Still laughing at the historical bollocks.
I wonder how many people in Brython believe in this, the founding joke of their community?
I wonder how many people in Brython believe in this, the founding joke of their community?
Friday 17 October 2008
Thursday 16 October 2008
Ker-ching!
Presumably, now that the age of druids has passed in Brython, all commercial ventures of those therein who currently trade in druidry will cease immediately. After all, how may it be said that all animals are equal when some sit at table with farmers?
Beasts of Brython.
Now then, here we are in Utopia. Mr. Jones has been chased off the farm and all the animals are each very happy about it, restructuring their new land, Flag Farm, and their own labours in ways they feel best suited to modern, 21st Century life. There are no bosses and everyone is equal. Blue jeans good - white robes bad. All’s well with the world.
The interesting thing, to my mind, will be seeing who takes up the masks of Napoleon, Snowball and Squealer.
Sunday 12 October 2008
Le Morte d’Art.
An important part of any living tradition is its creative expression of its teachings. Christianity has choirs and hymns, Islam has muezzins and tajwid, Judaism has cantors and psalms. What does paganism have? Belly dance troupes.
Thursday 9 October 2008
Dyb Dyb Dyb.
It's quaint, really. Druidry is looking increasingly like the Boy Scouts. Funny clothes. Strange words. Patronising, snotty-nosed leaders. Jamborees. An atavistic regression to a longed for class divide where everyone knew their place, came when called and were urged to respect their betters? Is this the dirty little secret of men in frocks? I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Oh, don’t forget everyone: Flag Fen, this Saturday, October 11th. Be there and be square.
Tuesday 23 September 2008
PebbleDash.
In view of the persistently grim and at times abusive reluctance of Pebble representatives to address fully and frankly the issues raised in this discussion at UKPagan by the constituency which Pebble claims to represent by cross-section, as well as the apparent contempt in which they hold those who ask of them legitimate questions, I felt that it would be a good idea to supply those reading this who disagree with Pebble and the manner in which they have treated their equals, those from whom they request support, a means by which they might advise the British government of Pebble’s true nature as revealed in this discussion and also make it clear that Pebble do not speak in their name.
In the first instance this letter may be sent via email to the Diversity Advisory Group of the Office of National Statistics to whom Pebble and PaganDash representative Jon Randall - present in the UKPagan discussion - has proposed spending our taxes on a section of the census which will represent all British pagans as godless by means of the definition of paganism which Pebble has supplied to the Diversity Advisory Group:
“PAGANISM : The umbrella term for spiritualities and religions that recognise the sacred in nature, the environment, ancestry and heritage.”
If anyone wishes to read further on this issue then they may do so at the Fog Bank entry Godless Pagans.
If you choose to email this message or an edited version then please write your full name after the valediction. If you wish then you may also include your postal address for verification purposes. Here is the email address (your default email service will open yet you may paste the address into the address field of the email service of your choice) and the message to paste into your email follows it, in bold type:
census.customerservices@ons.gsi.gov.uk
F.A.O. Census 2011 Diversity Advisory Group (DiAG), formerly Special Populations Advisory Group.
Dear Sir,
I write regarding the organisation known as Pebble which represents itself to you as the “Public Bodies Liaison Committee for British Paganism”. You should be aware that Pebble has no popular mandate to represent British paganism to British public bodies but only the mandate of a statistically insignificant number of people who belong to its constituent groups.
Pebble is a private lobby organisation for several internet-based groups and the interests of their conveners. As most British pagans either do not know of its existence or disapprove of its claims Pebble acknowledges that it speaks only for its membership, the numbers of which are disputable as those members consciously supporting Pebble policy remain uncounted due to their recruitment via websites and the duplication of memberships across these websites. Pebble‘s claim to embody an inclusive array of British pagan belief, practice and opinion is therefore unsustainable. Pebble does not poll the views of British pagans outside of its constituent groups and this together with Pebble‘s claims are a source of dissension within those sections of the British pagan community who are even aware of Pebble, particularly its definition of paganism which excludes those pagans for whom gods are an important part of their lives.
Pebble does not represent either my religious interests or my secular interests as a British pagan. I hereby advise you that Pebble has no authority to enter into any discussions with your office upon my behalf. I would be happy for this message to be forwarded to other offices within your organisation as you feel appropriate.
Yours faithfully,
The above message may be sent as it stands or edited to any public body with which Pebble meets and to which you wish to make the same statement - simply remove the header “F.A.O. Census 2011 Diversity Advisory Group (DiAG), formerly Special Populations Advisory Group.” Pebble has been given the opportunity to address our concerns yet they refuse to do so. Time for us to speak for ourselves and we may at least register our rejection of Pebble's agenda. If you disagree with any of Pebble’s claims then take back the consent which they have claimed from you and speak out for yourself. Let you and your friends stand up and be counted for your own views and not in furtherance of Pebble’s pet projects.
I have posted this message upon the UKPagan discussion mentioned above. I respect UKPagan's stand in determining the content of their boards in the face of those who would be priests and kings and I thank them for maintaining such an excellent and independent forum. They are good people.
Best wishes, everyone.
In the first instance this letter may be sent via email to the Diversity Advisory Group of the Office of National Statistics to whom Pebble and PaganDash representative Jon Randall - present in the UKPagan discussion - has proposed spending our taxes on a section of the census which will represent all British pagans as godless by means of the definition of paganism which Pebble has supplied to the Diversity Advisory Group:
“PAGANISM : The umbrella term for spiritualities and religions that recognise the sacred in nature, the environment, ancestry and heritage.”
If anyone wishes to read further on this issue then they may do so at the Fog Bank entry Godless Pagans.
If you choose to email this message or an edited version then please write your full name after the valediction. If you wish then you may also include your postal address for verification purposes. Here is the email address (your default email service will open yet you may paste the address into the address field of the email service of your choice) and the message to paste into your email follows it, in bold type:
census.customerservices@ons.gsi.gov.uk
F.A.O. Census 2011 Diversity Advisory Group (DiAG), formerly Special Populations Advisory Group.
Dear Sir,
I write regarding the organisation known as Pebble which represents itself to you as the “Public Bodies Liaison Committee for British Paganism”. You should be aware that Pebble has no popular mandate to represent British paganism to British public bodies but only the mandate of a statistically insignificant number of people who belong to its constituent groups.
Pebble is a private lobby organisation for several internet-based groups and the interests of their conveners. As most British pagans either do not know of its existence or disapprove of its claims Pebble acknowledges that it speaks only for its membership, the numbers of which are disputable as those members consciously supporting Pebble policy remain uncounted due to their recruitment via websites and the duplication of memberships across these websites. Pebble‘s claim to embody an inclusive array of British pagan belief, practice and opinion is therefore unsustainable. Pebble does not poll the views of British pagans outside of its constituent groups and this together with Pebble‘s claims are a source of dissension within those sections of the British pagan community who are even aware of Pebble, particularly its definition of paganism which excludes those pagans for whom gods are an important part of their lives.
Pebble does not represent either my religious interests or my secular interests as a British pagan. I hereby advise you that Pebble has no authority to enter into any discussions with your office upon my behalf. I would be happy for this message to be forwarded to other offices within your organisation as you feel appropriate.
Yours faithfully,
The above message may be sent as it stands or edited to any public body with which Pebble meets and to which you wish to make the same statement - simply remove the header “F.A.O. Census 2011 Diversity Advisory Group (DiAG), formerly Special Populations Advisory Group.” Pebble has been given the opportunity to address our concerns yet they refuse to do so. Time for us to speak for ourselves and we may at least register our rejection of Pebble's agenda. If you disagree with any of Pebble’s claims then take back the consent which they have claimed from you and speak out for yourself. Let you and your friends stand up and be counted for your own views and not in furtherance of Pebble’s pet projects.
I have posted this message upon the UKPagan discussion mentioned above. I respect UKPagan's stand in determining the content of their boards in the face of those who would be priests and kings and I thank them for maintaining such an excellent and independent forum. They are good people.
Best wishes, everyone.
Sunday 14 September 2008
Thank you, Miss Exotica Stormtrooper.
Hello Lee. I do not understand why your friend Craig is unable to reply directly, but isn’t this the chap with the blog where the replies precede the message? Or perhaps, as Craig speaks for Stefan and you speak for Craig, it’s the case that the more important you feel you are as a follower of druidry the more likely you are to have someone else handle your correspondence? Whichever, you have my respect, Lee, I hope you know that. Please pass this along to Craig in case he forgets where he put his screen:
Craig. First, I haven’t made Seniuk out as a celebrity but I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks of himself that way, nor do I have any contempt for Seniuk, reserving such valuable regard for those who truly deserve the attention. No, I’m actually laughing at Seniuk and his pledgers, and you have just given me further cause to guffaw: If Seniuk has designed his statement to be controversial - and a “call to arms” is certainly that - then he shouldn’t be surprised to find himself at the centre of a controversy, should he? I think you’ll find that’s the generally expected result of making a statement designed to be controversial. I would be surprised to learn that someone who speaks in such militant terms was so precious as to wither beneath a little satire, after all if someone sets themselves up as a warrior-prophet then they should expect a few catcalls and hoots.
I do not doubt your sincerity at all yet controversy does not beget respect nor do proclamations imply authority. There may be a need for many changes within Druidry but the first change needed if for those who call themselves druids to stop taking themselves so bloody seriously.
I do not doubt your sincerity at all yet controversy does not beget respect nor do proclamations imply authority. There may be a need for many changes within Druidry but the first change needed if for those who call themselves druids to stop taking themselves so bloody seriously.
P.S. The history in Seniuk’s statement is total bollocks, you do know that don't you?
Friday 12 September 2008
Brazil Nuts.
It’s regularly claimed as a point of superiority for paganism over other religions, for example, gosh, I don’t know - Christianity - that pagans do not evangelise. You won’t find groups of pagans hanging around shopping centres on Saturday mornings, banging tambourines and bawling out filk. You won’t find lone pagans standing around other shopping centres with sandwich boards damning everyone to Hell unless they embrace some horned god or other. You won’t find pairs of pagans knocking on your door on a quiet Sunday asking if they may enter and discuss the Eddas with you. You won’t find pagans visiting a developing nation to impose their religion over local forms in order to extract currency in return for educational materials.
This is the general claim, anyway.
This is the general claim, anyway.
Monday 8 September 2008
Desperation II.
For pity’s sake will someone just say that they like him and make the wheedling stop! He’s even commentating upon his own posts now - Heaven alone knows how he gets away from the shaving mirror each morning.
Never Mind The Cassocks.
With regard to the blog entry posted on both Ancestral Celt and Letters From Brython my answer to the question of the title is, even ignoring the cassocks, yes, and the wrongness is the certainty with which statements such as the following are made:
“In their time our druidic ancestors were at the cutting edge of philosophy, natural science and the understanding of the glory of the cosmos.”
I’m all for reconstructionism but claims like this make me wonder about the source being used, and in this case I fear it’s Goscinny and Uderzo. It’s such an extreme claim that it makes you wonder if those at the centre of both The Albion Conclave and Brython have any knowledge of British history at all, let alone the history of the rest of Europe of the world.
Seniuk predicts that some will find his words offensive. I find them something other. They’re barmy, especially when the cultural catastrophes of the Romans appear to have been ignored in favour of a false Druid-Christian dichotomy.
“Yet we insult these ancestors by pretending to be shamans, as if the ancient Druids had not evolved beyond the hunter-gatherers and still clung desperately to some primitive Mesolithic awareness until the arrival of the Christians.”
This kind of frothing, fictional grandeur is to be expected, I suppose, as every reconstructionism must have its Margaret Murray:
“Where is the passion on our tongues and the fire in our bellies? Is there is no yearning in our hearts to look deeper? Do we really believe we already have all the answers we need? Where is the real belief in the gods? Where is the fire in our heads?”
All due respect to anyone who wishes to formalise their religion but this all sounds a little too fiery. Cool heads may not prevail in the midst of such a fire, and the smoke will choke the light.
Being quite unbothered with LARPers and people who dress up like them to practice their religion I can’t say that until now I knew much about the Albion Conclave and Seniuk. I have taken a look around and one of the most interesting things which I have found - other than Seniuk’s inordinate fondness for describing his activities as "profound" (mistletoe?) - is that the Albion Conclave runs a correspondence course. Now, we all know that there is money in druidry, the Americans being a huge resource of historically-ignorant marks particularly keen to fork out their hard-earned that they might describe themselves as druids, and a cynical man might just wonder if this were not a move to grab a larger slice of the pie from the other teaching orders, if not push them away from the table completely.
It’s interesting that Seniuk seems to put distance between the Albion Conclave and shamanism while the only review which appears of their course that I have found describes the course as having “a deep Shamanic essence to it.” Further, on their own site the Albion Conclave describe shamanism as an “aspect of Druidic Lore”. Presumably this assertion has Seniuk's blessing therefore the Albion Conclave must have determined that shamanism sells yet this apparent endorsement of shamanism via teaching doesn't tally with Seniuk's declaration against shamanism. Something of a mess, all this.
Seniuk’s druid camp profile for 2008 reads like that of an enterprising and anti-Christian IRAB. I’m more used to seeing mangled history of this kind over on the BBC’s Pagan Topic but, considering the high regard in which some people appear to hold Seniuk’s ideas, it seems clear to me that hopeful ignorance is not confined to message boards.
Given the short notes above Seniuk’s newly stated intentions seem very confused. I would urge people to beware of self-selected leaders.
“In their time our druidic ancestors were at the cutting edge of philosophy, natural science and the understanding of the glory of the cosmos.”
I’m all for reconstructionism but claims like this make me wonder about the source being used, and in this case I fear it’s Goscinny and Uderzo. It’s such an extreme claim that it makes you wonder if those at the centre of both The Albion Conclave and Brython have any knowledge of British history at all, let alone the history of the rest of Europe of the world.
Seniuk predicts that some will find his words offensive. I find them something other. They’re barmy, especially when the cultural catastrophes of the Romans appear to have been ignored in favour of a false Druid-Christian dichotomy.
“Yet we insult these ancestors by pretending to be shamans, as if the ancient Druids had not evolved beyond the hunter-gatherers and still clung desperately to some primitive Mesolithic awareness until the arrival of the Christians.”
This kind of frothing, fictional grandeur is to be expected, I suppose, as every reconstructionism must have its Margaret Murray:
“Where is the passion on our tongues and the fire in our bellies? Is there is no yearning in our hearts to look deeper? Do we really believe we already have all the answers we need? Where is the real belief in the gods? Where is the fire in our heads?”
All due respect to anyone who wishes to formalise their religion but this all sounds a little too fiery. Cool heads may not prevail in the midst of such a fire, and the smoke will choke the light.
Being quite unbothered with LARPers and people who dress up like them to practice their religion I can’t say that until now I knew much about the Albion Conclave and Seniuk. I have taken a look around and one of the most interesting things which I have found - other than Seniuk’s inordinate fondness for describing his activities as "profound" (mistletoe?) - is that the Albion Conclave runs a correspondence course. Now, we all know that there is money in druidry, the Americans being a huge resource of historically-ignorant marks particularly keen to fork out their hard-earned that they might describe themselves as druids, and a cynical man might just wonder if this were not a move to grab a larger slice of the pie from the other teaching orders, if not push them away from the table completely.
It’s interesting that Seniuk seems to put distance between the Albion Conclave and shamanism while the only review which appears of their course that I have found describes the course as having “a deep Shamanic essence to it.” Further, on their own site the Albion Conclave describe shamanism as an “aspect of Druidic Lore”. Presumably this assertion has Seniuk's blessing therefore the Albion Conclave must have determined that shamanism sells yet this apparent endorsement of shamanism via teaching doesn't tally with Seniuk's declaration against shamanism. Something of a mess, all this.
Seniuk’s druid camp profile for 2008 reads like that of an enterprising and anti-Christian IRAB. I’m more used to seeing mangled history of this kind over on the BBC’s Pagan Topic but, considering the high regard in which some people appear to hold Seniuk’s ideas, it seems clear to me that hopeful ignorance is not confined to message boards.
Given the short notes above Seniuk’s newly stated intentions seem very confused. I would urge people to beware of self-selected leaders.
Wednesday 3 September 2008
Big.
If Gods exist in any real personal sense then their power and success must surely be judged as that of any other person, which is to say by their achievements. Now, we could say that the various Sun gods are extremely successful, the Sun rising each day in most parts of the world. We may say the same about Moon gods, such is the frequency with which the Moon appears, Let us not forget rain gods as it is always raining somewhere, nor storm gods who are always throwing their bolts about. The oceans move around the world continuously and so the sea gods are doing rather well. City gods are doing marvellously, for cities never seem to go out of fashion. These signs of success are only conditions of our world, however, and of our way of life, phenomena upon which we depend and which could not be any other way if we are to remain in this world. A better measure of success would be those ways in which gods influence how we choose to live our lives, and it seems true that everyone who worships, acknowledges or venerates a god does so for a reason which has its root in the way they act, think and feel. Even those people claiming religions without dogma either behave in a way they feel is pleasing to their god or interact with their god for instrumental reasons. This measure is a universal measure, then, and so it serves nicely to judge the success and thereby power of a particular god when the apparent quantities of people who follow and have followed that god are compared one with another.
It’s bad news for those pagans who insist on bashing Christians, Jews and Muslims, I’m afraid. The god of Abraham wins out. This isn’t to say that the lives and choices of Christians, Jews and Muslims are any more legitimate or have any greater intrinsic value than those of everyone else, it simply means that their god is bigger and cleverer than everyone else’s gods. So, have a little humility all you ex-Christian pagans, and deal with your issues of inadequacy in some other, more gentle ways than flinging insults at the followers of the god of Abraham.
It’s bad news for those pagans who insist on bashing Christians, Jews and Muslims, I’m afraid. The god of Abraham wins out. This isn’t to say that the lives and choices of Christians, Jews and Muslims are any more legitimate or have any greater intrinsic value than those of everyone else, it simply means that their god is bigger and cleverer than everyone else’s gods. So, have a little humility all you ex-Christian pagans, and deal with your issues of inadequacy in some other, more gentle ways than flinging insults at the followers of the god of Abraham.
Desperation.
The BBC’s Pagan Topic has become so dull, so far off-topic and so devoid of any kind of civilised discussion - the most active discussion for the last month being some interminable stream of flatulence about crayons - that they have turned to the person they consider adversary number one in order to get any kind of relief from the shower of shit which is the current level of discourse in that place.
The theme is something along the lines of “you‘re not a pagan and don‘t belong here”. Meanwhile, many of the regular posters at The Pagan Topic troll The Muslim Topic, The Jewish Topic and The Christian Topic.
The theme is something along the lines of “you‘re not a pagan and don‘t belong here”. Meanwhile, many of the regular posters at The Pagan Topic troll The Muslim Topic, The Jewish Topic and The Christian Topic.
Monday 1 September 2008
Personality Cu*t.
Recently I observed someone announce that his gods are figments of his imagination, yet this man leads his own religious group in conducting rituals and observing tradition centred around the Wiccan God and Goddess. Where is the sense here? Perhaps the other members of his group feel as he, that their gods are entirely imaginary. If, on the other hand, they are sincere in their belief in the literal existence of their gods then what can they possibly gain from following a someone who does not share their sincerity in this particular regard? Further, what does this religious roleplayer gain from his leadership of his group?
I think that it is much easier to have respect for a person who calls themselves a pagan and denies any interest in gods or even their existence than for someone who cynically employs the idea of gods for their own self-agrandisement.
I think that it is much easier to have respect for a person who calls themselves a pagan and denies any interest in gods or even their existence than for someone who cynically employs the idea of gods for their own self-agrandisement.
Sunday 31 August 2008
Spot The Difference II.
Further to the previous post in which David Shayler was seen to explain how he came to terms with his status as the reincarnation of King Arthur - amongst other things - here is a wonderful video of Mr Rothwell sitting first upon a throne and explaining how he avoided existential crisis by deciding that he was King Arthur and later upon a park bench speaking of his confrontation with doubt and acceptance that magic will provide.
Women want to get with him, apparently. Fight the power.
Women want to get with him, apparently. Fight the power.
Spot The Difference.
John Timothy Rothwell, known to his friends as King Arthur, who in turn are known to him as the Loyal Arthurian Warband, believes he is the reincarnation of the legendary King Arthur of Britain. He’s not alone in elevating himself to the throne, however, as everyone’s favourite discredited spook David Shayler also lays claim to the name and title. I’m sure there must be others. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were enough King Arthurs to fill an entire round table of their own. Perhaps it’s a natural part of the midlife crisis - ditch your wife, grow your hair long, grow a beard, start dating younger women, buy a motorcycle, get religion, grab a sword and announce to the nation that you are King Arthur.
Shayler says that he can change the weather as well, not an unusual claim among people who claim to be pagan or who call themselves witches but I think that those who make it should be aware of the company which they keep. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shayler recants in the next year or so, announces himself as the reincarnation of Obi-Wan Kenobi and starts trading as a reiki master with the ability to heal a myriad of illnesses which medicine cannot touch - only less absurd than being the reincarnation of King Arthur on account of the hordes of unscrupulous con artists who claim to be so miraculously gifted.
Shayler says that he can change the weather as well, not an unusual claim among people who claim to be pagan or who call themselves witches but I think that those who make it should be aware of the company which they keep. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shayler recants in the next year or so, announces himself as the reincarnation of Obi-Wan Kenobi and starts trading as a reiki master with the ability to heal a myriad of illnesses which medicine cannot touch - only less absurd than being the reincarnation of King Arthur on account of the hordes of unscrupulous con artists who claim to be so miraculously gifted.
Thursday 21 August 2008
Drips in the rain.
Apparently Reiki Retard feels that my arse needs a good kicking. Knowing the car park proclivities of this person I suppose my arse would be lucky if this is all which he tried to give it.
Meanwhile, his sidekick BowelSting (appropriately enough) is shouting off it’s beak about reincarnation, supremely yet mistakenly confident that nobody has spotted that it is posting under the sock puppet identity of giggleFruitbat.
Meanwhile, his sidekick BowelSting (appropriately enough) is shouting off it’s beak about reincarnation, supremely yet mistakenly confident that nobody has spotted that it is posting under the sock puppet identity of giggleFruitbat.
Friday 25 July 2008
Mash It Up.
If modern, Western polytheism seems dominated by laundry lists of Gods whom polytheists claim to have met it is also wrapped around by grocery lists of “sacred texts”.
Recently one polytheist of my acquaintance asked a number of her colleagues - people who mistake vocabulary for scholarliness - to briefly itemise the “sacred texts” which they possessed, with particular emphasis upon those of other religions. The reasons for this poll are irrelevant here but it should be noted that the term “sacred” has not been defined and that subsequent responses included writings which were sacred to the responders and more, the majority of each list, which are sacred to other religions which included some presumed to be sacred to extinct cultures. Several objects which were never intended to be sacred nor which it is fair to consider sacred were also listed.
Let’s have a definition of sacred. We can see that grimoire, tarot cards and DVDs, some of the more bizarre responses given, don’t qualify. The question of definition is important here because there is so much of relativism in modern paganism that we shouldn’t be surprised to notice some pagans walking down the street with their right shoe on their left foot and vice versa declaring, between stumbles and grunts of pain, that the chirality which they assign to their feet is a matter of spiritual preference and that this is a key part of their reconstruction of a great Gnostic-Egyptian-Hellene-Brythonic-Pictish tradition which has been lost to history due to the Christian misinterpretation and misrepresentation of extant sacred texts - including the Bible, the Beano and the instructions which came with their flat-pack chest of drawers - and the rediscovery of previously lost writings beneath the kennel of their fairy great-great-great grandmother’s albino wolf-scotty crossbreed, Lassie.
Now, what relevance do the books of religions dead and gone as well as those here and decidedly not Pagan by current context have to modern, Western pagans? What, say, has Religio Romana to do with the religious beliefs of the Sioux people? Of what relevance is the Egyptian Book of the Dead to hedge-witching? Why would a Heathen retain a Greek New Testament when ditching the rest of her library? Where does Celtic reconstructionism meet with the Bhagavad Gita? Yes, of course a person may retain these in their libraries freely and their reasons for ownership will be diverse, yet why should pagans seems to share an interest in other religions not their own? I would expect, from my own experience, that a straw poll of Christians or Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists would not produce results even in the neighbourhood of similar to those under discussion here. Why, then, are pagans special in this? Why do they own such a range of books considered sacred by other religions?
It’s simple, really. Modern, literate Western pagans enjoy reading about other religious beliefs because in so doing they feel that they become part of a great tradition of non-Christianity, and to feel justified in abandoning their Christian beliefs and practices, cultural or religious, by reference to great swathes of time in which there were other ways of believing and being. This is not to deny that there are many pagans who accept the epistemological status of their beliefs and who recognise, as I, that a set of beliefs and practices of a handful of years, well-found in thought and consistent, coherent study, and sincerely observed is a tradition as good for the soul - to use a metaphor - and their community as that of any church, synagogue, mosque or temple. Where this is not the case, however, is when study - which sometimes amounts to nothing more than e-books of grimoire and Latin translation downloaded from free sites and the use of heavy, second-hand paperbacks to prevent bookshelves from floating off into space - is not coherently themed, not consistently engaged in and not implemented in the everyday. I assume this is the case because so much of the pagan discourse I encounter, in person and over the internet, seems to consist in no small part of syncretic mash-ups of ideas, names and references from any given religious, philosophical, magical or mystical tradition you may care to mention. I would be surprised if many of these pagans had even read a sacred page of any of the sacred texts they claim to own - whether they own them is another question - yet they see neither nonsense nor disrespect in blithely diluting the sacred beliefs of other peoples in their vain, shallow ignorantly post modern, relativist discourse.
If any of the above describes you then I would ask you to remember that in religion, as in everything else, the value of what you get out is in direct proportion to that which you put in yet you will not, however hard you try, obtain a vital, enduring and useful religion by dumping umpteen “sacred texts” into your simmering cauldron of don’t-want-to-be-Christian soup.
Recently one polytheist of my acquaintance asked a number of her colleagues - people who mistake vocabulary for scholarliness - to briefly itemise the “sacred texts” which they possessed, with particular emphasis upon those of other religions. The reasons for this poll are irrelevant here but it should be noted that the term “sacred” has not been defined and that subsequent responses included writings which were sacred to the responders and more, the majority of each list, which are sacred to other religions which included some presumed to be sacred to extinct cultures. Several objects which were never intended to be sacred nor which it is fair to consider sacred were also listed.
Let’s have a definition of sacred. We can see that grimoire, tarot cards and DVDs, some of the more bizarre responses given, don’t qualify. The question of definition is important here because there is so much of relativism in modern paganism that we shouldn’t be surprised to notice some pagans walking down the street with their right shoe on their left foot and vice versa declaring, between stumbles and grunts of pain, that the chirality which they assign to their feet is a matter of spiritual preference and that this is a key part of their reconstruction of a great Gnostic-Egyptian-Hellene-Brythonic-Pictish tradition which has been lost to history due to the Christian misinterpretation and misrepresentation of extant sacred texts - including the Bible, the Beano and the instructions which came with their flat-pack chest of drawers - and the rediscovery of previously lost writings beneath the kennel of their fairy great-great-great grandmother’s albino wolf-scotty crossbreed, Lassie.
Now, what relevance do the books of religions dead and gone as well as those here and decidedly not Pagan by current context have to modern, Western pagans? What, say, has Religio Romana to do with the religious beliefs of the Sioux people? Of what relevance is the Egyptian Book of the Dead to hedge-witching? Why would a Heathen retain a Greek New Testament when ditching the rest of her library? Where does Celtic reconstructionism meet with the Bhagavad Gita? Yes, of course a person may retain these in their libraries freely and their reasons for ownership will be diverse, yet why should pagans seems to share an interest in other religions not their own? I would expect, from my own experience, that a straw poll of Christians or Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists would not produce results even in the neighbourhood of similar to those under discussion here. Why, then, are pagans special in this? Why do they own such a range of books considered sacred by other religions?
It’s simple, really. Modern, literate Western pagans enjoy reading about other religious beliefs because in so doing they feel that they become part of a great tradition of non-Christianity, and to feel justified in abandoning their Christian beliefs and practices, cultural or religious, by reference to great swathes of time in which there were other ways of believing and being. This is not to deny that there are many pagans who accept the epistemological status of their beliefs and who recognise, as I, that a set of beliefs and practices of a handful of years, well-found in thought and consistent, coherent study, and sincerely observed is a tradition as good for the soul - to use a metaphor - and their community as that of any church, synagogue, mosque or temple. Where this is not the case, however, is when study - which sometimes amounts to nothing more than e-books of grimoire and Latin translation downloaded from free sites and the use of heavy, second-hand paperbacks to prevent bookshelves from floating off into space - is not coherently themed, not consistently engaged in and not implemented in the everyday. I assume this is the case because so much of the pagan discourse I encounter, in person and over the internet, seems to consist in no small part of syncretic mash-ups of ideas, names and references from any given religious, philosophical, magical or mystical tradition you may care to mention. I would be surprised if many of these pagans had even read a sacred page of any of the sacred texts they claim to own - whether they own them is another question - yet they see neither nonsense nor disrespect in blithely diluting the sacred beliefs of other peoples in their vain, shallow ignorantly post modern, relativist discourse.
If any of the above describes you then I would ask you to remember that in religion, as in everything else, the value of what you get out is in direct proportion to that which you put in yet you will not, however hard you try, obtain a vital, enduring and useful religion by dumping umpteen “sacred texts” into your simmering cauldron of don’t-want-to-be-Christian soup.
Saturday 19 July 2008
Godless Pagans.
The Pebble census campaign doesn’t seem to be going quite as it should. According to the above page the aim of the campaign is to achieve the following:
"Paganism will be officially recognized as a serious religious choice;
The government can see that we vote and there are enough of us to make a difference;
Pagan organisations can show they are representative;
We can achieve more representation within the local and wider community;
Pagan organisations will have credibility when dealing with both businesses and the government to provide the services you need."
It’s possible to quibble with this on various points but the main flaw which, judging from their complete lack of any objection to it here, is one about which Pebble doesn’t seem to give a monkey’s soggy arse, is that the Census Diversity Action Group of the Office of National Statistics, which on behalf of the British government will investigate and assess the coherency of paganism as a single religious category albeit subdivided, have adopted the following definition of paganism:
“PAGANISM : The umbrella term for spiritualities and religions that recognise the sacred in nature, the environment, ancestry and heritage.”
Can anyone spot the missing word here? Anyone? You! Yes, you at the back! Speak up there. Again. Yes, that’s it. The definition does not use the word Gods - nor Goddesses for that matter.
Now, how is Pebble to achieve its aims, given above, when paganism will be officially viewed by the Office of National Statistics, the organisers of the census and an organ of the British government, as a group of soppy, gardening, environmentalist genealogist folklorists? Where are the Gods? Don’t any of the members of Pebble actually have Gods in their religions? If yes then do they plan on taking them seriously anytime soon and having Gods mentioned here? Or is it the case that it’s fine to talk about your Gods to other pagans but that when you’re looking for some political and economic clout then Gods may just be brushed under the carpet or shoved into the airing cupboard for fear of pagans looking a little too serious about this whole religion thing? After all, Pebble wants all the pageantry and places of paganism, and pagans and their preferences, or at the very least Pebble itself to be taken seriously by the government. It doesn’t seem, however, as though Pebble wants the government to take their religious beliefs seriously where these involve Gods. Yes, Gods are viewed from a different perspective by pagans than by monotheists yet can you imagine if Christianity were to ditch any mention of God when describing itself? Would they be carpentry-practicing, yeast-averse wine-tasters?
Personally, I would have thought that to omit any mention of Gods from a definition of paganism was a very bad idea, and I would have thought that the Heathen contingent of Pebble, Heathens For Progress, would have ensured that Gods made an appearance in this definition. Perhaps it’s the case, though, that Progress comes before principles, the principle here being that Gods are a big part of many pagan religions, but if the ONS doesn’t like that principle, well then, Pebble and its constituent members have plenty of others. Gods and the pagans who deal with them can go about their business, take up a hobby, form Subbuteo leagues, fly kites or whatever, as long as Pebble gets to sit at the High Table.
Should anyone feel as I do, that Gods should not be omitted from any description of paganism and that Pebble, if they're going to persist in their claim to be representative of pagans and their beliefs, should not permit pagans to be viewed by the government as some kind of secular cosplaying live-RPG club then they may take Pebble’s own advice and stand up and be counted by contacting Pebble to insist that they have significant mention of Gods included in the ONS definition of paganism. Pebble may insist that you sign up you and your friends as one of their partner organisation that they may represent-your-point-of-view-to-the-government-but-no-promises-mind-you, and you may join if you wish. Alternatively, if you wish to circumvent the self-appointed high priests of British paganism then you may contact the Office of National Statistics individually or on behalf of any group of which you are a member and which feels the same way that you may put forward your own point of view.
There is another option, very economic and effective. You might consider it a good idea to keep the government out of your religious beliefs and ignore Pebble altogether. Pebble is not paganism.
"Paganism will be officially recognized as a serious religious choice;
The government can see that we vote and there are enough of us to make a difference;
Pagan organisations can show they are representative;
We can achieve more representation within the local and wider community;
Pagan organisations will have credibility when dealing with both businesses and the government to provide the services you need."
It’s possible to quibble with this on various points but the main flaw which, judging from their complete lack of any objection to it here, is one about which Pebble doesn’t seem to give a monkey’s soggy arse, is that the Census Diversity Action Group of the Office of National Statistics, which on behalf of the British government will investigate and assess the coherency of paganism as a single religious category albeit subdivided, have adopted the following definition of paganism:
“PAGANISM : The umbrella term for spiritualities and religions that recognise the sacred in nature, the environment, ancestry and heritage.”
Can anyone spot the missing word here? Anyone? You! Yes, you at the back! Speak up there. Again. Yes, that’s it. The definition does not use the word Gods - nor Goddesses for that matter.
Now, how is Pebble to achieve its aims, given above, when paganism will be officially viewed by the Office of National Statistics, the organisers of the census and an organ of the British government, as a group of soppy, gardening, environmentalist genealogist folklorists? Where are the Gods? Don’t any of the members of Pebble actually have Gods in their religions? If yes then do they plan on taking them seriously anytime soon and having Gods mentioned here? Or is it the case that it’s fine to talk about your Gods to other pagans but that when you’re looking for some political and economic clout then Gods may just be brushed under the carpet or shoved into the airing cupboard for fear of pagans looking a little too serious about this whole religion thing? After all, Pebble wants all the pageantry and places of paganism, and pagans and their preferences, or at the very least Pebble itself to be taken seriously by the government. It doesn’t seem, however, as though Pebble wants the government to take their religious beliefs seriously where these involve Gods. Yes, Gods are viewed from a different perspective by pagans than by monotheists yet can you imagine if Christianity were to ditch any mention of God when describing itself? Would they be carpentry-practicing, yeast-averse wine-tasters?
Personally, I would have thought that to omit any mention of Gods from a definition of paganism was a very bad idea, and I would have thought that the Heathen contingent of Pebble, Heathens For Progress, would have ensured that Gods made an appearance in this definition. Perhaps it’s the case, though, that Progress comes before principles, the principle here being that Gods are a big part of many pagan religions, but if the ONS doesn’t like that principle, well then, Pebble and its constituent members have plenty of others. Gods and the pagans who deal with them can go about their business, take up a hobby, form Subbuteo leagues, fly kites or whatever, as long as Pebble gets to sit at the High Table.
Should anyone feel as I do, that Gods should not be omitted from any description of paganism and that Pebble, if they're going to persist in their claim to be representative of pagans and their beliefs, should not permit pagans to be viewed by the government as some kind of secular cosplaying live-RPG club then they may take Pebble’s own advice and stand up and be counted by contacting Pebble to insist that they have significant mention of Gods included in the ONS definition of paganism. Pebble may insist that you sign up you and your friends as one of their partner organisation that they may represent-your-point-of-view-to-the-government-but-no-promises-mind-you, and you may join if you wish. Alternatively, if you wish to circumvent the self-appointed high priests of British paganism then you may contact the Office of National Statistics individually or on behalf of any group of which you are a member and which feels the same way that you may put forward your own point of view.
There is another option, very economic and effective. You might consider it a good idea to keep the government out of your religious beliefs and ignore Pebble altogether. Pebble is not paganism.
Friday 18 July 2008
Newspeak.
The funniest thing that I have seen in quite some time is a page from Thorshof called Choosing a Heathen Deity. It rather put me in mind of that childhood game - pre-Playstation - where little geometrically-regular paper toys with numbers and letters written upon them are manipulated until some divination or other is reached. Well, the page itself isn’t the funniest thing, actually. The funniest thing is the realisation that one of the people behind this site, Thorskegga Thorn, is also at the centre of Heathens For Progress and Pebble’s etymological scheme to turbo-charge a Heathen resurgence within Britain by persuading the Oxford English Dictionary that several hundred words and phrases, including Troll-woman, Weodmonath, Leechcraft, Runester, Hlaefmass, Blessing Twig, Helm of Awe and Nine Herbs Charm, be listed within their next edition. Many of the words given are actually already in the dictionary.
I assume this is the intention, anyway, and I look forward to learning of future Pebble projects which will perhaps include a letter-writing campaign to crossword composers insisting that they include words from this list in their puzzles, or perhaps they will picket Channel 4 until Carol Vorderman agrees to start using runic characters during the word rounds of Countdown. That’s the way to do it; indoctrinate the unsuspecting, blue-rinsed British public into pagan ways while they’re dozing over their tea and macaroons.
I assume this is the intention, anyway, and I look forward to learning of future Pebble projects which will perhaps include a letter-writing campaign to crossword composers insisting that they include words from this list in their puzzles, or perhaps they will picket Channel 4 until Carol Vorderman agrees to start using runic characters during the word rounds of Countdown. That’s the way to do it; indoctrinate the unsuspecting, blue-rinsed British public into pagan ways while they’re dozing over their tea and macaroons.
Cunning As Folk.
I’ve just begun to reread a book which I was given as a gift several years ago, the excellent Troublesome Things by the lovely and talented scholar and author Diane Purkiss of Keble College, Oxford.
I cannot recall what prompted me to pick it up once more but I was sufficiently enthused to have a look around the BBC Radio 4 website - the Listen Again facility of which is one of the main reasons for which I maintain an internet connection - and I was delighted to discover an excellent episode of Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time to which she contributed as a lively and very useful guest on the very subject of fairies which may make exceedingly entertaining Elevenses listening for any interested parties.
One of the other pieces I found on the Radio 4 site was a short interview on Woman‘s Hour, a discussion on male witches and cunning men. It may be thought that a witch is a witch is a witch, but what with everyone and their aunt’s dog describing themselves as a witch these days perhaps it would be better consider the term witch as an honourific bestowed by others. Witch and cunning man both imply wisdom and ability but when each of these consist of nothing more than the same practices, misinformation and alleged spells which anyone can obtain from their nearest bookshop then in what sense is any of this to be considered either wise or able? What is it about a person that allows them to think that they are the peers of those men and women whose names are part of folklore? The ability to swish around in crushed velvet, dye their hair and buy crappy magic wands from websites? It would perhaps be a better state of affairs if people were noted for their obvious common sense, their obvious achievements, their obvious good works for friends, strangers and family in their community, their obvious knowledge of folklore and history than for their brags about alleged abilities to do things which might be considered magical or out of the ordinary that are in the overwhelming majority of cases, frankly, the entirely unwarranted power fantasies of impotent, attention-seeking, feckless people too lazy to get off their backsides, open books, get themselves an education and get involved in the world.
If the title of witch is to be used at all by pagans about one another - and this is by no means a given considering its traditional meaning - then it should not be used trivially, as is the case now.
I cannot recall what prompted me to pick it up once more but I was sufficiently enthused to have a look around the BBC Radio 4 website - the Listen Again facility of which is one of the main reasons for which I maintain an internet connection - and I was delighted to discover an excellent episode of Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time to which she contributed as a lively and very useful guest on the very subject of fairies which may make exceedingly entertaining Elevenses listening for any interested parties.
One of the other pieces I found on the Radio 4 site was a short interview on Woman‘s Hour, a discussion on male witches and cunning men. It may be thought that a witch is a witch is a witch, but what with everyone and their aunt’s dog describing themselves as a witch these days perhaps it would be better consider the term witch as an honourific bestowed by others. Witch and cunning man both imply wisdom and ability but when each of these consist of nothing more than the same practices, misinformation and alleged spells which anyone can obtain from their nearest bookshop then in what sense is any of this to be considered either wise or able? What is it about a person that allows them to think that they are the peers of those men and women whose names are part of folklore? The ability to swish around in crushed velvet, dye their hair and buy crappy magic wands from websites? It would perhaps be a better state of affairs if people were noted for their obvious common sense, their obvious achievements, their obvious good works for friends, strangers and family in their community, their obvious knowledge of folklore and history than for their brags about alleged abilities to do things which might be considered magical or out of the ordinary that are in the overwhelming majority of cases, frankly, the entirely unwarranted power fantasies of impotent, attention-seeking, feckless people too lazy to get off their backsides, open books, get themselves an education and get involved in the world.
If the title of witch is to be used at all by pagans about one another - and this is by no means a given considering its traditional meaning - then it should not be used trivially, as is the case now.
Many Gods.
Generally speaking I have respect for most pagan associations approximately equal to the sum of the respect I accord most of their members which is somewhere in the vicinity of zero. This being a general position there is, of course, one particular exception which springs to mind and that is the Association of Polytheist Traditions.
Now, the APT are a mixed bunch of lasses and lads who regard Gods as people rather than as energy fields or psychic archetypes of computer simulators and this to me seems an eminently sensible position to adopt about Gods - if they exist - for various reasons of which I might speak in subsequent entries yet which may be taken broadly as arising from the observation that people trade with other people and are not engaged in conversation by, for example, nebulous clouds of electricity, Oedipal complexes or picket fences. Their chief redeeming feature, and in this day and age most artificial groupings require at least one of these, is that as an organisation they, and this is faintly surprising given certain pie-sticky fingers, have no truck with Pebble, that self-appointed band of women and men who regard themselves, as if such a thing were ever possible or in this case realistic, as being a sage council of representatives to the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of all British paganism and pagans.
The APT are, it seems at least for the moment, fiercely independent of the politics, back-stabbing, grunting and splashing which composes so much of the background of modern British paganism, being less concerned for their prestige as a group than in doing a good job honouring their own beliefs by quietly organising conferences, encouraging individual religious and cultural scholarship and maintaining the polytheist line. The next event at which they will have a presence, according to their website, is to be held in Peterborough on the 9th of August and, billed as Heathenfest, will doubtless prove welcoming and interesting to polytheists and pagans of many backgrounds. Shortly afterwards on the 31st of August the APT will be holding Pookaspageant in Ipswich, billed as a storytelling day it will likely be good fun although, not wanting to mischaracterise an event on which so little advance information is yet published, I strongly suspect that the stories will be as much for adults as for children. While I only have access to the information currently published upon the APT website I would recommend that those looking for a good day out, a day of fun and educational experiences and meetings, contact the APT for further information. For those who love a bargain and who like to join groups it should be noted that until the 31st May 2009 membership of the APT is free of charge and will gain you copies of the APT magazine Many Gods, Many Voices, including back numbers where available, although it is unclear whether members receive concessionary entry to APT events.
Now, the APT are a mixed bunch of lasses and lads who regard Gods as people rather than as energy fields or psychic archetypes of computer simulators and this to me seems an eminently sensible position to adopt about Gods - if they exist - for various reasons of which I might speak in subsequent entries yet which may be taken broadly as arising from the observation that people trade with other people and are not engaged in conversation by, for example, nebulous clouds of electricity, Oedipal complexes or picket fences. Their chief redeeming feature, and in this day and age most artificial groupings require at least one of these, is that as an organisation they, and this is faintly surprising given certain pie-sticky fingers, have no truck with Pebble, that self-appointed band of women and men who regard themselves, as if such a thing were ever possible or in this case realistic, as being a sage council of representatives to the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of all British paganism and pagans.
The APT are, it seems at least for the moment, fiercely independent of the politics, back-stabbing, grunting and splashing which composes so much of the background of modern British paganism, being less concerned for their prestige as a group than in doing a good job honouring their own beliefs by quietly organising conferences, encouraging individual religious and cultural scholarship and maintaining the polytheist line. The next event at which they will have a presence, according to their website, is to be held in Peterborough on the 9th of August and, billed as Heathenfest, will doubtless prove welcoming and interesting to polytheists and pagans of many backgrounds. Shortly afterwards on the 31st of August the APT will be holding Pookaspageant in Ipswich, billed as a storytelling day it will likely be good fun although, not wanting to mischaracterise an event on which so little advance information is yet published, I strongly suspect that the stories will be as much for adults as for children. While I only have access to the information currently published upon the APT website I would recommend that those looking for a good day out, a day of fun and educational experiences and meetings, contact the APT for further information. For those who love a bargain and who like to join groups it should be noted that until the 31st May 2009 membership of the APT is free of charge and will gain you copies of the APT magazine Many Gods, Many Voices, including back numbers where available, although it is unclear whether members receive concessionary entry to APT events.
Keep Digging.
While on the subject of HAD it’s useful to point out that they have no more legitimate claim upon the religious disposition of human remains found in museums and other collections than do the Christian churches or anyone else. Yes, the word pagan is used to describe the religious beliefs of the pre-Christian peoples of the British Isles and the handful of people who compose HAD use the same term to describe themselves yet there is no continuous epistemological link between the two groups and no reason for HAD to claim special authority in this issue simply on account of a shared adjective.
It’s unclear why the ancient dead, long departed from their bones, should give a fig about the location of their mortal remains or about the feelings of modern career pagans on the matter, yet HAD reserves for itself the option of pursuing the interring or other disposal of these remains during some 21st Century C.E. made-up ritual fabricated from Arcadian sentiment and mangled ritual magic. If the ancient dead are found buried or otherwise intentionally disposed of then this happened with all due ceremony and honour already a long time ago accompanied by authentic rituals and beliefs and HAD may as well be chanting and wailing over a beef broth bone. If the ancient dead are found in circumstances which lead their discoverers to believe they were not buried with due ceremony and honour then there will very likely have been a social reason why such a person is left to rot where they dropped and it’s not the place of modern pagans to contradict them. What doesn’t seem to figure in HAD’s field of visions is the fact that the term ancient dead refers to more than the rags, bones and hanks of hair they prefer to retroactively claim as their own people but also to the people who placed these items in the ground in the first place. Their religious beliefs - and HAD have no better insight into what these may have been than informed non-pagans - should be respected and observed.
The ancient dead, dear friends, are long gone from here and even were they still here wouldn’t understand a word of the rituals smudge-muttered over their remains anymore than we would understand theirs. Broadly, we are each the descendents of the ancient dead, their kin, and their bones are their legacy to us, gifts left behind that we might learn of their lives and their deeds. They are as much the kin of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins as they are the kin of anyone who calls themselves a druid or a witch or a heathen. Either we recognise the fact that these bones are dead gifts - and the word dead is operative here - from which we might learn with respect for the manner in which these gifts are kept or, in this multicultural age where religion is unhinged from ethnic origin, we dispose of these with all due ceremony, and I mean all due ceremony.
It’s unclear why the ancient dead, long departed from their bones, should give a fig about the location of their mortal remains or about the feelings of modern career pagans on the matter, yet HAD reserves for itself the option of pursuing the interring or other disposal of these remains during some 21st Century C.E. made-up ritual fabricated from Arcadian sentiment and mangled ritual magic. If the ancient dead are found buried or otherwise intentionally disposed of then this happened with all due ceremony and honour already a long time ago accompanied by authentic rituals and beliefs and HAD may as well be chanting and wailing over a beef broth bone. If the ancient dead are found in circumstances which lead their discoverers to believe they were not buried with due ceremony and honour then there will very likely have been a social reason why such a person is left to rot where they dropped and it’s not the place of modern pagans to contradict them. What doesn’t seem to figure in HAD’s field of visions is the fact that the term ancient dead refers to more than the rags, bones and hanks of hair they prefer to retroactively claim as their own people but also to the people who placed these items in the ground in the first place. Their religious beliefs - and HAD have no better insight into what these may have been than informed non-pagans - should be respected and observed.
The ancient dead, dear friends, are long gone from here and even were they still here wouldn’t understand a word of the rituals smudge-muttered over their remains anymore than we would understand theirs. Broadly, we are each the descendents of the ancient dead, their kin, and their bones are their legacy to us, gifts left behind that we might learn of their lives and their deeds. They are as much the kin of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins as they are the kin of anyone who calls themselves a druid or a witch or a heathen. Either we recognise the fact that these bones are dead gifts - and the word dead is operative here - from which we might learn with respect for the manner in which these gifts are kept or, in this multicultural age where religion is unhinged from ethnic origin, we dispose of these with all due ceremony, and I mean all due ceremony.
Thursday 17 July 2008
The Ends of History.
Browsing the HAD site today I had something of a laugh, an appropriate response to the vast majority of the claims found there. I read a document named The Sanctity of Burial: Pagan Views, ancient and Modern by art historian Robert J. Wallis and sociology lecturerer Jenny Blain, a paper delivered to the equally grand sounding conference “Respect for Ancient British Human Remains: Philosophy and Practice” held in Manchester in November of 2006.
The attitude of this document is typical of many of those to be found on the HAD site, which is to say it attempts to conflate modern British pagan beliefs, in all their excellent ragtag diversity, with whatever passed for organised religions among the prehistoric peoples of these isles. Interestingly, Heathenry is here included in a description of modern paganism as part of “an alliance of nature-orientated religions, paths or traditions”. The apparent nonsense of describing Heathenry as a “nature-oriented” religion pales beside the implication throughout the paper that this admittedly disorganised group of modern beliefs - to call it an alliance is specious - has anything at all to do with whatever passed for religious beliefs and practices among the prehistoric people’s of the British Isles and further afield.
It seems that the glorious revisionisms of past scholars such as Margaret Murray and James Frazer have not gone away at all but survive, as a pagan tradition, in the ideas and claims of Blain and Wallis and HAD. Whereas previous fictive histories were presented as historical theories - undetermined accounts of things which actually happened - here in Blain’s and Wallis’ paper we find a foundation for fiction much more sophisticated yet eminently more disposable, that of identity politics. In this paper Blain and Wallis identify modern pagans by the inelegant term of “new-indigenes” because, they claim, modern pagans choose to identify with “indigenous perspectives”, which seems strange considering that the indigenous religious perspective of the British Isles and Europe has been shaped by getting on for 2,000 years of Christianity, that any indigenous pre-Christian religions here have been extinct for around the same number of years and also that any appropriation of extant non-Christian religious traditions from elsewhere in the world contradicts any claim for connections to prehistoric native British religions and peoples. This massive misrepresentation of the term indigenous aside, this perspective of the “new-indigene” is inspired by that great cultural leveller - that universal solvent of all tradition which is loved by the traditionally bereft - sociology, in particular the ideas of Michel Maffesoli whose thesis is built around the idea that useful and healthy perspectives of societies and cultures are best founded in imaginative recreation rather than in historical fact. This paper, then, is more concerned with the creative, sociologically-enforced training of a paganism already planned as “an alliance of nature-oriented religions” than with an appreciation and documentation of the natural growth of new and authentic religious movements.
Under this perspective and its implicit conclusion that it is perfectly fair to make unrealistic claims about history, society and genealogy in the service of “Pagan identity”, which seems to be at the heart of HAD's revisionist programme, it’s the flip of a coin whether you see the future of paganism as magic realism or as SCA but either way it looks like it will be a very good idea for modern pagans to make themselves aware of the genuinely modern origins of their religious beliefs, even if they do wish to identify with the pre-Christian peoples of Europe and the British Isles, that they themselves may be ambassadors for their own beliefs and not succumb to the tender social representations of a hegemony presumptive, else the resulting “Pagan identity” will be that of a clown. Pagans will not be taken seriously if they do not take their own history, society and genealogy seriously and recognise that their history, their society and their genealogy are identical with those of non-pagans.
(Quotations included for review purposes only.)
The attitude of this document is typical of many of those to be found on the HAD site, which is to say it attempts to conflate modern British pagan beliefs, in all their excellent ragtag diversity, with whatever passed for organised religions among the prehistoric peoples of these isles. Interestingly, Heathenry is here included in a description of modern paganism as part of “an alliance of nature-orientated religions, paths or traditions”. The apparent nonsense of describing Heathenry as a “nature-oriented” religion pales beside the implication throughout the paper that this admittedly disorganised group of modern beliefs - to call it an alliance is specious - has anything at all to do with whatever passed for religious beliefs and practices among the prehistoric people’s of the British Isles and further afield.
It seems that the glorious revisionisms of past scholars such as Margaret Murray and James Frazer have not gone away at all but survive, as a pagan tradition, in the ideas and claims of Blain and Wallis and HAD. Whereas previous fictive histories were presented as historical theories - undetermined accounts of things which actually happened - here in Blain’s and Wallis’ paper we find a foundation for fiction much more sophisticated yet eminently more disposable, that of identity politics. In this paper Blain and Wallis identify modern pagans by the inelegant term of “new-indigenes” because, they claim, modern pagans choose to identify with “indigenous perspectives”, which seems strange considering that the indigenous religious perspective of the British Isles and Europe has been shaped by getting on for 2,000 years of Christianity, that any indigenous pre-Christian religions here have been extinct for around the same number of years and also that any appropriation of extant non-Christian religious traditions from elsewhere in the world contradicts any claim for connections to prehistoric native British religions and peoples. This massive misrepresentation of the term indigenous aside, this perspective of the “new-indigene” is inspired by that great cultural leveller - that universal solvent of all tradition which is loved by the traditionally bereft - sociology, in particular the ideas of Michel Maffesoli whose thesis is built around the idea that useful and healthy perspectives of societies and cultures are best founded in imaginative recreation rather than in historical fact. This paper, then, is more concerned with the creative, sociologically-enforced training of a paganism already planned as “an alliance of nature-oriented religions” than with an appreciation and documentation of the natural growth of new and authentic religious movements.
Under this perspective and its implicit conclusion that it is perfectly fair to make unrealistic claims about history, society and genealogy in the service of “Pagan identity”, which seems to be at the heart of HAD's revisionist programme, it’s the flip of a coin whether you see the future of paganism as magic realism or as SCA but either way it looks like it will be a very good idea for modern pagans to make themselves aware of the genuinely modern origins of their religious beliefs, even if they do wish to identify with the pre-Christian peoples of Europe and the British Isles, that they themselves may be ambassadors for their own beliefs and not succumb to the tender social representations of a hegemony presumptive, else the resulting “Pagan identity” will be that of a clown. Pagans will not be taken seriously if they do not take their own history, society and genealogy seriously and recognise that their history, their society and their genealogy are identical with those of non-pagans.
(Quotations included for review purposes only.)
Tuesday 15 July 2008
Fluffy Fraud Central.
The BBC’s Pagan Topic message board provides a space where it was once possible to meet with and learn from people of serious pagan thought and practice. In the handful of years since its inception it had grown from a place where a cheerful and polite bunch of interested people exchanged ideas best described as esoteric to a mature forum which served as an pagan primer and network for many newcomers. Of particular merit were the contributions of a broadly Heathen contingent. Now, however, times have changed. With its current membership The Pagan Topic must surely be the most banal of all gathering places for both those youngsters who are seeking their place in adult society and also those adults who seek a new lease of life, all within the increasingly incoherent religious category of paganism.
Brimming with devotees of those modern medicine shows reiki and past-life regression it is now a place cackling with low innuendo and the kind of sordid nymphomania commonly found in sexual fantasists. New visitors are invited, more appropriately than is intended, to select their choice of garishly designed and fabricated straightjacket upon being accepted as genuine by an orgy of old farts who, believing themselves wise and experienced, dispense responses relying more upon the word “depends” and the personal redefinition of everyday words to fit personal prejudice and predilection than upon any identifiably authentic religious, social, historical, philosophical or magical traditions.
There are one or two more experienced and charitable types who remain at this forum - if it may be still described as such considering the tone of toilet wall graffiti into which it has descended - in order to try and elevate the general tone of the discourse and provide avenues of escape for those unfortunate enough to be caught in this awful place. Whether they will be successful in this is yet to be seen but it looks like something of an uphill struggle considering that they are horribly outnumbered by the fart-orgy, the members of which claim knowledge and understanding of the people, the practices and the principles of paganism while dispensing nothing in the way of these, instead pouring forth an apparently endless stream of “depends”, emoticons, “back-when-I-were-trad-gard“, sick jokes, anti-Christian invective, Islamophobic bile, sword-lust and talk of “deity” as though it were the latest wonder ingredient for fabric conditioners. I wish those stout hearted Pagan elders at the BBC all the luck in the world in their evangelical activities but in their hearts I feel they must know that they are fighting a lost cause and that their energies would be best applied elsewhere.
Brimming with devotees of those modern medicine shows reiki and past-life regression it is now a place cackling with low innuendo and the kind of sordid nymphomania commonly found in sexual fantasists. New visitors are invited, more appropriately than is intended, to select their choice of garishly designed and fabricated straightjacket upon being accepted as genuine by an orgy of old farts who, believing themselves wise and experienced, dispense responses relying more upon the word “depends” and the personal redefinition of everyday words to fit personal prejudice and predilection than upon any identifiably authentic religious, social, historical, philosophical or magical traditions.
There are one or two more experienced and charitable types who remain at this forum - if it may be still described as such considering the tone of toilet wall graffiti into which it has descended - in order to try and elevate the general tone of the discourse and provide avenues of escape for those unfortunate enough to be caught in this awful place. Whether they will be successful in this is yet to be seen but it looks like something of an uphill struggle considering that they are horribly outnumbered by the fart-orgy, the members of which claim knowledge and understanding of the people, the practices and the principles of paganism while dispensing nothing in the way of these, instead pouring forth an apparently endless stream of “depends”, emoticons, “back-when-I-were-trad-gard“, sick jokes, anti-Christian invective, Islamophobic bile, sword-lust and talk of “deity” as though it were the latest wonder ingredient for fabric conditioners. I wish those stout hearted Pagan elders at the BBC all the luck in the world in their evangelical activities but in their hearts I feel they must know that they are fighting a lost cause and that their energies would be best applied elsewhere.
Monday 14 July 2008
To M.D.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/interrupt?st=2&m=1&done=%2Fgroup%2FBritpoly%2Fmessage%2F13920
[Reasonable statement.]
[Restatement]
Were a tree demonstrated also to be the abode of a spirit then that would become part of the correct definition of a tree.
[Confusion]
Between what a tree is compared to what? And where does science happen if not in the head? In the foot?
To N.F.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13919
[Sulk]
Not at all. I can think of several, eminently more appropriate places.
[David Icke]
Compared to the last present time?
[Philosophical abuse]
They want to read Kant?
[Glass houses]
People with all kinds of religion, including religio romana evidently, preach nonsense.
[Non sequitur]
Jesus was immersed in a culture in which the dominant religion was a monotheism, actually.
[Lost temper]
I have the first 3, I do not need the last 2. Those things which I want are nothing to do with the vain goals which you mention here which, I infer, are your own. Also, I’m not entirely sure you know what is meant by categorical imperative.
[Bollocks]
Bollocks. You’ve been off on a self-aggrandising Doctor Who fantasy in most of your replies.
[Daft question]
Yes, because existence is quotidian. Every morning I walk to the window and open the curtains and, lo, there is existence.
[Foot stamping]
I display amusement when presented with pretentious gobbledegook. How do you like these responses?
[Faux sagacity]
I think you’ve met none of the first and precious few of the second, if your proud manner is anything to go by.
[Faux sagacity]
Watch out for that first step.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13919
[Sulk]
Not at all. I can think of several, eminently more appropriate places.
[David Icke]
Compared to the last present time?
[Philosophical abuse]
They want to read Kant?
[Glass houses]
People with all kinds of religion, including religio romana evidently, preach nonsense.
[Non sequitur]
Jesus was immersed in a culture in which the dominant religion was a monotheism, actually.
[Lost temper]
I have the first 3, I do not need the last 2. Those things which I want are nothing to do with the vain goals which you mention here which, I infer, are your own. Also, I’m not entirely sure you know what is meant by categorical imperative.
[Bollocks]
Bollocks. You’ve been off on a self-aggrandising Doctor Who fantasy in most of your replies.
[Daft question]
Yes, because existence is quotidian. Every morning I walk to the window and open the curtains and, lo, there is existence.
[Foot stamping]
I display amusement when presented with pretentious gobbledegook. How do you like these responses?
[Faux sagacity]
I think you’ve met none of the first and precious few of the second, if your proud manner is anything to go by.
[Faux sagacity]
Watch out for that first step.
To M.B.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13906
[MacGyver]
You’re employed in Afghanistan. Deployment is what happens to members of the armed forces.
[Sob]
There, there. Let me provide you with a link to a message which you may have deleted before reading, then:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13851
Incidentally, if it was dieing then eating you was probably the last thing on its mind.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13906
[MacGyver]
You’re employed in Afghanistan. Deployment is what happens to members of the armed forces.
[Sob]
There, there. Let me provide you with a link to a message which you may have deleted before reading, then:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13851
Incidentally, if it was dieing then eating you was probably the last thing on its mind.
To N.F.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13912
[Confusion]
The seeming is false.
[Fluff]
You’re making the false assumption that I am new to these ideas.
[Crap metaphor]
Then how could you possibly have decided upon one particular belief?
[Parochial]
This may be the case for you but the overwhelming mass of humanity appears not to have a problem with this.
[Nonsense]
I assume, then, that you do not have a profession.
[Horrible idea]
He thinks he does. I disagree.
[Bollocks]
What are you talking about?
[Confusion]
For divination to be true then its foretellings must be of random events else they are of events of which the foreteller has previous knowledge and about which they may make a probabilistic judgement.
[Crap metaphor]
We can imagine possible variations but these do not exist. Only one shape forms, that’s why it’s called a pattern, and of course it will not be triangular - a daft idea which nobody would suggest and a cheap point to argue - and waves do not happen when the pond in question is frozen.
[Dull Douglas Adams reference]
I really have no idea of what it is you’re trying to convey here. You seem to have relatively big thoughts in your head - like a little frog making big farts in a small pond - but no means of working out if they make sense or not and so you just push them together and assume that one follows necessarily from another, a result, I think, of too many popular science magazines and too many low-grade science fiction paperbacks.
[Fluff]
You haven’t yet described in any detail what it is exactly that it is which you feel you can do. A good sign that something may not be possible is that there is no possible formal description for it.
[Fluff]
I assume you’re talking about me, but remember that I have only said this about travel between two points. I say this because I’m pretty familiar with geometry and I’m confident that travel between any two points is not possible without first traversing the points on the curve inbetween. If you know that this is not the case then explain it here. Vague waving of sub-aphoristic maxims isn’t going to overturn geometry.
[Science fiction gobbledegook]
You’re not making sense. You’re just stringing words together. Too much Star Trek. Too much Doctor Who. I can hear Wittgenstein now, spinning in his grave.
[Illogic]
You can travel from York to London without traversing the points on the curve in between? It doesn’t matter whether Doncaster is on that curve or not, there are many other directions you may take but all of them involve travel through space.
[Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bomb Mysticism]
I’m sure you believe that this is true, otherwise you would not say it. Personally, I live in a much bigger world in which we have explanations for things which do not resort to gobbledegook.
[Fluff]
When I want to read science fiction I read Iain M. Banks.
[Challenge]
A tradition of intuitively coherent ideas about the world and man’s place within it.
[Doctor Who, again]
You should get yourself to hospital because you’ve just shot yourself in the foot. Earlier you said that events were not random yet now you take pains to claim that they are that you may pretend that there are no means of comparative study which may be applied to divination when of course there are such. All we have to do ism for example, have a random number generator select a number from between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000, grab some people who claim to be able to fortell the future and see how many predict the generator’s selection. Piece of cake.
[Fluff]
Whether people use dice for divination into particular issues is neither here nor there. They should still be able to foresee the results of, say, 100 sequential dice rolls.
[Non sequitur]
Language, horticulture, plumbing, medicine, cookery, and swimming all have appreciable benefits which we may observe in people and in society. Divination doesn’t. Perhaps you would like to go away for twenty years, read some books that don‘t have sonic screwdrivers in them, and then rephrase your argument.
To A.D.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13904
[Warble warble]
I think the evidence is in the way that Nick jumped all over both Tygerstryke and and myself, and in the lack of any provocation to warrant this.
[Drone]
I don’t know what you are talking about here. I’ve even offered you two alternatives for how quotes appear in my posts. Feel free to tell me in what ways I have demonstrated no desire to fit in here.
[Bark]
Perhaps you missed my introduction.
[Drone]
Your evidence being?
[Bark]
As I said in my introduction that was not my intention.
[Gestapo]
Curiosity, of course. Why is anyone a member?
[Gestapo]
It says nothing on the front page about members being obliged to give anything. Is there a gift list? A toaster perhaps? An ironing board? No, I think my perspective (see my introduction) might make this group a little richer. It’s a humble ambition but there we are; I can’t teach anyone how to become invisible at will or speak with the sparrows but you might find my views and titbits interesting, nonetheless.
[Drone]
Satisfied curiosity.
[Drone]
Already achieved, trust me. As for my posts now, I don’t think replying to posts aimed at me is in anyway excessive.
If you do not wish to continue this on board then you're welcome to email me. I would be happy to hear from you. I’m not sure any of us can stand much more of this robust debate, about me. I have always thought Gods were much more interesting.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13904
I think the evidence is in the way that Nick jumped all over both Tygerstryke and and myself, and in the lack of any provocation to warrant this.
[Drone]
I don’t know what you are talking about here. I’ve even offered you two alternatives for how quotes appear in my posts. Feel free to tell me in what ways I have demonstrated no desire to fit in here.
[Bark]
Perhaps you missed my introduction.
[Drone]
Your evidence being?
[Bark]
As I said in my introduction that was not my intention.
[Gestapo]
Curiosity, of course. Why is anyone a member?
[Gestapo]
It says nothing on the front page about members being obliged to give anything. Is there a gift list? A toaster perhaps? An ironing board? No, I think my perspective (see my introduction) might make this group a little richer. It’s a humble ambition but there we are; I can’t teach anyone how to become invisible at will or speak with the sparrows but you might find my views and titbits interesting, nonetheless.
[Drone]
Satisfied curiosity.
[Drone]
Already achieved, trust me. As for my posts now, I don’t think replying to posts aimed at me is in anyway excessive.
If you do not wish to continue this on board then you're welcome to email me. I would be happy to hear from you. I’m not sure any of us can stand much more of this robust debate, about me. I have always thought Gods were much more interesting.
To D.D.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13903
[Truth economy]
And there’s a creative memory - you said nothing of the kind. You don’t want to talk with me, it seems, which is fair; if someone has nothing nice to say then it’s usually best that they say nothing at all.
To D.D.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13899
[Insult]
When I meet someone new who happens to have different views from myself I find it’s unhelpful to throw offensive terms at them.
[Sarcasm blindness]
I’ve asked questions, but I think you’re overlooking a lot.
[Gestapo]
I really don’t know what makes you think that you can tell me how to write my posts but it’s no concern of mine. If you’re counting I have only used the expression you’re worried about once but I shall use it as often as I choose.
[Fluff]
Well, you know, I do stand in the daylight, and I love it, but I expect that there’s not a lot of it getting inside Nick’s box. I’m very fond of the night-time too, as it happens, but as it’s tricky to use a keyboard at night I paid no thought as to whether I was privileging the daylight.
I don’t mind at all that Nick throwing insults in my direction while it stops him doing so at young women like Tygerstryke, then I’m happy to take the knocks, but it does seem like there is a pattern developing here. If sarcasm makes a man a troll, then I clearly have company under my bridge.
A.D. - I take your earlier points but I do not think that I am at blame here.
To N.F.
Quotations responded to replaced by suitable, concise summaries in brackets. Original post at link provided, accessible by Britpoly members and cronies.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13897
[Insult]
I don’t think you’ve actually read anything I have written. I’ve certainly done nothing to deserve the label of troll, especially from you considering your earlier not-so-sly asides.
[Camp exit]
If you don’t want to talk then fine, but I haven’t closed down any conversation nor climbed into any box. Come back out into the daylight and have a chat.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Britpoly/message/13897
[Insult]
I don’t think you’ve actually read anything I have written. I’ve certainly done nothing to deserve the label of troll, especially from you considering your earlier not-so-sly asides.
[Camp exit]
If you don’t want to talk then fine, but I haven’t closed down any conversation nor climbed into any box. Come back out into the daylight and have a chat.
…And How It Came To Be.
The idea of this blog has been with me for some time but I have only recently decided to create it after having been placed in pre-moderation during my second day on the Yahoo group BritPoly. I have nothing against pre-moderation per se but I feel this act was a bit excessive and ever-so-slightly power-crazed and I realise that I have no wish to submit my posts for the approval of someone who has lost my respect before I have had a chance to speak with them properly. There are many forums upon the internet moderated by hobbyists and enthusiasts &c, and if they own a group then of course they have an interest in keeping it lively and interesting, but when moderators repeatedly permit new members to be attacked by their friends with insulting terms and ad hominems then they are guilty of croneyism and the group in question is already dead. It has closed its eyes and stopped its ears to new perspectives and ideas. It has ossified and become a place where chums and buddies and faux-kin bash strangers for allegedly not-trying-to-fit-in. I think when these people place a new member into pre-moderation on their second day as a member then it is clear that unless that new member emulates the interests and attitude of the croney crew then their posts will not appear on the board. I have no wish to become a sock-puppet of BritPoly’s moderators and so, in recognition of this profound act of power-freakery, my next few posts shall be replies which did not pass moderation as well as replies which I have not bothered to post at all. If you are reading this then it is possible that you are a current member of BritPoly and in which case I wish you good luck, but up with this sort of thing I shall not put.
What This Is...
I intend this blog to serve as a means of criticising both the good things and the bad things that I see in those new religious movements referred to collectively as paganism. I shall likely talk about other things from time to time but I feel there is substantial source material within paganism which is ripe for satire and, hopefully, recommendation to make this a rare occurrence. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
