Politely Put:

Now would be a good time for me to give a reminder of just what exactly I am and what my beliefs are. Exactly what my blog is about. Because for some reason lately there’s a particular type of “ping-back” underneath my tracking stats that I’m not fond of noticing recently. So here it is:

I do not condone racism. I abhor it. I do not subscribe to any racist, bigoted, neo-Nazi bullshit. I am vehemently opposed to any ideology like that.

Somehow, I’ve been getting during the last week some weird clicks–people coming to my blog off neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, or white supremacist pagan websites or forums. Which was confusing & upsetting for me, since I absolutely do not support any of that crap. I’ve made it abundantly clear over the years (or so I hope) that I’m a supporter of equality. Someone or someones have linked my blog off a few sites; or in some kind of comments, perhaps. But regardless – these “clicks” are coming to my blog.

That’s the only thing I can figure, given that I certainly don’t deal with anything like that myself. And it’s rather somewhat distressing, because it’s been dozens of “clicks” to my website off these sources. I don’t want my blog or myself at all associated with that kind of crap–because it goes totally against everything that I believe. It’s awful to get associated with this stuff; even if it has literally nothing to do with my side of the blog.

This is your warning.

If you’re here because you think I support any of that bullshit–please kindly show yourself the door. I have spent years fighting against that type of ideology and beliefs. I do not condone any kind of racism, bigotry or discrimination in my daily life; nor do I tolerate it in my religious community. I support equality, respect and cultural awareness in dealing with other people. I grew up with some distant-ish family that were virulent racists, bigots, misogynists. I hated that. I hated how awful that was. So from the time I was young I knew I wanted to support equal rights; that I had to ensure I fought against those “isms” that drag humanity down.

I am sorry to my friendly, loyal followers for having to disrupt my usual posting like this. But, given the weird influx, I am hoping this makes it abundantly clear what I stand for–and what I will not tolerate.*


Posted by

I'm a bibliophile who loves collecting books. Definite cat person. Amateur historian and major geek, who loves all things Tolkien and Star Trek. I'm also fluent in German.

9 thoughts on “Politely Put:

  1. A few years ago, I was getting a small but noticeable influx of his from a Stormfront forum. While I couldn’t access the forum, myself, due to privacy settings, I could ascertain the title of the thread from the link was “Liberal Degeneration.”

    I took that as a point of pride. 😀

    Liked by 4 people

  2. I noticed your site while searching for writings about polytheism. I’m sorry to intrude, but I wonder (for curiosity sake) what you’ll think of people with my moderate views. On the one hand, I despise neo-nazis and any other group (white or otherwise; there are also such groups of color) that thinks of other races as inferior. On the other side, as a traditional Hellenic polytheist, I don’t think it is proper for people without Greek ancestry to worship Hellenic Gods (and generally for someone to practice any ethnic religion, without having an ethnic relation to it). People should generally stick to their own ethnic religion and Gods, with few exceptions (temporary initiation into a new cult, etc.). I’m afraid that persisting to do otherwise means either

    1. One is separating language, ancestry and culture from ethnic Gods, which is wrong in ethnic religions.
    2. One is implying that the religion of his ethnic ancestors is in some manner inferior to the one he chooses, which raises the question of whether he thinks the same of his ancestors.

    I don’t consider my views at all as racism, but only as nativism, because a racist always views other people are inferior to his own.


    1. It’s fair to ask.

      Your 2 premises have different answers for me.

      1. Technically, look at Rome. Rome drew gods from all the people they conquered or brought into the Empire. These gods were in some ways “removed” from their cultural base. Doesn’t seem to have offended all of those gods. Now I’m sure some were not pleased about being “remade” in a Roman mold, but some would have had no problem with it.

      Furthermore, as an American, I live in a melting pot (pardon the awfully stereotypical jargon). There are thousands of lineages, cultures, traditions and beliefs that have come to the USA, that have mixed, mingled and combined throughout ancestors of those of us who live here today. Technically, most Americans who reach back to our ‘ancestors’ to worship their pre-Christian gods, are inherently doing this out of cultural context – separate from where they came from – because American culture it totally different than the culture, society, and traditions that our ancestors (even a hundred years ago) would have had.

      On the other hand – closed religions and beliefs should not be separated and taken out of context. But that boils down to the question: does the closed religion have an active body of practitioners or adherents? Yes – then leave it alone unless you’re part of that culture/have been invited in. If you have not been expressly invited, then that is closed, and one should not try to take/appropriate from these cultures and traditions.

      To use your pantheon: Greek gods don’t fit into this, because the active worship of Greek gods died out 2.000 years ago (give or take) – and any worship now is reconstruction and new. So there is no active, cultural and societal body that has unbroken authority to say who can and cannot practice.

      2. I don’t believe at all that looking at other deities or pantheons invalidates & implies one’s heritage is inferior. I am Czech & Polish, and yes, I work with Slavic gods. However, I’m also German, Irish and Welsh–and yet I don’t work with those gods or spirits, right now. I’m not stating that my Slavic ancestors were better & more worthy than my German, Irish or Welsh. Just that I have been drawn to certain gods and spirits.

      And actually, speaking of ancestors. My ancestors would probably be more upset that I’m spitting on their beliefs by not being part of the Church (whether Catholic or Protestant depends on which country they came from). My ancestors for the last…600-700 years, minimally speaking, were all Christian of some denomination. Technically, I’m insulting their beliefs by being pagan. However, I have spoken to them, and as long as I am respectful of their beliefs, they are happy that I want to learn history, their history.

      But back to the point – research, learning…being called to other gods. That is not an insult to ancestors, nor to our own heritage. If I felt myself called to worship gods from what is now Portugal or Spain…or the Greek gods, my ancestors would not be upset, so long as I was respectful to them still. It is no insult to research and follow a calling or opportunity to learn.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think you have given a fair answer with generous consideration. In return, I could probably write a great deal to discuss these two points further, but I’ll add a few words, at least for the present time.

        1. I have lately formed an unfavorable opinion about empires in general, because they are established by conquering a foreign people, and sometimes imposing on them a culture foreign to their ways (in order to ensure stability and prevent rebellion). The Roman Empire, if you look at its history (even during the late Republic), grew by unjust wars and political intrigues. The Romans also thought of themselves as superior to other people, much like the Americans today, which is why they spread their culture at the expense of others. It is true some agreed with this new mixture, and others opposed it, but there remains a lesson to learn from history; the Roman hegemony violated Celtic tribes (under Caesar, who was opposed in his campaign by the conservative senate), subverted Celtic religion (by persecuting druids) and caused the Celtic languages to wear off. We have yet to see what permanent transformation America will bring to the world, but thus far it seems that all native and ethnic cultures are succumbing to its supreme influence, far more quickly and unjustly than with Rome. It is inevitable, in my view, that when several cultures mix together closely, rivalries arise that drive one to seek supremacy. The Christians did the same first with their competitors the Mithraists and Gnostics, and then with the ethnic religions. To use your term, all ethnic religions were once “closed”, and I think the true beauty and benefit of such religions lie in the accurate revival (reconstruction) of them within communities. There is really no such thing as individualism in ethnic religions, except in certain priestly functions that actually contribute to a community.

        2. In your case, as in mine (I am partly Egyptian and Albanian), we have a greater choice of ethnic cultures to chose, or rather settle on. There is a reasonable degree of proximity between our respective cultures that allows for choosing. But what can you say of a fully Chinese man choosing to worship Hellenic Gods only? It is unacceptable in my view, at least. It becomes very complicated, however, if the man is half Greek and half Chinese; and because I have known, from my own experience, the troubles and confusion that can result from such cases, I argue that ancestries should remain distinct as a general principle (which is true diversity, in my view), with mixing only within a historical scope (as in your case and mine, fortunately). It is difficult to make a rule in such things, and it sometimes passes for bigotry, but how can we deal with such complications? I am for a simple, easy and innocent path which is following the ways of my ancestors in general. If I don’t seek to take anything that belongs to another, nor do I scorn it, would it not be just to expect the same in return? The globalism we live in has its benefits, but I’m afraid they are very temporary, being already overshadowed by doubled dangers.


        1. I definitely understand a concern with empire. I’m none too comfortable with the way the US acts as empire now. But past history is past, and there’s no way to change the past anymore. As for revival, it is easier in some cases than others (i.e. Greek, Roman, Norse, etc) where there are more records. As opposed to others where there are less (certain “Celtic” groups, Slavic, etc). But still, modern “reconstruction” is just new work. It is not a continuous tradition — which is where I was going with my original comment.

          As for the second: it’s quite simple for me. What if I were drawn to worship Greek gods? Or Roman? Or Mesopotamian? If say, Persephone, called on me to work with her or worship her, should I refuse just because I’m not ethnically Greek? I don’t think so. There is a point where the gods choose who they want–regardless of what a person’s ancestry is. And I don’t believe that we have a right to refuse them their beliefs.

          And I would argue further, as part of a dominant group, it’s not really possible to take from the dominant group. That’s why Roman, Norse, “Celtic”, Greek traditions are all open. Because it’s not possible to detrimentally take from the dominant cultural group. Also, these belief systems evolved, died out, were passed aside throughout the last 2.000 years. They have no unbroken tradition that is being taken, not since it was broken. However, on the other hand, traditions that are closed are such because their living members have said such. (Major example being First Nations, Native American tribes, tribes and groups living in northern Europe…just for a few) These are groups where taking & manipulating their beliefs is of huge detriment to them, culturally. Therefore, these are not possible to be taken from or borrowed from. If you have not earned the right from living members of these traditions to train and be initiated (or learn) — that is taking from a culture that should not be done so.

          So for me – there is no conflict, not from how I see things.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. Hellas did more than her fair share of colonising in ancient years, and the mission of Alexander was specifically to spread the ideals of the Hellenic peoples — that’s not a closed tradition, and refashioning Hellenic religion as such, today, sorry, but that just *is* bigotry.


    1. Quite the contrary. We should not think of the Greeks as one people, and Hellas as one entity whose destiny and views are determined by an ambitious Macedonian boy. Alexander forced the Greek city-states, which considered him as a half-barbarian (Macedonia was not too civilized), to unite under his command, and then undertook an expedition to destroy the Persian Empire and establish his own on its ruins. Besides, Alexander violated the Hellenic religion by demanding to be styled a divine son of Zeus-Ammon, and was the first Greek man to strike coins of his own image, instead of that of a God. After Alexander, Greeks kingdoms ruled (without right) over Persian lands, and some mixing of culture occurred. The Hellenic religion was originally closed, but Alexander forced it open and imposed it on others. It is not bigotry to say that only people of ethnic Greek ancestry (generally in Greece, coastal Turkey, and South Italy, among a few other spots along the Mediterranean coasts) should worship the Greek Gods. Otherwise, you approve of Alexander’s unjust conquests, which actually paved the way for new philosophies to spread
      afterwards (Stoicism, Epicureanism, Pyrrhonism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, even Christianity) which undermined the Hellenic religion. I’ll write more on this topic through my site: (traditionalpolytheist.com).


      1. I would argue (and coming from the fact I am not Greek) that Alexander was not a barbarian; or at least, no more one than anyone else at the time period would be considered such to modern eyes. And even if he did conquer parts of Greece, he did an awful lot to perpetuate “Greek” culture. His conquests of the Achaemenid empire led to a lot of Greek culture spreading into those lands. And to my knowledge, Macedon was a Greek kingdom. Maybe a northern and originally “less important” kingdom – but I know they had traditional dealings with at least Thrace and Thessaly, if not other Greek kingdoms. It wasn’t a big city-state of fame like Athens or Sparta, sure, but it was considered part of “Greece”. Not to mention – Macedon used the weapons of the time (much the same as more modern governments have): warfare/conquest & diplomacy. So, I don’t understand the belief that he was not “Greek” – because technically, Macedon was a Greek kingdom.

        I’m also confused by your comment about such things as Stoicism, Epicureanism, and the like undermining traditional religion. Those are all philosophical schools that were founded within the cultural, religious context of “ancient Greece”. Which was (pre-Jesus) all part of the ‘Hellenic’ lands.

        But further question. From your point of view: how do you define Greek descent? You say from Greece itself. From parts of Turkey & Italy. But by strictest definition Alexander was Greek. So then any land that was governed by his government would apply. That could extend into even India, via the “Middle East”. So that’s a host of other countries and peoples who are technically then able to worship Greek gods, to say that only those who were ancestrally Greek can do so–if we want to really get down to the heart of the matter. This is also the case, because Alexander brought Greek soldiers and Greek resettlement to these lands. So where do we draw the line? And then to consider – those Greek people who moved to those lands, how far did they disperse their culture further with later contact? So for me, this widens the net even further.

        I make no claim myself to judge his conquests. Not when ancient Greek history was not my specialty, and I admit to not knowing enough of the intricacies of politics at the time. But I can say with certainty that Alexander was not the only Greek person to expand Greek religion and influence.

        And in terms of how I see it; when the Greek people themselves spread their beliefs, brought it to new lands — then the religion is obviously open. They did not keep it closed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s