New Age versus Spirituel Activism

by morton_h, the blogger 

New Age. We heard and learned the word 40 years ago.

How much does New Age differ from Old Age? New Age worldview is basically a clone of Christianity and serves as its 'hearse for the apostates'. Christianity was always control tool as much as true faith, and the super-users of these tools seem pretty much satisfied with the result.

There are three kinds of New Age modified Christianity.

A direct translation, an aggravation / overhauling on the inside and a turning upside-down.

In the following, I will use Mark Passio's 10 New Age Deceptions - the Ten Commandments for the New Age'er.

Directly translated:

Everything is good, because everything happens by the will of God

Here Islam sings the hymn too. New Agers just replace God with the fluffy concept of Oneness. When everything is equally good, indifference prevails. When everything is indifferent, nothing is different and nothing has value. Nihilism slipped in through the back door.

You must turn the other cheek
This is unmodified Christianity. It is a verbatim copy of the Roman perversion of the Messianic movement, which certainly did not turn the other cheek - and therefore the rebellious hordes should learn it. And while they were doing it, the rest of the Roman Empire as well should learn it too. This teaching of rebellious and potentially rebellious crowds are what we today call Christianity. The current New Age philosophy is an extension of this philosophy.

This leads directly to

Accept everything, do not resist
It was called Pax Romanorum and 'Peace on earth among people who have God's good pleasure' (Christmas Gospel). Those who did not have God's good pleasure went to Hell, especially in Christianity's first millennium. You may ask yourself, whether God is with a capital W og a small w?

It is one thing to be a true pacifist by refusing to perform military service for an aggressive, despotic state apparatus. It is a highly activist action, and in some communities it will have severe consequences for the passifistic activist. But it is something else to to witness assaults and injustice without saying NO! This kind of false pacifisme is found in New Age.

One can never really know
Solipsism is genuinely Catholic. It is equivalent to the Great Mystery or 'The ways of the Lord are inscrutable'. It should however be said that in all the three Abrahamic religions can confidently ask the priest, pastor, imam and rabbi, for they happen to know what they say can not be known. The New Age'er asks his/her oracle for advice by a channeling of an alien from the fifth dimension and the Pleiades. The common denominator between rabbis, oracles, prophets and channeler and media are: non-verifiable. Believe it or not. When God's intermediaries presents itself, you are not supposed to question. 

You should be afraid of chaos
It is the Christian piety and fear of the devil. One wonders again about whether there has been a mixture or confusion going on? If God is such a hell of a good guy, why must we constantly quiver at the thought? Was it perhaps Prince John, who slipped in while King Lionheart was on holiday with his horse? One can really distill the tender to: Thou Shallt Fear - period! Whether it is death, chaos, al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, global warming, financial crisis, your neighbor or reptiles in flying kitchen tools is completely irrelevant. There is fear in you cup - suck it up!

The aggravation:
Ignore the negative, go into the light
This is a New Age worsening of Christianitys '.. and deliver us from evil' - 'Depart, Satan!'. New Age'ere afraid of the dark. It is spiritually incorrect to deal with spiritual dirt. I have met several of these - excuse me - especially women in white angle gowns, always with a crystal pendant necklace and distant look having one orgiastic experience after another in guided meditation sessions. They almost battle to outdo each other in picturesque descriptions of their total out-of-body experience 5 minutes ago, while their side-woman bakes at an even more spectacular version. It is a kind of holy spirit harem where the concubines elbows his way to first place in the spiritual sultan's attention. And I know what I'm talking about, because I've had my New Age period.

Do they actually have these experiences, or are they merely types, for whom imagination is uncontrollable? They do have an erotic experience, though. Dare we say spiritual masturbation? It is a kind of updated neo-pietism. See the picture of the female Spanish saint, Theresa of Avilla for you (google it if necessary). Does she have sex, or is she in devotion? A form of sado-masochistic disorder-eroticism. Rejoice, thou Bride of Christ.

Look into the light and be blinded. Did you think you were going to enlightened?

Never get angry. Anger is a forbidden feeling
It is an extension of the concept of forgiveness and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. Forgiveness is the opposite of revenge. The Romans were shit scared of revenge, for revenge was an integral part of both Germanic and the Judean tribes outlook and basically: all the peoples they had subjugated. For neo-Romans, the Christians, it was paganism in a nutshell. Have you committed misdeeds, you put your ass smack in height and has exposed itself for revenge. Forgiveness was hogwash in the Old World. The romans saw the fall of the Empire coming and had very much need of forgiveness for their destruction and plundering of cultures. A so aggressive approach as the Roman was only possible for a certain period, for it was enormously costly. Just ask neo-Romans aka the Americans about what it costs to maintain a giant army, a corrupt state apparatus, a totally branched listen-and-subvert set and a feet of clay mythology through a 24/7/365 campaign apparatus.

For New Age anger is sinful feeling. They practice darkness denial. The warrior is not welcome in their universe. Could it be, that they compensate for the rulers of the world being so very much into dark occultism? Thou Shallt Not See what is going on in the dark.

It leads directly to: 

The truth does not need to be defended
It is also a deterioration of a Christian thought. Christians were at least willing to stand up for their beliefs, even with their lives. New Age'ers just do a jellyfish. I had a meeting with one of New Age gurus, Johan Oldenkamp and one of his female 'students' and admirers - there was harem again - where I reactionary and spontaneously was called a fanatic, then later to be addressed to 'a warrior' (warrior). But it was only after the guru had to admit that anger was not an illegitimate feeling but an impetus for action. The guru came in a dilemma and was very 'human' - today this word strangely enough is a synonym for 'flawed', probably due to the Christian 'we are all sinners' - since he had started his three-day seminar with proclaiming that he was not a guru and he was opposed to New Age. And then sits one of his female admirers and says Fukushima leak is irrelevant for Nature heals it again. OK, also the Americans when they can no longer eat fish caught in the Pacific Ocean, and where their authorities now completely omits to record and publish measurements on radioactive content in foods. Tell that to the people in remote world where the Americans and NATO have used smart bombs with depleted uranium and where women now give birth to 'funny' children while dying of cancer. Just tell them that 'mind is over matter'. Tell that to all the victims of Chernobyl ... 'Well, there are only 63 who have died ..' the woman replied. NO, you un-educated moron! 2000 Russian reports have been done on the consequences and an American newspaper last year quoted a translated summary: 1 million dead since the accident!

New Age contains a horrid, good portion cowardice and stupidity
To be fair, Johan Oldenkamp in principle recants guru status. He tried, but he failed. It was in this case as most other student needs a guru, the archetype 'Big Daddy' that struck through. See me Daddy, hear me Daddy, love me Daddy!

Turning upside down:
Suffering should be avoided, we must feel good all the time

According to Christianity you suffer. You are sinful, guilty, and you should fear. Next, you must confess your guilt and your sins so that you can be saved from you sins. This whole life is a valley of tears, but in life after death you either smoke the bowels of Hell or go to Heaven if you have piety. The more you have suffered, the greater the chance for a place in the first class compartment on the heavenly train.

In New Age worldview be suffering avoided at all costs. This is done by denying all suffering, darkness, abuse, enslavement, mutilation and death and just 'go into the light'. Think positively, avoid negative thoughts. Avoid attachment (attachment), a simplified representation of a Buddhist concept.
If there is anything that makes you disgusted look the other way. If you see suffering, it is because of bad karma, meaning: it's their own fault and certainly not due to abusive powers creating a whole lot of un-necessary suffering.

The Law of Attraction in diluted form
The Law of Attraction has become the new big New Age concept, especially after the movie 'The Secret'. You create your own reality, you get what you give meaning you get all you want as long as you wish it well enough. Think only positive, and the universe will besmile you with good fortune.
There is a deeper core of truth hidden in the concept, but in New Age version, it easily turns into self delusion.

It is only in the worst kind of Catholic medieval theology, this makes sense. Blessings can not be earned through good deeds as a form of investment. You should act out of goodness, if you are a person of conscience, but you should do it with no claim to profits. So: 'Dear God, if I will help 15 old ladies across the street and donate all my money to the Church, so you have to promise that I will not go to Hell?' It does not play that way. And, by the way God responds: 'You are in Hell!'

I should be fair to say that many of the favorite topics of New Age can be particularly interesting. I grind of course all with the same brush and stereotypes the lot. Oversimplification promotes understanding. It just seems as if they have forgotten to bring the bag of salt, as they can sprinkle on their excesses. They simply lack humor. And humor is means self-criticism.

Weaponized anthropology 

C. G. Jung said, Christianity had failed to renew its myth. Was he quite right in his assertion?

I would say that Jung was right. But New Age was in a way a kind of mythological renewal. Or rather: it looked alike. It was a patchwork of everything exotic and unconventional for a westerner. It poured old and strange traditions into the same pot, a little bit of that and a little bit of a lot. Some could go deep into the exotic and end up as experts yogis, buddhists, organic farming, which could be very interesting. But for most who ran along it was just flirtation, a surface, a series of attitudes.

In retrospect, we know that there was something quite different under the radar. The phenomenon was studied. The New Age movement was exposed to weaponized anthropology, as with all mass movements. When masses move there will be wolves and shepherds in the neighbourhood. New Age arose out of a time with intense activity from the American secret services to detach a real activist movement against the US war in Vietnam. CIA infiltrated all of the protest movement and pumped drugs into the social space. It was ironically the same drugs, which were the main reason for US starting a war in the Golden Triangle, that now flooded the domestic market. The Anglo-Saxon two-headed Impere had a centuries-old practice of poisoning entire nations with opium. First of all the Empire states, that is their wealthy elite, made an humugous fortune - and still do with the CIA and NATO presence in Afghanistan - and secondly drugs are weapons of mass destruction that only destroy the software / the human beings and not the hardware / the material ressources. The weapon can be used to frame and paralyze nations out there and own your people back there.

At the same time arrived the synthetic designer drugs. Who invented LSD? Again we see the CIA fingerprints. In their infamous - and never finished - great mind-fucker project, MK-Ultra, they studied diligently how both soldiers and civilians responded. Soon the entire music industry and its consumers swam with LSD and heroin. CIA handlers poured it out at Grateful Dead concerts. Legendary musicians died either form an overdose (Joplin, Morrison, Hendrix + a few hundred others) or were taken out because they had discovered what was happening and began to comment on it (Lennon, Marley). Drug users and addicts do not have a long life.

We saw quite clearly the result in the '70s of a PSYOP (psychological operation). In the beginning there was a real anti-war movement with a lot of substance, and there was a genuine anger against the government's misdeeds. After the infiltration and the anthropological attack vaporized movement, and its members began to misbehave with psychedelia: drugs, music, porn, Buddhist Hinduist-flirtations, narcissism ... Those who did not gave up, because you can not talk politics with people on the acid and dope. Or people stoned on Krishna and Buddha. Or who had resigned from the society, as it was called, and cultivated eco beetroots and played shaman drum while they made crystal healing and free sex in the collective. Gone was the anti-war movement and al indignation against the Empire went up in funny hats and coloured spectacles. Hippie culture was one of the 20th century's most effective CIA operations and no one discovered the underlying operation before it was too late. 

Spiritual activism
It is far from obvious that spirituality and false passifism / New Age is the same. Spirituality is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this sword in hand on the right person can be liberating. In the hands of a person without the manual for the sword is opium or stesolid. I'd be reluctant to use the term 'opium of the people', since communism was the most violent peoples opium itself in the 20th century. It sold itself as liberating but in reality was massively enslaving.

Two figures from the Indian spiritual tradition on the other hand, Sri Aurobindo and Mahatma Gandhi, was both spiritual political activists. Satyagraha is truth seeking, non violent civil disobedience, it is not being passive. Passiveness is obedience. It is totally wrong to call Gandhi for a passifist, he was a non-violent activist. Gandhi's life and philosophy is fairly well known in the West, Aurobindo less.






The activist in his old days 

Aurobindo was deeply involved in the Indian nationalist movement under the imperial yoke. Today our updated British post-empire aka the Anglo-Saxon double empire is very fond of the word terrorism, and we should make ourselves clear that both of these deeply spiritual men undoubtedly would be called terrorists. As a basic rule the terrorist state always names its opponents as terrorists. But both practiced political and social resistance without terror. Perhaps this is why they and the Indian nationalist movement came out victorious against the mighty Empire. Both had understood the enormous force that can be mobilized with a grounded spirituality that was understood by people.

Aurobindo writes in 1903 a pamphlet called Bhavani Mandir designed to guide in the revolutionary struggle. It is quite a different revolutionary tone, we find here than in contemporary communist lingo in the West:

'Is it love, enthusiasm, Bhakthi that is wanting? These are ingrained in the Indian nature, but in the absence of Shakthi we cannot concentrate, we cannot direct...Bhakthi is the leaping flame, Shakthi is the fuel. If the fuel is scanty, how long can the flame endure?...Many of us, utterly overcome by Tamas, the dark and heavy demon of inertia, are saying nowadays that it is impossible, that India is decayed, bloodless and lifeless, too weak ever to recover. It is a foolish and idle saying. No man or nation need perish unless he deliberately chooses extinction... For what is a nation?...It is not a piece of earth, nor a figure of speech, nor a fiction of the mind. It is a mighty Shakthi composed of all the millions of units that make up the nation.'

A little glossary:Tamas is one of the three gunas, the universal life forces: Tamas, Rajas and Sattva. They are parallels to the Taoist Yin, Yang and Tao - with a twist. Tamas is darkness, inertia, inactivity and materialism, the introvert / astringent. Rajas is energy, action, change and movement, the extrovert / expanding. Sattva / Dao is balance, harmony, joy and intelligence.
Shakthi is a parallel to the Daoist primordial chi. It is the universe's fundamental energy and dynamic force.
Bhakthi is devotion.

Aurobindo gives his country men and the nationalist movement a kick in the ass with terminology that is rooted in the Vedic understanding of the world. The essence we can find in the Bhagavad Gita, where the archer Arjuna is in a dilemma while he sees the two armies drawn up. In his dialogue with Krishna, he learns to understand why he should not refrain from playing a role in this struggle.

When the British came to India, they were especially excited about the Indian caste system. They saw a direct parallel to feudalism and the British class system, and it became part of their administration of the Imperial Crown Jewel, India. The nationalists stroke of genius was to go deeper than the caste system, which over time had degenerated. In the distant past, it has given full meaning, but in 20th century India, it was just a repressive apparatus.

Aurobindo writes in a letter to his wife about his three forms of 'madness'. The first is to give it back to the universe, you you do not need. The other is his desire to speak directly with God, which he knows is possible, but only with complete dedication. That he did in the second part of his life after his time as a political activist.

The third madness is the concept of India as the great mother:

'My third madness is with regard to Mother India. I look upon India as my Mother, I am devoted to her, I worship her. If somebody mounts on the chest of his mother and to drink her blood, what does her son do? Does he sit down for meals and settle down with a calm and a quiet mind to enjoy life with his wife and children? Or does he run to the succour of his suffering mother?' 

He chose the latter. And was thrown in jail for it.
Aurobindo engagement with the militantmovement


This is usually a stupid move of the Empire, for it simply creates a martyrdom and gives the oppressed momentum. It was, therefore, that the British colonial chose to fight back through the Indian police, who were trained by them. In this way they sought to avoid 'we-they' confrontation. But it failed. That is also why the Empire our time uses terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIL to do their dirty work, as was the practice in the Empire's early days to take advantage of 'privateers', pirates for plunder and murder, so the crown was not defiled and had to explain her crimes. Today's Empire do not want 'boots on the ground', as they have to explain the flow of body bags to their own people, AND why it was even necessary to attack and destroy other nations.

New Age versus spirituel aktivisme

New Age. Den nye tidsalder. Vi lærte ordet for 40 år siden. 

Hvor meget adskiller egentlig New Age fra Old Age? New Age-verdensbilledet er stort set en klon af kristendommen og fungerer som dets 'ligvogn for frafaldne'. Kristendommen var altid lige som meget kontrolredskab som den rette tro, og superbrugerne af disse redskaber, det nye som det gamle, virker stort set tilfredse med resultatet.

Der er tre slags New Age-versioner af kristendommen

En direkte oversættelse, en forværring / en overhaling indenom og en bagvending.
I det følgende tager jeg udgangspunkt i Mark Passio's 10 New Age-bedrag (deceptions). Altså de Ti Bud for New Age'eren.  

Direkte oversat:
Alt er lige godt, for alt sker efter Guds vilje
Her synger Islam med på salmen. Newagerne erstatter bare Gud med Oneness. Når alt er lige godt, hersker ligegyldigheden. Når alt er ligegyldigt, er intet gyldigt. Nihilismen har sneget sig ind ad bagdøren.

Du skal vende den anden kind til
Det er umodificeret kristendom. Det er en ordret kopi af den romerske bagvending af den messianske bevægelse, der bestemt ikke vendte den anden kind til - og netop derfor skulle de oprørske horder lære det. Og mens man var i gang, kunne resten af Romerriget ligeså godt lære det. Denne belæring af oprørske og potentielt oprørske menneskemængder er, hvad vi i dag kalder for kristendom. I gængs New Age-filosofi glider den rent videre.

Det fører direkte videre til:
Accepter alting, gør aldrig modstand
Det hed Pax Romanorum og Fred på jorden blandt mennesker, der har guds velbehag (Juleeangeliet). De, der ikke havde guds velbehag, røg som bekendt ad helvede til, især i kristendommens første årtusind. Det er også her, man kunne begynde at spørge sig selv, om gud mon skal staves med lille eller med Stort.

En ting er at være ægte pacifist ved at nægte at gøre militærtjeneste for et aggressivt, despotisk statsapparat. Det er en særdeles aktivistisk handling, og i visse samfund får det alvorlige konsekvenser for den passifistiske aktivist. Noget andet er stiltiende at være vidne til overgreb uden at sige højlydt NEJ! Det er denne falske pacifisme, som findes i New Age. 

Man kan aldrig rigtig vide
Solipsismen er ærkekatolsk. Her hedder det bare Mysteriet eller 'Herrens veje er uransagelige'. Det skal dog lige siges, at man i alle de tre abrahamiske religioner trygt kan spørge pateren, præsten, imamen og rabbien, for de ved dét, de siger ikke kan vides. New Age'eren spørger sit orakel til råds, der ved det hele fra en kanalisering af et rumvæsen fra 5. dimension og Plejaderne. Fællesnævneren mellem rabbinere, orakler, profeter og og kanaliserende medier er: ikke-verificerbart. Tro det eller ej. Når Guds mellemhandlere byder sig til, er du på Herrens Mark. 

Du skal være bange for kaos
Det er det kristne Gudfrygtighed og frygten for Djævelen. Man spekulerer igen over, hvorvidt der er sket en sammenblanding eller forveksling her? Hvis Gud er så fandens god, hvorfor skal vi så konstant bævre ved tanken? Var det måske prins John, der smuttede ind, mens kong Løvehjerte var på ferie med hest? Man kan egentlig destillere budet til: Du skal frygte, Basta! Om det så er døden, kaos, al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, global opvarmning, finanskrisen, din nabo eller reptiler i flyvende køkkenudstyr er fuldstændig underordnet.

Overhaling indenom:
Ignorer det negative, gå ind i lyset
Her er New Age en forværring af kristendommens '.. og fri os fra det onde' - 'vig bort, Satan!'. New Age'ere er nærmest mørkerædde. Det er spirituelt ukorrekt at beskæftige sig med spirituelt snavs. Jeg har mødt adskillige af disse - undskyld mig - især kvinder, der går i hvide bomuldsgevandter, altid med et krystal-halssmykke og fjernt blik, som får den ene orgiastiske oplevelse efter den anden i guidede meditations-seancer. De kæmper nærmest for at overgå hinanden i maleriske beskrivelser af deres totale ud-af-kroppen-oplevelse for 5 minutter siden, mens side-kvinden småsurt bager på en endnu vildere version, når det er hendes tur. Det er en slags helligåndens harem, hvor konkubinerne albuer sig frem til førstepladsen hos den åndelige sultans bevågenhed. Og jeg ved, hvad jeg taler om, for jeg har haft min New Age-periode.

Har de reelt disse oplevelser, eller er de blot typer, for hvem fantasien er ukontrollerbar? De har i hvert fald en erotisk oplevelse. Tør vi sige spirituel onani? Det er en form for opdateret neo-pietisme. Se billedet af den kvindelige spanske helgen, Theresa af Avilla for jer (google det om nødvendigt). Har hun sex, eller er hun salvelsesfuld? En form for sado-masochistisk lidelses-erotik. Fryd dig, du Kristi brud.

Du må aldrig blive vred. Vrede er en forbudt følelse
Det ligger i forlængelse af tilgivelsesbegrebet og 'Du skal elske din næste som dig selv'. Tilgivelse er det modsatte af hævn. Romerne var hunderædde for hævn, for hævn var en integral del af både germanske og de judæiske stammers livssyn eller for at generalisere: alle de folkeslag, de havde underkuet. For neo-romerne, de kristne, var det hedenskab i en nøddeskal. Har man begået udåd, lægger man sin røv i klaskehøjde og har blottet sig for hævn. Tilgivelse var noget pladder i den gamle verden. Romerne forudså tilbageslaget i rigets forfald og havde vældig meget brug for tilgivelse. En så aggressiv fremfærd som den romerske var kun mulig i en vis periode, for den var enormt ressourcekrævende. Spørg blot neo-romerne aka amerikanerne om, hvad det koster at opretholde en gigant-hær, et korrupt statsapparat, et total-forgrenet lytte-og-subversions-apparat og en mytologi på lerfødder via et 24/7/365 kampagne-apparat.
For New Age'erne er vrede en syndig følelse. De praktiserer mørke-fornægtelse. Krigeren er ikke velkommen i deres univers.

Det fører direkte til:
Sandheden behøver ikke at blive forsvaret
Det er ligeledes en forringelse af kristendommen. Kristne var i det mindste villige til at gå i brechen for deres tro, også med livet som indsats. New Age'erne gopler bare helt ud. Jeg havde et møde med en af New Age guruerne, Johan Oldenkamp og en af hans kvindelige 'elever' og beundrere - der var haremet igen - hvor jeg reaktionært og spontant bliver kaldt en fanatiker, for så senere at blive rettet til 'en kriger' (warrior). Men det var først efter at guruen måtte indrømme, at vrede ikke var en illegitim følelse med et afsæt for handling. Guruen kom i et dilemma og blev meget 'menneskelig' - i dag er ordet sjovt nok blevet til et synomym for 'fejlbehæftet' - da han havde startet sit 3-dages-seminar med at proklamere, at han ikke var en guru og at New Age var ham imod. Og så sidder en af hans kvindelige beundrere og siger, Fukushima-lækken er uden betydning, for naturen helbreder det igen. OK, sig også det til amerikanerne, når de ikke længere kan spise fisk fanget i Stillehavet, og hvor deres myndigheder nu helt udelader at registrere og publicere målinger om radioaktivt indhold i fødevarer. Sig det til befolkningerne i udkantsverden, hvor amerikanerne og NATO har brugt smart bombs med afberiget uran, og hvor kvinderne nu føder sjove børn og selv dør af cancer. Sig det til samtlige ofre for Tjernobyl ...'Jamen der er kun 63, der er døde ..' svarede konen. NEJ! der er lavet 2000 russiske rapporter om følgerne, hvor en amerikansk avis citerede et oversat sammendrag: 1 million døde siden ulykken!

New Age indeholder en fæl, god portion fejhed og dumhed
Det skal retfærdigvis siges, at Johan Oldenkamp i princippet fraskrev sig guru-status. Han prøvede, men det lykkedes ham ikke. Det var i denne sag som de fleste andre elevens behov for en guru, arketypen 'Big Daddy', der slog igennem. Se mig Far, hør mig Far, elsk mig Far!

Bagvending:
Lidelse skal undgås, vi skal føle os godt tilpas hele tidenIfølge kristendommen lider du. Du er syndig, skyldig, og du skal frygte. Dernæst skal du bekende din skyld og dine synder, så du kan blive frelst fra disse. Hele dette liv er en tårernes dal, og i det næste liv efter døden ryger du enten lukt i Helvede eller kommer i Himlen, hvis du har være from. Jo mere du har lidt, jo større chance for en plads på 1. klasse i toget.
I New Age-verdensbilledet skal lidelse for enhver pris undgås. Det gøres ved at benægte lidelse, mørke, misbrug, underkuelse, død og lemlæstelse og 'gå ind i lyset'. Tænk positivt, undgå negative tanker. Undgå tilknytning (attachment), en forsimpling af et buddhistisk koncept.
Hvis der er noget, der får dig til at væmmes, se den anden vej. Hvis du ser lidelse, så skyldes den dårlig karma. Den skyldes i hvert fald ikke din mangel på medfølelse.

Tiltrækningens lov i udvandet form
Law of Attraction er blevet det nye store New Age-begreb, især efter filmen 'The Secret'. Du skaber selv din virkelighed, du får, hvad du giver, du opnår, hvad du ønsker, blot du ønsker det godt nok. Tænk kun positivt, og universet og forsynet vil tilsmile dig med gode gaver.
Der er en dyb kerne af sandhed gemt i konceptet, men i New Age-versionen bliver det meget nemt til en gang selvbedrag.
Det er kun i den værste form for katolsk middelalder-teologi, at dette giver mening. Man kan ikke gøre sig fortjent via gode gerninger som en form for investering. Man handler ud fra godhed, hvis man er et menneske med samvittighed, men man gør det uden krav på fortjeneste. Altså: 'Kære Gud, hvis jeg nu hjælper 15 gamle damer over gaden og forærer alle mine penge til Kirken, så må du love, at jeg ikke kommer i Helvede?' Den spiller ikke.


Det skal dog igen retfærdigvis siges, at mange af deres favorit-emner er særdeles interessante. Jeg skærer selvfølgelig alle over én kam her og stereotypéer dem. Forsimpling fremmer forståelsen. Det virker bare, som om de har glemt den dér pose salt, som de kan strø ud på deres udskejelser. De mangler simpelthen humor. Og humor er selvdistance og selvkritik.

Det antropologiske våben 
C.G. Jung sagde: Kristendommen har forsømt at forny sin myte. Han havde ret, men havde han helt ret i sin påstand?

Jeg vil sige, at Jung havde ret. Men New Age var på sin vis en form for mytologisk fornyelse. Eller rettere: det lignede. Det var et patchwork af alt, der var eksotisk og utraditionelt for en vesterlænding. Man rørte uddrag gamle og fremmede traditioner ned i samme gryde, en lille smule af det og en lille smule af en masse andet. Enkelte kunne gå dybt ned i det eksotiske og ende op som eksperter yoga, buddhisme, økologisk landbrug, hvilket kunne være særdeles interessant. Men det meste forblev en flirt, en overflade, en serie attituder.

Set i bakspejlet ved vi, at der foregik noget ganske andet under radaren. Fænomenet blev studeret. New Age-bevægelsen blev udsat for weaponized anthropology, som man gjorde med alle massebevægelser. Når menneskemasser rykker på sig, holder ulve og fårehyrder til i nærheden. New Age udsprang af en tid med heftig aktivitet fra det amerikanske efterretningsvæsens side for at afmontere en egentlig aktivistisk bevægelse mod USA's krig i Vietnam. CIA infiltrerede hele protestbevægelsen og pumpede drugs ud i det sociale rum. Det var ironisk nok de samme drugs, som var hovedårsagen til, at USA absolut måtte starte en krig i Den Gyldne Trekant og som nu oversvømmede det hjemlige marked. Det angelsaksiske to-hovedede Imperium havde en århundreder gammel praksis med at forgifte hele nationer med opium. For det første tjente de kassen - og det gør CIA og NATO stadigvæk i Afghanistan - og for det andet er drugs et masseødelæggelsesvåben, der kun ødelægger softwaren / mennesket og ikke hardwaren. Våbnet kan bruges til at ramme og lamme nationers befolkning derude og egen befolkning derinde.

Samtidig ankom de syntetiske designerdrugs. Hvem udviklede LSD? Igen ser vi CIA fingeraftryk. I deres berygtede - og aldrig afsluttede - store mind-fucker-projekt MK-Ultra, studerede man flittigt, hvordan både soldater og civile reagerede. Hvad kunne man ikke få folk til at gøre? Hele musikindustrien svømmede snart med LSD og heroin. CIA-handlere delte det ud ved Grateful Dead-koncerter. Legendariske musikere døde på stribe enten af en overdosis (Joplin, Morrisson, Hendrix + et par hundrede andre), eller fordi enkelte af dem havde opdaget, hvad der foregik og begyndte at udtale sig om det (Lennon, Marley). Bevægelsen masseproducerede narkomaner, og narkomaner har ikke et langt liv.

Vi så ganske tydeligt resultatet i 70'erne af en PSYOP (psykologisk operation). I starten var der en reel anti-krigs-bevægelse hvor der blev talt substans, og hvor der var reel vrede mod regeringens ugerninger. Efter infiltrationen og det antropologiske angreb fordampede bevægelsen, og dens medlemmer begyndte af skeje ud med psychedelia: stoffer, musik, porno, buddhist-hinduist-flirten, narcissisme ... Dem der ikke skejede ud opgav ævret, for man kan ikke tale politik med folk, der er på syre og dope. Eller som stener med Krishna og Buddha. Eller som har meldt sig ud af samfundet, som det hed, og dyrkede økogullerødder og spillede på shamantromme mens de lavede krystalhealing og fri sex i kollektivet. Væk var anti-krigs-bevægelsen og al indignation mod Imperiet gik op i hat og briller. Hippiekulturen var en af det 20 århundredes mest effektive CIA-operationer og ingen opdagede operationen, før det var for sent.

Spirituel aktivisme 
Det er langt fra en selvfølge, at spiritualitet og falsk passifisme / New Age er det samme. Spiritualitet er et tveægget sværd. På den ene side kan sværdet i hånden på den rette være frigørende. I hånden på den forkerte eller personen uden manual til sværdet er det opium eller stesolid. Jeg vægrer mig ved at bruge udtrykket 'opium for folket', da kommunismen var det heftigste folke-opium i det 20. århundrede, der solgte sig selv som frigørende men i realiteten var massivt slavebindende.

To skikkelser fra den indiske spirituelle tradition derimod, Sri Aurobindo og Mahatma Gandhi, var begge spirituelle politiske aktivister. Gandhis liv og filosofi er ret kendt i vesten, Aurobindos i mindre grad.Aurobindo var dybt involveret i den indiske nationalistbevægelse under det britiske imperiale åg. I tider, vor det opdaterede britiske post-imperium aka det angelsaksiske dobbeltimperium slynger om sig med ordet terrorisme, bør vi gøre os klart, at begge disse dybt spirituelle mænd uden tvivl ville blive kaldt for terrorister. Som grundregel kalder terrorstaten altid sine modstandere for terrorister. Men begge praktiserede politisk-social modstand uden terror. Måske netop derfor vandt de og den indiske nationalistbevægelse over det overmægtige Imperium. Begge havde forstået den enorme kraft, der kan mobiliseres med et grundfæstet spirituelt afsæt.

Aurobindo skriver i 1903 en pamflet kaldet Bhavani Mandir beregnet på at træne i revolutionær kamp. Det er en ganske anden tone, vi finder her, en de samtidige kommunistiske i vesten:

'Er der kærlighed, entusiasme, Bhakthi, der er brug for? Disse er integreret i den indiske folkesjæl (nature), men i fraværet af Shakthi kan vi ikke koncentrere, vi har ingen retning ... Bhakthi er den springende flamme, Shakthi er brændstoffet. Hvis der er mangel på brændstof, hvor længe kan flammen da brænde? Mange af os, der er overmandet af Tamas, den mørke og tunge inertiens dæmon, siger i dag, at det er umuligt, at Indien er forfaldet, blodfattig og livløs, for svag til at komme sig. Det er tåbelig og unyttig tale. Intet menneske og ingen nation behøve at forgå, medmindre han selv vælger at lade sig udrydde. For hvad er en nation?...Det er ikke et stykke jord, det er ikke en tale-floskel ejheller en fiktion i sindet. Det er en mægtig Shakthi sammensat af millioner af enheder, der skaber en nation.'

Lidt ordforklaring: 
Tamas er den ene af de tre gunaer, de universelle livskræfter: Tamas, Rajas og Sattva. De er paralleller til det daoistiske Yin, Yang og Dao - with a twist. Tamas er mørke, inerti, inaktivitet og materialisme, det indadvendte/sammentrækkende. Rajas er energi, handling, forandring og bevægelse, det udadvendte/udvidende. Sattva/Dao er balance, harmoni, glæde og intelligens.

Shakthi er en parallel til det daoistiske chi (primordial chi). Det er universets grundlæggende energi og dynamiske kraft.

Bhakthi er hengivelse.

Aurobindo giver sine landsmænd og den nationalistiske bevægelse et spark i røven med terminologi, som er rodfæstet i den vediske verdensforståelse. Essensen findes i Bhagavad Gita, hvor bueskytten Arjuna befinder sig i et dilemma mens han ser de to hære opstillet. I sin dialog med Krishna lærer han at forstå, hvorfor han ikke skal afstå fra at spille en rolle i denne kamp.

Da briterne kom til Indien, var de især begejstrede for det indiske kastevæsen. Her så de en direkte parallel til feudalismen og det britiske klassesamfund, og det blev en del af deres administration af Imperiets Kronjuvel. Nationalisternes genistreg bestod i at stikke spaden dybere ned end det kastevæsen, der over tid var degenereret. I en fjern fortid har det givet fuld mening, men i det 20. århundredes Indien var det blot et undertrykkende apparat.

Aurobindo skriver i et brev til sin kone om sine tre former for 'galskab'. Den første består i at give det tilbage til universet, man ikke har brug for. Den anden er hans ønske om at tale direkte med Gud, hvilken han ved kan lade sig gøre, men kun med fuldstændig dedikation. Det brugte han den anden del af sit liv til efter sin tid som politisk aktivist.

Den tredje galskab er begrebet om Indien som den store moder:

'Jeg betragter Indien som min moder. Jeg er hende hengiven (devoted). Jeg tilbeder hende. Hvis nogen sætter sig på hendes bryst og drikker af hendes blod, hvad gør hendes søn da? Vælger han i ro og mag at indtage et måltid, sætter han sig ned med stille sind for at nyde livet med sin kone og børn? Eller iler han for at hjælpe sin lidende moder?'

Han valgte at ile. Og blev smidt i fængsel for det.
Aurobindos involvement with the militant movement
Det kommer der som regel ikke noget godt ud af for Imperiet, for det skaber blot et martyrium og giver de undertrykte vind i sejlene. Det var derfor, at den britiske kolonimagt valgte at slå igen via det indiske politi, der var trænet af dem. På denne måde søgte de at undgå 'vi og dem' konfrontationen. Det lykkedes ikke. Det er også derfor vor tids Imperium benytter sig af terrorgrupper som al Qaeda og ISIL til at lave deres beskidte arbejde, ligesom det var praksis i Imperiets tidlige dage at benytte sig af 'privateers', pirater til at plyndre og myrde, så kronen ikke blev besudlet og blev nødt til at forklare sine ugerninger. Nutidens Imperium ønsker ikke 'boots on the ground', for så skal de forklare strømmen af body-bags overfor deres egen befolkning - OG hvorfor det overhovedet var nødvendigt at overfalde og ødelægge andre nationer.

The Vineyard of the Saker

by morton_h, the blogger

I have chosen today to bring an article without any other commentary that this brief introduction. It is written by Joseph P. Farrell and is based on another article in the online magazin Vineyard of the Saker*: http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/

.. which again is based on a speech given by Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, a most competent politician known to be very moderate and diplomatic.

His recent statement nevertheless implies, that the threat on Russia by Western forces, especially the US, no longer can be seen to be of 'moderate' character.

The importance of the article will be explained by his statements as well as the comments by Joseph Farrell.

* Saker: A very large grey falcon whos habitat stretches from Eastern Europa to Manchuria.

SERGEI LAVROV WEIGHS IN: FOR RUSSIA, IT’S OFFICIALLY NOW A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

by Joseph P. Farrell

In an important article over at Vineyard of the Saker, Russian foreign policy expert and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s recent speech in Moscow on geopolitics, American democracy, and economic sanctions, are using words that we have ourselves warned will be the long term consequences of the current Western – i.e., American – policy in the Ukraine.

Absolutelycrucial statement by Foreign Minister Lavrov

There are so many things to ponder in this article, but I want to draw your attention to what “the Saker” himself outlines at the beginning, in his own commentary:

“I have bolded out what I consider to be the most important statements made by Lavrov that day. I would just like to add the following:

“1) Lavrov is considered very much a “moderate” and his language has always been strictly diplomatic. So when you read Lavrov, just imagine what folks in other Russian ministries are thinking.

“2) Lavrov makes no secret of his view of the USA and of his plans for the future of our planet. When you read his words, try to imagine what a US Neocon feels and thinks and you will immediately see why the US elites both hate and fear Russia.

“3) Finally, Lavrov openly admits that Russia and China have forged an long-term strategic alliance (proving all the nay-sayers who predicted that China would backtstab Russian wrong). This is, I would argue, the single most important strategic development in the past decade.

“4) Finally, notice the clear contempt which Lavrov has for a pseudo-Christian “West” which dares not speak in defense of persecuted Christians, denies its own roots, and does not even respect its own traditions.

“Friends, what we are witnessing before our eyes is not some petty statement about the Ukraine or sanctions, it is the admission by Lavrov of a fundamental “clash of civilizations”, but not between some wholly imaginary “Christian West” and Islam, but between Christian Russia and the post-Christian West.

“Russia did not want this conflict. Russia did everything in her power to prevent it. But the West left Russia no choice and Russia now openly declares her willingness to fight and prevail.”

So before we proceed, a few thoughts of my own. As most regular readers here know, I have been trying to point out that Mr. Putin’s Russia, for all its problems, is nota throwback to some sort of “Neo-Stalinism” or attempt to “reconstruct the Soviet empire,” but for the secular-minded elites of the West, who do not have or own any culture of their own(not even their own Western culture – indeed, to paraphrase a wise man, they’re in it, but not of it), they can only perceive it to be so. Nor, really, is Mr. Putin’s Russia a throwback to the autocracy. That said, however, Russia isengaged on a grand experiment: how to reconcile genuinely democratic institutions, respect for the rule of law, while recognizing the huge cultural influence that Eastern Orthodoxy has had on the formation of Russian culture and institutions. There is, really, no precedent for this in Russian history, and certainly not in western history. The West, for example, tends to think of “Europe” as if the whole geographical area was subject to the same cultural influences. In short, the West tends to midread its own historical influence into that of Orthodox-influenced Eastern Europe, and as such, suffers from profound myopia. One example which I have repeatedly pointed out in my blogs and books is that the idea of the corporate person, so fundamental in western jurisprudence, grew out of uniquely western Christian theological views; those views were not shared in the Orthodox East.

So the view from Russia is that of a “clash of civilizations”(note Mr. Lavrov’s use of Samuel Huntington’s term, and indeed, the title of Mr. Huntington’s book of the same name) is under way, and the West’s concern is not so much Islam, but a culture and country that is decidedly opposedto entering a “post-Christian” period, which, from Mr. Lavrov’s point of view, really is but a euphemism for the complete collapse of the idea of the rule of law both domestically and internationally. Warming up to this point, Mr. Lavrov stated:

“Naturally, I will start with Ukraine. Long before the country was plunged into the crisis, there was a feeling in the air that Russia’s relations with the EU and with the West were about to reach their moment of truth. It was clear that we could no longer continue to put issues in our relations on the back burner and that a choice had to be made between a genuine partnership or, as the saying goes, “breaking pots.” It goes without saying that Russia opted for the former alternative, while unfortunately our Western partners settled for the latter, whether consciously or not. In fact, they went all out in Ukraine and supported extremists, thereby giving up their own principles of democratic regime change. What came out of it was an attempt to play chicken with Russia, to see who blinks first. As bullies say, they wanted to Russia to “chicken out” (I can’t find a better word for it), to force us to swallow the humiliation of Russians and native speakers of Russian in Ukraine.

“Honourable Leslie Gelb, whom you know all too well, wrote that Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU had nothing to do with inviting Ukraine to join the EU and was aimed in the short term at preventing it from joining the Customs Union. This is what an impartial and unbiased person said. When they deliberately decided to go down the path of escalation in Ukraine, they forgot many things, and had a clear understanding of how such moves would be viewed in Russia. They forgot the advice of, say, Otto von Bismarck, who had said that disparaging the millions-strong great Russian people would be the biggest political mistake.

“President Vladimir Putin said the other day that no one in history has yet managed to subjugate Russia to its influence. This is not an assessment, but a statement of fact. Yet such an attempt has been made to quench the thirst for expanding the geopolitical space under Western control, out of a mercantile fear to lose the spoils of what they across the Atlantic had persuaded themselves was the victory in the Cold War.”

Then comes the first notification of the West’s (i.e., America’s) hypocrisy:

“Talks about Russia’s isolation do not merit serious discussion. I need hardly dwell on this before this audience. Of course, one can damage our economy, and damage is being done, but only by doing harm to those who are taking corresponding measures and, equally important, destroying the system of international economic relations, the principles on which it is based. Formerly, when sanctions were applied (I worked at the Russian mission to the UN at the time) our Western partners, when discussing the DPRK, Iran or other states, said that it was necessary to formulate the restrictions in such a way as to keep within humanitarian limits and not to cause damage to the social sphere and the economy, and to selectively target only the elite. Today everything is the other way around: Western leaders are publicly declaring that the sanctions should destroy the economy and trigger popular protests. So, as regards the conceptual approach to the use of coercive measures the West unequivocally demonstrates that it does not merely seek to change Russian policy (which in itself is illusory), but it seeks to change the regime — and practically nobody denies this.”

In this atmosphere, Mr. Lavrov charges Washington of poisoning the atmosphere of international relations globallywith a culture of fear:

“However, so far, US administrative resources still work only in the NATO framework, and then with substantial reservations, and its writ does not reach beyond the North Atlantic Alliance. One proof of this is the results of US attempts to make the world community follow its line in connection with the anti-Russian sanctions and principles. I have spoken about it more than once and we have ample proof of the fact that American ambassadors and envoys across the world seek meetings at the highest level to argue that the corresponding countries are obliged to punish Russia together with them or else face the consequences. This is done with regard to all countries, including our closest allies (this speaks volumes about the kind of analysts Washington has). An overwhelming majority of the states with which we have a continuing dialogue without any restrictions and isolation, as you see, value Russia’s independent role in the international arena. Not because they like it when somebody challenges the Americans, but because they realise that the world order will not be stable if nobody is allowed to speak his mind (although privately the overwhelming majority do express their opinion, but they do not want to do so publicly for fear of Washington’s reprisals)”

Or to put it “country simple,”Washington, with its constant rhetoric of “exclusiveness” and being “the indispensable nation”, is really laying claim to a kind of national status for a culture of narcissism, psychopathy, and a kind of “entitlement” typical to the psychopath: “the rules apply, but not to me, because I’m special.”

So against this context, Lavrov points out the obviousness of the world reaction to the claim to International Narcissism and Psychopathy being advanced by Washington:

“In attempting to establish their pre-eminence at a time when new economic, financial and political power centres are emerging, the Americans provoke counteraction in keeping with Newton’s third law and contribute to the emergence of structures, mechanisms, and movements that seek alternatives to the American recipes for solving the pressing problems. I am not referring to anti-Americanism, still less about forming coalitions spearheaded against the United States, but only about the natural wish of a growing number of countries to secure their vital interests and do it the way they think right, and not what they are told “from across the pond.” Nobody is going to play anti-US games just to spite the United States. We face attempts and facts of extra-territorial use of US legislation, the kidnapping of our citizens in spite of existing treaties with Washington whereby these issues are to be resolved through law enforcement and judicial bodies.”

And thus we come to (merely one of) Mr. Lavrov’s conclusions, and note carefully how this is addressed in particular to one American satrapy:

“We have been treated as “subhumans.”For over a decade, Russia has been trying to establish partnership ties with NATO through CSTO. These efforts were not just about putting NATO and CSTO “in the same league.” As a matter of fact, CSTO is focused on catching drug dealers and illegal migrants around the Afghan border, and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the backbone of the international security forces, which, among other things, were tasked with fighting the terrorist threat and eliminating its financing schemes, which involve drug trafficking. We tried everything: we pleaded and then demanded real-time contact, so that once NATO detects a caravan transporting drugs and is unable to stop it, it alerts us across the border, so that this caravan could be intercepted by CSTO forces. They simply refused to talk to us. In private conversations, our NATO well-wishers (and I actually mean this in the positive way) told us that the alliance can’t view CSTO as an equal partner for ideological reasons. Until recently, we saw the same condescending and arrogant attitude with respect to the Eurasian economic integration. And that despite the fact that countries intending to join the EAEU have much more in common in terms of their economies, history and culture than many EU members. This union is not about creating barriers with anyone. We always stress how open this union is expected to be. I strongly believe that it will make a significant contribution to building a bridge between Europe and Asia Pacific.

“I can’t fail to mention Russia’s comprehensive partnership with China. Important bilateral decisions have been taken, paving the way to an energy alliance between Russia and China. But there’s more to it. We can now even talk about the emerging technology alliance between the two countries. Russia’s tandem with Beijing is a crucial factor for ensuring international stability and at least some balance in international affairs, as well as ensuring the rule of international law. We will make full use of our relations with India and Vietnam, Russia’s strategic partners, as well as the ASEAN countries. We are also open to expanding cooperation with Japan, if our Japanese neighbours can look at their national interests and stop looking back at some overseas power”

Washington has thrown down the gauntlet, and intends to have a unipolar world in which it can do whatever its narcissistic, psychopathic, entitled self wants; and Russia has said no.The whole phenomenon of the BRICSA bloc, Mr. Lavrov suggests in his speech, is but the formal announcement of a very firm “No.” And increasingly, and quietly, they are being joined by some skeptical powers in Europe. Russia’s message here isn’t just political, or economic, or even geopolitical, at least, not in the sense that these terms are understood in the West. Russia’s message is a culturalone: the West is sick, and it is sick because of its post-Christian, mechanistic, materialist cosmology and rampant secularism. Russia, we would do well to remember, tried all that in its most extreme form: Marxism (another western import, let us remember), and it didn’t work.

It is, in the final analysis, as “the Saker” himself suggests, a clash of civilizations. Russia can offer Tolstoy, Chekov, Dostoyevski, Rachmaninoff… Amerika can offer McCivilization: the Kardashians, Pussy Riot and drones.

The Vikings - The Christian Character Assassination

by morton_h, the blogger 

 Now, how was it with them Vikings?

• Were they the primitive, brutal thugs who ravaged on land and at sea with long beard and horns on helmets, raping and plundering wherever they went? 
• Were they totally unaware of the larger world? So after 30 days on the lake with drinking, headbanging and sea shanting Eigill roared out: 'Hell, by Thor and Odin now we have just discovered a new country, God damn it, I think we call it: Iceland, Greenland, Wineland, Russia, whatever ... Skull! (Danish for cheerio, old chap, they drank from a skull of their enimies of course)'.  
• Who were the Vikings, what drove them and why were they decided to leave their safe homes and sail accross roaring oceans to perform shock and awe for the neighbors in the West? Were they just the barbarians or the mongols of Scandinavia?

[scroll ned for at læse på dansk]

If you ask the British or the inhabitants of the present Normandy - remember to 'Nor-man-dy' is actually named after immigrants the Normans, the Vikings - then the answer will be a blank yes to the above questions. We can read it in the history books, everyone knows that of course. By the way, Eigill never used the word goddamn, for he was a heathen. Butthe Hell he knew, fore it was the Nordic 'Hel'. And had we time and space, it would get really interesting, since 'hel' means 'light' in old norse/saxon. So we are dealing with one of the Christian inversions of meaning. But let's leave that for another time.

On the whole, if you ask people who speak from a declared Christian or simply cultural Christian base, the answer will be that the Vikings were brutal and primitive pagans who beat up the poor, innocent good Christians wherever they moved. Listen to a BBC documentary on the subject, and you get within five minutes to know that they were violent far into their black souls, because they simply came from a culture of violence. But then again the English establishment tends to portrai all of the world's peoples as barbarians.

OK, I'm exaggerating slightly. I've actually visited the Viking Museum in York, and serious scientists and museum people have more nuances to offer that the BBC and the Church of England. They knew that the Vikings actually settled, assimilated, traded and even married locally. They were ordinary people, and not particularly primitive. Then can we get even closer?

Let's take som advice fromthe Norwegian researcher and author, Maria Kvilhaug * She hasa better offer than most.

The travellers

The Norsemen or Scandinavians, and we are talking primarily about the residents of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, were extremely well traveled. They knew perfectly well about the Kiev Rus. They sailed on the rivers of Eastern Europe. They came all the way to Byzantium / Constantinople / Istanbul. They sailed the Atlantic from the Skagerrak / North Sea to Greenland and America's east coast. They were mainly traders and we find merchandise and objects in their possession coming all the way from India and China. Their mythology is similar at crucial points to the Vedic. Their cosmology is astonishingly modern.

Different strains came out of the north: the Goths, Burgundians, Lombards, thervingians, thingians, kimbrians (the Welsh Kimeroi) ... the list is long. The story goes that is was all about overpopulation. Was it now? Historians tend to project our habits and beliefs down through time.

Theotoburg

For a start, Scandinavians and Germans stopped the Romans march in central Germany already in year 9 BC. The Romans were heading north with three Roman legions, six cohorts of allied troops and three platoons of cavalry. As they went through Theotoburg forest, they had to stretch out in a thin strip of 20 kilometers. The rain was pouring down, the roads were muddy. Their leather-covered shields were heavy and their bowstrings of honored bowel were softened with water. Then came the ambush and now it poured down with Germans and Scandinavians. 20,000 Romans died, many killed himself to avoid being captured. The Roman divisions to the south were then destroyed. Caesar Augustus is told to have knocked his head against a wall, crying, 'Give me back my legions!'

Theoto-burg gave its name to 'Teu-tons'. The incident meant that the Romans march never got further. It meant that the majority of Germania and Scandinavia (which of course were not the proper names then) never came under Roman influence in the rest of continental Europe and Britain. They remained themselves.

Next comes the emigration wave, as mentioned above. But some of them also returned again to Scandinavia. From Poland, for example. They felt free to move around in the area where the Romans were not allowed to enter. They developed an awareness that they were different, and the proto-fascist Empire from the south was not welcome.  

Scandinavian democracy

The Scandinavians had a hierarchical system for sure. But a relationship that is overlooked by posterity is that it was a truly democratic system. We have learned in school that it was the Greeks, the Romans' role models, who invented democracy. Bullshit! The Scandinavians had it from the start, and it was far more genuinely democratic than the Greek, which is equally known for its despots, oligarchs and demagogues. Round Parliament and the Parliament For All (Altinget) is an ancient Nordic concept, and even today, the norse word 'ombudsman' is used untranslated in the English-speaking world. All free men and women could make their case in the Round Parliament.

The Viking Age had not taken place yet. We will then be talking about the time when the famous raids started. But what started them? Was it again just Eigill and the hairy bearded beastie boys who sat in the log cabin and got too much mead, and before they went into the fence exclaimed: 'Let's fucking doooo it!'

By no means. Scandinavians monitored at the nearest what happened in the rest of the world. In the 900s, there was again a brutal Empire on the rise, Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne was a particularly aggressive emperor. A Christian emperor mind you! Here, however, there was no turning of the other cheek, no mercy, compassion, charity, forgiveness or other useless forms of Christian beauty. It might tell its own sweet story that Christianity was - at least - two things: a narrative and a practice, and that these two things NEVER had anything to do with another, nor was the initial thought that they should. But this is a story in itself.

Saxons in Northern Germany, originally a tribe that came from Jutland, had a very strong democratic tradition. But they were not Christians. Charlemagne spent 30 years destroying them completely. All their shrines were destroyed. The soldiers were given as payment right to plunder their cities, steal all their values and rape their women - before they finally beat them and their children to death. Rape first and murder afterwards, they were civilized men, not necrophiles... This was in fact practiced Christianity. Democracy was destroyed, and the dictatorship was established. If you think it's like something similar is going on in a big way instigated by today's Empire, so you're absolutely right. Just a thought. 

Dannevirke

Saxons fought for a long time. They tried to get the Danes to support them. The Danish king took this very seriously, but he realized that it was beyond his reach to intervene without destroying his own kingdom. This could mean of King Helgi, brother of Roar and the father of Rolf Krake, one of the socalled Ulfungar, 'the Children of the Wolf'. He is mentioned in Bjarkarímur Chronicle, the Gesta Danorum, Rolf Krakes Saga, the Lejre Chronicle and the Beovulf. We can not here expect the totally overrated figure, the corrupt monk Saxo Grammaticus, which was merely a scribe paid by the Catholic Church to portray the 'legendary kings', ie the Viking Kings as the pagan cartoons we know today. Out goes Saxo!

In return, the Danish king allowed the Saxon refugees to come to Denmark. He took the threat from the south seriously which can be seen in that he reinforced the wall which already existed as a defense against the Christian invasion of Frisia (Netherlands) in about 740 AD. The wall was called Dannevirke. It is important to understand that it was a wall, a fortification primarily against Christianity and its expansive brutality. We are still in the century before the socalled Viking era.

The start of the raids

In 787 came the first counter-attack from the Danish side, but it was more like a trial balloon. Ten years after came the actual attack. It was at a monastery, where the they simply performed a sacrilege. How cruel howl the Christians! And that it was without a doubt. But the Danes did just exactly what the Christian soldiers in Charlemagne's army had done at a much larger scale. It was simple and clear revenge. The Christians had in 772 attacked the Saxon holy place Irminsul where the Great Holy Pillar was erected. All the visitors had left their weapons outside the Sacred Grove. Charlemagne's troops poured in, killing men and children and raping women.

Later in the Saxon wars they caught 4,500 Saxon warriors. They were given the ultimatum to repent and be baptized or be executed. The Saxons dropped all together at the knees, which meant that they were ready to die and that baptism was worse than death. They were then forced baptized AND executed! And then the soldiers went crazy in all the villages.

The survivors went to Denmark. The first Viking raid on the monastery was therefore revenge for Christians unspeakable atrocities. These Vikings - 'Viking' meaning 'to take on expeditions' - was by no means primitive people. They had an intelligence service, they knew exactly what military strategies and abilities, they were up against. They had heard that the kings of England and the Frankish was plotting to join forces and attack the indomitable and insubordinate Scandinavians. And it was here that our man Eigill and the boys put the mead jar aside and said, 'Enough is enough! Here something must be done'. In other words, here starts the Viking period with one quick jerk in the form of a decision and a clear recognition of the fact that it was them or us.

Therefore they dropped their their quests just in the heart of the British and Frankish areas. Their attack tactics and their equipment was simply unbeatable. With their slim boats they could go almost unnoticed to the coasts and up the rivers. The ships could almost walk on land as modern landing craft. At the same time their navigation skills were formidable also on the high seas. A few decades ago scientists did an advanced computer analyzes of the rudder of a Viking ship - they had wondered about how a rudder of this thinness could steer a ship - and it was discovered that its design was nothing short of brilliant. Then they copied it to supertankers.

One might think that the Vikings did a form of terrorism, and it's not far off. Quite similar to the terror that the Christian Franks had practiced against them, as we have seen. The Vikings simply scared the shit hell out of dem. This in fact meant that the enemy stayed away for 400 years. So throughout the Viking Age the enemy would simply not even think of putting their fingers into the hornet's nest. It was enough that the wasps were flying around in flocks and stinging. Quite effective one must say.

The whole mythology of the cruel, brutal Vikings, the primitive dudes, that murdered, stole and raped, is dating from this very picture, that the Vikings themselves deliberately wanted to paint of themselves.

After the Viking Age, they of course were christianized and went into decline. That is what Christianity is all about: the opium of the people, weakening the strength of the ancient cultures. Then the masters of the new era wrote the victors history as the victors always do. It is the story we have today. 

 * It is highly recommended to listen to the interview on Red Ice Radio with Maria Kvilhaug and Henrik Palmgren. 

Hvordan var det nu med de vikinger?

1. Var de primitive, brutale bøller, der hærgede løs til lands og til vands med langt skæg og horn på hovedet og voldtog og plyndrede hvor de kom frem?
2. Var de totalt uvidende om den større verden? Altså efter 30 dage på søen med druk, skallesmækkeri og sømandssange råber Eigill i en brandert: 'For helvede, ved Thor og Odin nu har vi lige opdaget et nyt land, jeg tror sg'u vi kalder det: Island, Grønland, Vinland, Rusland'.
3. Hvem var disse vikinger, hvad drev dem, og hvorfor besluttede de sig til at sætte over søen i både til skræk og rædsel for naboerne i vest? Var de bare Nordens barbarer?

Hvis man spørger englænderne og beboerne i det nuværende Normandiet - husk at 'Nord-Mand-iet' faktisk er opkaldt efter indvandrerne, norboerne, vikingerne - så bliver der svaret blankt ja til spørgsmålene. Det kan vi læse i historiebøgerne, det ved enhver - synes enhver. I øvrigt sagde Eigill ikke engang s'gu og fanden, for det er kristne bandeord. Med helvede kendte han, for det var det nordiske Hel. Det betyder i øvrigt 'Lysets sted' (germansk: hell = lyst), så noget er blevet vendt på hovedet rent begrebsmæssigt.

I det hele taget hvis man spørger folk, der taler ud fra et erklæret kristent eller blot indbygget kulturkristent afsæt, så bliver svaret, at de var brutale og primitive hedninge, der tæskede løs på de stakkels, uskyldige gode kristne, hvorend de færdedes. Hør en BBC-doku om emnet, og du får indenfor fem minutter at vide, at de var voldelige langt ind i deres sorte sjæle, fordi de kom fra en voldskultur. Englændere har det med at gøre verdens folkeslag til barbarer.

OK, jeg overdriver en anelse. Jeg har faktisk besøgt vikingemuseet i York, og seriøse videnskabsfolk og museums-ditto har lidt flere nuancer at byde på. De vidste godt, at vikingerne faktisk også slog sig ned, assimilerede, handlede, giftede sig lokalt. De var almindelige mennesker, og ikke specielt primitive. Så kan vi komme det nærmere?

Det har den norske forsker og forfatter, Maria Kvilhaug * et bud på.
Et bedre bud end de fleste.

De rejsende 
Nordboerne eller skandinaverne, og vi taler om beboerne primært Danmark, Norge og Sverige, var særdeles berejste. De kendte udmærket til Kiev-Rus - apropos. De sejlede på floderne i Østeuropa. De kom helt til Byzanz/Konstantinopel/Istanbul. De besejlede Altanten fra Skagerak/Nordsøen til Grønland og Amerikas Østkyst. De var primært handelsfolk og vi finder handelsvarer og genstande i deres besiddelse helt fra Indien og Kina. Deres mytologi ligner på afgørende punkter den vediske.

Forskellige stammer drog ud fra Norden: goterne, burgunderne, lombarderne, thervingerne, thingierne, kimbrerne, ... listen er lang. Der fortælles om overbefolkning. Var det sådan, det var? 

Theotoburg 
Til en begyndelse stoppede skandinaverne og germanerne romernes fremmarch i Midttyskland så langt tilbage som år 9 f.Kr. Romerne var på vej mod nord for at undertvinge befolkningerne nord for Alperne. Deres enorme hær bestod af 3 hele legioner, 6 kohorter af allierede tropper og 3 delinger med kavalleri. Derudover større grupper af 'hang-arounds', ikke romerske grupper af lejesoldater og opportunister. Da de skulle igennem Theotoburg-skoven, var de nødt til at strække sig ud i en tynd stribe over 20 kilometer. Regnen pissede ned, vejene var mudrede. Deres læderbetrukne skjolde blev tunge og deres buestrenge af vunden tarm blev slappe af vandet. Så kom bagholdet og det væltede ned med germanere og skandinaver. 20.000 romere døde, mange tog livet af sig selv for ikke at blive taget til fange. De romerske delinger sydpå blev derefter ødelagt. Kejser Augustus fortælles i græmmelse at have banket sit hoved ind i væggen, mens han råbte: 'Giv mig mine legioner tilbage!' 

Theotoburg gav navn til 'teutonerne'. Hændelsen betød, at romernes fremmarch aldrig kom længere. Det betød, at størstedelen af Germanien og Skandinavien (hvilket det selvfølgelig ikke hed dengang) aldrig kom under romersk indflydelse som resten af det europæiske fastland og Britanien. De forblev sig selv.

Hændelsen i skoven vidner om flere ting. For det første har nordboerne haft et udstrakt og effektivt efterretningsvæsen. Dernæst har de besiddet evnen til at organisere sig og mobilisere en hær, der både i størrelse kunne matche den romerske. Endelig har deres våbenføre mænd besiddet stor dygtighed og deres befalingsmænd har været dygtige strateger. Altså på ingen måde var de disse vilde primitive barbarer, som først romerne og senere deres arvtagere, de kristne, beskrev dem som.

Herefter kommer så udvandringsbølgen, som nævnt ovenfor. Men nogle af dem vendte også tilbage igen til Skandinavien. Fra Polen fx. De følte sig fri til at bevæge sig rundt i det område, hvor romerne ikke fik lov til at trænge ind. De udviklede en bevidsthed om, at de var anderledes, og at proto-fascist-imperiet fra syd ikke var velkomment. 

Skandinavisk demokrati 
Skandinaverne havde selv et hierarkisk system. Men et forhold, der er overset af eftertiden er, at det også var et demokratisksystem. Vi har terpet i skolen, at det var grækerne, romernes forbilleder, der opfandt demokratiet. Det er historisk ukorrekt. Skandinaverne havde det fra starten, og det var langt mere ægte demokratisk end det græske, som i lige så høj grad kendte til despoter, oligarker og demagoger. Rundtinget og Altinget er et ældgammelt nordisk fænomen, og selv i dag bliver ordet 'ombudsmand' brugt uoversat i den engelsktalende verden. Alle frie mænd og kvinder kunne fremføre deres sag i rundtinget.

Selve Vikingetiden havde ikke fundet sted endnu. Med vikinger taler vi om den tid, hvor de navnkundige togter startede. Men hvad startede dem? Var det igen bare Eigill og drengene, der sad i bjælkehytten og fik for meget mjød, og inden de gik i hegnet udbrød: 'Vi gør det sguuuu!'

På ingen måde. Skandinaverne monitorerede på nøjagtig vis, hvad der skete i resten af verden. I 900-tallet var der igen et brutalt imperium på fremmarch, Charlemagnes Hellige Romerske Kejserdømme. Den imperiale syge, den megalomane cansersvulst, der synes at vandre op gennem 2000 års europæisk historie, gik her i udbrud igen. Charlemagnes var en særdeles aggressiv kejser. En kristen kejser vel at mærke. Her var der dog ikke noget venden den anden kind til, ingen nåde, medfølelse, næstekærlighed eller anden kristen skønhed. Det fortæller måske sin egen historie om, at kristendommen var - mindst - to ting: fortælling og praksis, at disse to ting ALDRIG havde noget med hinanden at gøre, og at det heller ikke fra starten var tænkt, at de skulle. Men det er en historie i sig selv.

Saxerne i Nordtyskland, oprindelig en stamme, der kom fra Jylland, havde en meget stærk demokratisk tradition. Men de var ikke kristne. Charlemagnes brugte 30 år på at smadre dem fuldstændig. Alle deres helligdomme blev ødelagt. Soldaterne fik som betaling retten til at plyndre byerne, stjæle alle værdier og voldtage kvinderne - før de slog dem og deres børn ihjel. Demokratiet blev ødelagt, og diktaturet blev indført. Hvis du synes, det minder om noget, der foregår i stor stil lige for tiden med afsæt i vor tids Imperium, så har du fuldstændig ret.

Dannevirke 
Saxerne kæmpede imod i langt tid. De forsøgte at få danskerne til at støtte dem. Den danske konge tog dette meget alvorligt, men han indså, at det var udenfor hans rækkevidde at intervenere uden at ødelægge sit eget rige. Der kan her være tale om Kong Helge, bror til Roar og far til Rolf Krake, en af skjoldungerne. Han nævnes i Bjarkarímur, Lejrekrøniken, Gesta Danorum, Rolf Krakes Saga, Ynglingesagaenog Beovulfkvadet. Vi kan ikke her regne med den totalt overvurderede skikkelse, munken Saxo, som blot var en skriverkarl betalt af den katolske kirke til at fremstille 'sagnkongerne', altså vikingernes konger som de bøvede hedenske karrikaturer, vi kender i dag. Sagnkonger er ifølge ham skrøner, og har ingen rod i virkeligheden. Det er fra folk som ham, vi har alle de vrængbilleder af vore forfædre, som desværre er lyslevende den dag i dag, fordi der er blevet gentaget-gentaget-gentaget som et obligatorisk messeled i samtlige historiebøger, skolebøger, kristne krønniker og i vor tid i Hollywood-stil popkultur-fremstillinger med klar jødisk-kristen bagtanke.

Den danske konge tillod de saxiske flygtninge at komme til Danmark efter de omfattende massakrer. At han tog truslen fra syd alvorligt kan ses i, at han forstærkede den mur, som allerede fandtes som værn mod den kristne invasion af Frisien i omkring 740 (Holland). Muren hed Dannevirke. Det er vigtigt at forstå, at det var en mur mod kristendommen og dens ekspansive brutalitet. Vi er stadig i århundredet før den såkaldte Vikingetid.

Der finder for tiden et omfattende historisk revisionsprojekt sted. Og det er højst tiltrængt at få renset ud i den ideologiforurenede, årtusindgamle fremstilling. Denne vil også nå frem til os i form af populærvidenskab. 

En noget mere sober fremstilling kan fx. ses i denne BBC-doku:The Vikings : Documentary on the Life, Culture, and Legacy of Vikings

Selvom BBC godt kunne finde på at bringe lækker propagandistisk historieforvridende doku - det gør de gerne, når det drejer sig om det britiske Imperium - så undgår de det her. Måske fordi så mange briter er efterkommere af nordboere og saksere til, at de kan slippe afsted med det. Folk ved godt, hvor de kommer fra og vil gerne vide mere. Udsendelsen, der er over 3-4 timer lang! viser også, hvor stor kløften er mellem de indgroede og indpiskede kristne dogmer om vikinger/hedninger og de historiske facts. Fx. stammer beretningerne om de 'bestialske grusomheder' ved overfaldet på klostret i Lindisfarne, et af de første vikingetogter, fra munken Alcuin af York. Han smurte så tykt på i brugen af bibelske sataniseringer. Men han var ikke selv til stede, for han sad trygt gemt af vejen i et kloster i Frankrig som tjenestemand for - gæt hvem: Charlemagne, kejseren og massemorderen, hvis hovedfjende på det tidspunkt var - gæt igen.

At denne propaganda og virkelighedsforvridning har været utrolig sejlivet viser et kort interview med en ung nordmand, der adspurgt om han føler sig som efterkommer af vikingerne siger: Ja, men det er med ambivalens for de var jo barbarer. Høj, flot, lyshåret ung mand, og dog så identitetsforvirret. Han er fra barnsben blev indprentet den kristne skyld og skam og den person han er, og som han burde have mod - og ikke mindst indsigt! - til at stå ved det. Den jødisk-kristne bedrift er kort sagt, at få en hel kultur i rum og tid til at fornægte sig selv, så de ikke længere ved, hvem de er, og hvor de kommer fra.

Starten på togterne 
I 787 kom det første modangreb fra danskernes side, men det var mere en slags prøveballon. I 797 kom det egentlige angreb. Det var mod et kloster, hvor man simpelthen vanhelligede stedet. Hvor grusomt hyler de kristne op! Og det var det uden tvivl. Men danskerne gjorde blot nøjagtig, hvad de kristne soldater havde gjort i langt større skala i Charlemagnes hær. Det var simpel og tydelig hævn. De kristne havde i 772 angrebet saxernes hellige sted, Irminsul, hvor den store søjle var rejst. Alle de besøgende havde efterladt deres våben udenfor den hellige lund. Charlemagnes soldater væltede ind, dræbte mænd og børn og voldtog kvinderne.

Senere i de saxiske krige havde de fanget 4.500 saxiske krigere. De fik det ultimatum at lade sig omvende og døbe eller blive henrettet. Sakserne faldt alle sammen på knæ, hvilket betød, at de var rede til at dø og at dåb var værre end døden. Herefter blev de tvangsdøbt OG henrettet! Og herefter gik soldaterne amok i alle landsbyerne. De kristne slagterier omfattede 10.000'er.

De overlevende tog til Danmark. Dette første vikingetogt mod klostret var altså hævn for unævnelige kristne grusomheder. Disse vikinger - ordet viking betyder 'at tage på togt' - var på ingen måde primitive folk. De havde et efterretningsvæsen, de vidste nøjagtigt, hvilke militære strategier og formåen, de var oppe imod. De fik nys om, at de engelske konger og den frankiske Kejser pønsede på at slå sig sammen og angribe de ukuelige og opsætsige skandinavere. Og det var her, at Eigill og drengene stillede mjødkrukken fra sig og sagde: 'Nu er det nok! Her må gøres noget'. Med andre ord: her starter vikingetiden med ét hurtigt ryk i form af en beslutning, der fattedes i erkendelse af, at det var dem eller os, forebyggende angreb eller udslettelse.

Derfor faldt deres deres togter netop i kernen af det britiske og det frankiske område. Deres angrebstaktik og deres udstyr var simpelthen uovertruffent. Med lette både kunne de gå næsten ubemærkede ind til kysterne og op af floderne. Skibene kunne nærmest gå på land som moderne landgangsfartøjer. Samtidig var deres navigationsevner formidable også på de store have. Da man for et par årtier siden computeranalyserede roret på et vikingskib - man havde undret sig over, at et sidestillet ror af en sådan slankhed kunne styre et skib - opdagede man, at dets udformning var intet mindre end genial. Herefter kopierede man det til supertankere.

Man kan mene, at vikingerne var en form for terrorister, og det er ikke helt ved siden af. Ganske lig den terror, som de kristne frankere havde udøvet mod dem, som vi har set. Vikingerne skræmte simpelt 'the shit out of them'. De betød, at fjenden holdt sig væk i 400 år. Altså gennem hele vikingetiden. Man skulle simpelthen ikke nyde noget af at stikke fingrene ind i den hvepserede. Det var nok, at hvepsene fløj rundt i flokke og stak. Det må siges at være effektivt.

Hele mytologien om de grusomme, brutale vikinger, de primitive børster, der myrdede, stjal og voldtog, stammer fra det billede, som vikingerne selv helt bevidst ønskede at male af sig selv. Og som de kristne, som i tilfældet Alcuin af York, var dumme nok til at spille med på. I deres overdrivelser spillede de faktisk kortet i hænderne på vikingernes kampagne. De var selvfølgelig ikke deres intention, for de tænkte kun på egen vinding: dæmoniser vore fjender, så kommer løbende som får og vil ind i folden.

De kristnes strategi var med tiden den stærkeste grundet deres tilgang til næsten ubegrænsede ressourcer og deres tæft for at gemme sig i Imperiet. Efter vikingetiden blev nordboerne selvfølgelig kristnede og deres før så sofistikerede og stærke samfund gik i forfald. Det er det, kristendom handler om: opium for folkene, svækkelse af den styrke, som de gamle kulturer besad. Herefter skrev den ny tids sejrherrer historien, som sejrherrer altid gør. Det er den historie, vi har i dag. Men det er også den historie, der nu bliver omskrevet og renset for det historiske slam, der af ideologiske årsag er blev hældt i spanden.

* Det kan anbefales at lytte til interviewet på Red Ice Radio med Maria Kvilhaug og Henrik Palmgren.