Investigations into Oera Linda Book
In the seventh chapter of 'Il mito del sangue', 'The Arctic Myth',
Evola notes that the seriousness of Wirth's research was compromised
when it was discovered that the Oera Linda book, which the latter had
promoted with enthusiasm, was a 'myth'. As for Evola, he was unlikely
to have read it.
"We think - Evola says in the conclusion of 'La mistica della razza
in Roma antica', soon to be published in French - we have (...)
brought to light the sense of the mystical representations and of the
cults of ancient Roman lines, in which there was manifestly a living
blood and racial consciousness and religion was not a factor of
escapism and of universality, but constituted the most solid cement
of the unity of family and of race. The mystery of blood was a
central idea of ancient Roman spirituality ; those who neglect this
are bound to have a superficial and 'profane' understanding of the
most tangible, well-known and celebrated aspects of the law, of the
custom and of the ethic of ancient society". Fustel de Coulanges and
a few other historians of the late nineteenth century and of the
early twentieth century understood this, and so does the author
of 'Investigations into Oera Linda Book Chapter I - The Authenticity
of O.L.B.', when he notes : "For the most part, ancient pagan
societies worshipped deities as the mothers and fathers of the race
that honoured them. The other races had their own gods who created
them, and they worshipped them accordingly as their
divine "parents"". He then recalls a characteristic feature of the
ancient Aryan religiousness with which those who have read 'Three
Aspects of the Jewish Problem' are familiar : "Just as the deities
were worshipped as parents, it is probably that the Europeans never
knelt before their gods".
This essay you have posted explains very well by what rhetoric the
medieval Church tried to fight heathen cults : "As Christianity was
gradually introduced among the Teutonic peoples, the questions
confronted them, what manner of beings those gods had been in whom
they and their ancestors so long had believed. Their Christian
teachers had two answers, and both were easily reconcilable. The
common answer, and that usually given to the converted masses, was
that the gods of their ancestors were demons, evil spirits, who
ensnared men into superstition in order to become worshipped as
divine beings. The other answer, which was better calculated to
please the noble-born Teutonic families, who thought themselves
descended from the gods, was that these divinities were originally
human persons- kings, chiefs, legislators, who, endowed, with higher
wisdom and secret knowledge, made use of them to make people believe
that they were gods, and worship them as such" ; by what means
medieval monks, whether Sturluson, Grammaticus, Gregory of Tours,
Fredegar or the authors of the Oera Linda book, tried to christianise
heathen myths and to 'monotheise' heathen gods, according, as far as
the latter means is concerned, to the same process which both Judaism
and Christianity supposedly once experienced : the Hebrews and the
Christians themselves "(combined) the aspects of different deities
into one(...), and so did the Egyptians :" It is well known that it
was Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV)" who, by synthesising "the
characteristics of all the other Egyptian deities into his favorite
god Aten", "devised the first monotheist doctrine and presented it to
his people. That this doctrine influenced the Hebrews, who had their
version of it spread to the East where it became Islam and to the
West where it became Christianity is very well likely", while is
quite sure that the "monotheist dogma (...) was utterly foreign to
the pre-Christian Northern Europeans" (as is well-known, ancient
Egyptians had a supreme god, Re, the principle of unity, or rather
the "force of all force", and the mistake Akhenaten supposedly made
was of having worshipped the sun, as 'Aton', under its sensitive
aspect and of having prohibited the worship of all other Egyptian
gods ; one thing is for sure, he made that of attacking the caste of
the priests, who was never to forgive him for that ; we have just
said "supposedly" because all the testimonies we have on that Pharaoh
come precisely from sacerdotal sources ; another thing is for sure :
Akhenaten never "bootstrapped himself into godhood", he always
remained, as did the previous Pharaohs and as the following ones, the
incarnation of the sun-god, but distinct from it). Strictly speaking,
there is absolutely no doubt that pre-Christian Northern Europeans
were not monotheists and, what's more, that their cult was free from
dogmas. Yet, the concept of a god superior to the others, superior to
the other gods of their people, not to the gods of other people, of
other races, was not foreign to them, just as it was not foreign to
ancient Romans or Hindus ; their sensitivity to this concept explains
partly why most of them didn't have any difficulty in 'believing' in
the Christian god, when Christianity was imposed upon them. It ensues
from this that the most effective counter-attack which the leaders of
those ancient Germanic tribes which first refused to convert to this
alien form of worship could have launched against Christianity on the
religious plane would have been to oppose Odhinn, the highest god of
the Nordic pantheon, to the Christian god, hadn't Charlemagne, who,
in 772, inaugurated the Saxon wars by having the sacred tree of the
Saxons, the symbol of the cosmic axis which passes through the world
and each worlds, destroyed in the Teutoberger forest, ordered his men
in 782 to behead 4500 of the best elements of the Saxon aristocracy.
In any case, we are not the first to point at the limits of the
opposition between the notions of monotheism and of polytheism, an
opposition which, besides, was created by the Church in part for
apologetic purposes, in part as a smoke-screen, meant to hide, in the
long-run, the various elements it borrowed from pre-
Christian 'polytheist' cults. In fact, the real opposition, here,
lies, not in the difference between religions which admits a
plurality of gods and religions which admits one god only, but in
religions which are centred on and are exclusive to a given race,
people, family, and religions which address every human being
indiscriminately, regardless of race, people, regardless of the
dignity and of the inner nature of human beings. Since the
words 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' tend to cloud the issue rather
then to clarify it, it would be appropriate and legitimate to coin
neologisms to give a more accurate account of the realities which
they are both supposed to cover. The former could be replaced
by 'genotheism'. Each time you find the word 'polytheism' in a text,
replace it by 'genotheism' and things will become much clearer.
"the church (...) sought to turn the European peoples away from their
polytheist past". More concretely, from their own blood, from their
own race. And all points out to the fact that the Church put the
accusation of 'polytheism' forward to hide the real purpose of its
fanatical relentless proselytism.
|
"evola_as_he_is" <evola_as_he_is@...>
evola_as_he_is
Offline
Send Email
|