foundation of the other two as well. This is of course, the ideal(s) of Marxism.
It would be very easy to merely dismiss Marxism as “a priori” wrong, but we’re not going to do this. Indeed, it would be easy to do the opposite as well, and dismiss anything calling anyone Marxist as automatically bullshit. But we’re not going to do that either because this is not me claiming Rhyd and G&R are Marxists, this is a statement they have made about themselves.
It having been commented that Rhyd and the original post did a terrible job of really explaining what the Alt-Right was and why it was automatically Fascist, I’m going to illuminate why this was (in fact I got much respect for the fact that my first post about the situation gave background on both the Progressive (marxist) left and the Alt Right). And I’m going to do that by explaining very simply what Marxism is and the world view it has created.
We’ll start by defining Marxism. Now, I’m not going to do this with the dictionary, but rather by paraphrasing something from Feminism to show what Marxism is to Marxists. I think Rhyd will like this definition very well, truth be told.
Marxism is the radical idea that all people should be socially, politically, and economically equal.
Now, by this definition, all sounds wonderful and peachy. I mean, most of us Pagans are egalitarian in one form or another. There are different ideas about equality, but most of us universally are for “equal rights.” And Marxism does fit a definition egalitarianism as it does desire people to be equal.
There are, however, different forms of egalitarianism (and what inequality is). There is the traditional “Western” idea of egalitarianism, and then there is the “Marxist” idea of egalitarianism. These are the two we’re going to be talking about as the Western Ideal has its roots in traditional Paganism, and is the type of “Tradition” that G&R are protesting as “potentially alt-right/fascist.”
For today though, I’m going to focus on Marxist Egalitarianism.
Marxist Egalitarianism (ME for short) is the idea that all people should be equal socially, economically, and politically. Inequality in any form becomes the ultimate evil. This translates depending on scale of Marxism into different things, however. So for example, the instant a person gains more “Social Status” than other people, they have created an “inequality” in society.
If you’ve ever heard anyone say “why people are privileged because there are more white actors on tv and in movies,” then you have run into someone who is speaking from a Marxist Egalitarian perspective. Because not all peoples are equally represented in every show or movie, the group that is “over-represented” has created a situation of inequality that “harms” those who are “underrepresented.” Regardless of the situation or logical reasons for “unequal representation” (such as making a movie about 7th century vikings with no black people in it).
The best way to explain this though is on Marxists typical point of focus: Economic Inequality.
Under WTE a person can raise themselves up economically above other people through various methods (saving money they earn, working harder to earn more money, creating a product which large numbers of people then purchase, etc). This person can then dispose of this income as they please or keep it as they please, but it is considered Just that the person who has obtained this wealth has it.
Under ME, however, any person who raises themselves up economically above other people through various methods has created an inequality in society. They now have more than other people, and in having more are denying people under them equality (thus oppressing them), and denying them the benefits of having the wealth now under the possession of our wealthier individual. By creating a higher level of living for himself, the wealthier individual not only acts as if he is “superior” he displays for all his “privileged position” and shows that they do not have what he does, reinforcing the ideas counter to “Equality” under ME.
Another key point is that under Marxism’s egalitarian, equality of outcomes is just as important, if not more important, than equality of opportunity. In fact, equality of opportunity can and will be removed in order to maintain equality of outcome.
Now, as wordy as that was, I hope it does illustrate some of where Rhyd and G&R are coming from. As Marxist Egalitarians, any system which allows an individual, individuals, or whole groups, to raise themselves above others are inherently “unjust” because they deny the “equality” of all peoples. This is also relevant to the Feminism and Anarchism.
For example, Governments allow people to gain political power above other people. Even democratic (Athenian) and republican (Roman) governments where in this political power is derived by the will of the peoples governed and given freely. The Politicians are still “above” the people and thus “not equal” to them.
Another example, Capitalism allows people to gain economic wealth above other people. Now, under capitalism, everyone is free to spend their money as they will, on anything they will. No one chooses what a person must buy, and often even for a single product there are several merchants whom one may buy that product from. One may work as much or as little as one pleases, without compulsion by state or corporation (negotiated contract hours are a mutual agreement, not compulsion, even if they do feel that way). However, even with the freedom in the system, wealth may gather in the hands of some rather than others because of what they sell vs what they spend, creating an in equality between peoples. Despite the fact that this is by the full free will of the people, this “inequality” is inherently bad under the view of Marxism.
It is fair to say the idea is that “Equality” is good and that “Inequality” is bad is a fundamental part of Marxism, not unlike how it is in Classical Liberalism. However, where as say Classical Liberalism or WTE is willing to accept that certain types of equality are going to exist and certain types of inequality can be tolerated for the ultimate freedom of individuals, Marxism instead takes the view that total equality is the desired outcome, that inequality of any kind is unacceptable, and that equality must be enforced and inequality destroyed even if this curtails the rights and freedoms of individuals or groups of people.
Such as G&R insisting that Heathens should not use the same language as “1st nation peoples” when attempting to defend their right of self preservation/determination. Freedom of speech is denied based on “group privilege” which would help support “inequality.”
Or to put it religious terms, Equality = Salvation/Purity and Inequality = Evil/Sin.
Now, in the initial stages of a Marxist showing up, they will speak much as many SJW’s do. “Check your Privilege” is a common phrase. Or better “Check your Sin,” is the subtext, “Look upon the evil you commit upon your fellow man by raising yourself up above them by having that which they do not.” “These systems are racist/sexist/classist, they promote systemic inequalities!” will say the Marxist, “These things promote an evil upon this world, to use them and support them is to create evil.”
However, most of us are brought up with a Classical Liberal understanding of equality. It is just for you to keep what you earn. If you happen to have more, or obtain more, than someone else by either your efforts or the gift of another, it is perfectly fine for you to have them. Just because someone else doesn’t in no way makes your possession unjust.
Which leads to the inevitable situation that happens between Christians and Pagans, and Marxists and…non-Marxists. “Why are you living in sin? Can you not see how evil your actions are?” Cries the Christian. “Why are you living unequally? Can you not see how oppressive your actions are?” Cries the Marxist.
Eventually, faced with a world filled with people who refuse to see “salvation” both the Christian and Marxist reach an inevitable conclusion: These people refuse to give up their sin/inequality, no matter how much they are educated to it’s evil and harmful nature. Only evil will refuse to give up evil and become good. Therefore, these people must be inherently evil. They thrive on inequality, they desire it, they defend it, therefore they are the cause of our inequalities, they are irredeemable. They cannot be saved. Their traditions maintain inequality, their systems enforce inequality, and they refuse to dismantle these systems and give up their privileged positions to obtain equality with those below them. There is only one solution: They Must Be Purged.
This is pretty much the point at which point Rhyd’s and G&R’s post comes in. In this case, the Alt-Right defends everything that they feel enforces these “inequalities” in society. Paganism is at risk of falling to “Alt-Right” ideals like holding ancient traditions, divine positions, and so forth which “enforce” “inequalities” upon society.
If the idea is that “inequality” is the supreme force of evil and injustice in the universe, than anything that aids and abets inequality is also evil and unjust. Be this sacred rites (Dianics), ancient traditions/hierarchies (Cultus Deorum), self-group preservation (Heathenism), and so forth, are something to be fought against and eventually removed for the glorious “egalitarian” utopia. Anything that defends them fights to keep humanity in the damnation of “inequality, oppression, and suffering.”
And like any ideology which holds an absolutist view of morality and reality, absolutely any means then are justified ends in search of salvation/redemption.
A good example of this in Paganism is the treatment of many Heathen groups. We all no doubt recall recently when McNallen (and then Abell) were labeled as racists and fascist after McNallen’s comments about the desire to recreate the “Freikorps.” McNallen’s desire to “self preserve” a “Traditional” culture was a sign of fascism and any action, up to and including the silencing of Abell for speaking of neutrality towards McNallen, was seen as perfectly justified in response to purge those who would act “unjustly.”
A second good example would be the Dianics, decried as oppressing trans-women by insisting on a “preserved” space for “cis-women” and all the name calling, bullying, vilifying, and eventual ostracism of the Dinaics were “perfectly justified.”
A good example outside of this in Paganism is how you will hear many Marxists/Progressives state that our criminal justice system is unjust. Now, the US criminal system works with an eye to equality. All are equal under the law (ostensibly) and held to the same standard. Commit a crime and be found guilty of it, you will go to prison. But many Progressives/Marxist claim that our criminal justice’s incarceration system in inherently racist and oppressive because more “black” people are in prison. Not because of any provable preference per race by the system (regardless of race, crime is punished) but because the numbers of those in prison when judged by race are unequal. Now, every individual person rightfully convicted, regardless of race, is in prison because of a choice they individually made to commit a crime. When this is pointed out, the claim then becomes that this is because more black people are in “poverty,” or face some other “systemic inequality.”
A “Systemic inequality” which exists not by any bias of the system, but because the outcome of the system (based on individual choices and opportunities) has created an inequality of outcomes. Because of these inequalities of outcomes, the system then becomes inherently “unequal” and can only create “inequality.” Therefore, to prevent inequality, and thus oppression of the underprivileged, the system must be removed (potentially to be replaced with a biased system that would produce and equality of outcome). Any who defend them are as evil of racism/sexism/classism as the systems themselves and to be removed.
This is how Rhyd and G&R view many ideas inside the larger world, and Paganism. Because Devotional Polytheism places the Gods above all, the Gods are now in a place of inequality. In fact, by benefiting from this inequality, and refusing to universally condemn this elevation, the Gods are responsible and should be questioned about their position and, if failing to respond “appropriately” then mortals should impose their desire of “egalitarianism (Marxist definition)” upon religious practice. Because Traditionalist and Reconstructionist systems value their ancestral culture and ways above those of other peoples, and these cultures were the foundations for our present “unbiased” but “unequal” systems, they place these cultures in a “privileged” and “unequal” position. Thus reinforcing “inequality.”
Any Pagan who has spent time in nature however, or even regular civilization, will realize that it is unnatural for there to be an equality of outcome. It flies not just in the face of many religious teachings of various pagan paths, but in the face of science as well. Evolution, for example, cannot exist in a world where equality of outcome is a natural happening. In fact, evolution occurs because inequality of outcome occurs naturally.
Faced with a world inherently unequal, it falls to Marxism to enforce an unnatural outcome of equality upon society in order to purge society of the evil of inequality and bring about the salvation of humanity (and the world) via “equality.” This is seen in the fact that every fully Marxist governmental style has had to involve totalitarianism to maintain not just the equality of the citizens, but to redistribute the wealth, power, and social status naturally gained by some to those who did not gain it.
They believe that “Equality” is the be all, end all of of society. That “equality” is the be all, end all of Paganism. At least, if they are as Marxist as they claim to be. This also relates to their claims of Feminism (the Patriarchy is much the same force for inequality in that belief system as capitalism is in Marxism), and Anarchism (Government is of course a system of inequality of outcome).
It is with this understanding of how Marxism functions and views the world that we will take into the next article by Rhyd: The Uncomfortable Mirror