Thursday 11 October 2007

The Polytheistic Religion of Nationalism

Nationalism is a polytheistic faith in invisible entities whose wills are purported to be performed by the numerous priests and high-priests of this faith in the various fields of politics, the military, education, etc. The deities worshipped are often mutually antagonistic, and the greatest of these gods, ie those with the greatest number of believers, or perhaps most virile or fundamentalist believers, desire the murder and annihilation of other gods whose followers can then, if they are sufficiently worthy, become converts to the greater god, whose greatness has been proven by his defeat, in the persons of his followers, of the other god's followers. If not worthy, they can become slaves to the nationalist god to whom they are now subject.

The gods of nationalism often desire offerings in the way of human sacrifice, and to this end wars are fought. The gods are also often placated by the lesser offerings such as subjection of sacrificial victims to torture and imprisonment.

Within this field of metaphysical deities and the human structures that serve them are some dangerous souls who believe that the gods of nationalism do not actually exist at all, but that they are purely mental fabrications used by the priests and high-priests of these supposed religions to justify their own egotistical interests and will to power. These atheists warn that nationalism is often a tool of manipulation of the masses by ruling elites, and the typically blood-thirsty deities they claim to serve are simply their own wills projected onto an imaginary divine entity which cloaks the true nature of their actions in a foggy, mystical aura.
The atheist would prefer a statement such as "America/The Soviet Union(tick where appropriate) has attacked Afghanistan" be rendered as "The fuckers that run America/Soviet Union have attacked Afghanistan."

Admittedly, we have entered a more complex issue here where The Soviet Union saw the apparent spiritual union of various nationalist deities into one far greater deity, but this evolutionary progression suffered an unexpected dissolution and the old deities reconvened into their separate selves. Victor Pelevin has an interesting and unusual hypothesis in his book, Babylon, regarding this where he says: "The USSR which they'd begun to renovate and improve...improved so much that it ceased to exist(if a state is capable of entering nirvana, that's what must have happened in this case)."

There are those who wish for a single all ruling god over all the Earth, and these monotheists are known as Globalists. These globalists, needless to say, intend to be be the high-priests of this all-powerful divine entity, should their aims be realised. It would be anathema to this priestly class' notion of reality but possibly they are to be the unwitting vehicle of Pelevin's idea where the One World State will be realised only to dissolve itself through an enlightenment experience where the individual ego sense of this deity is transcended, and an enlightened anarchy ensues. This mirroring St Francis' notion of organised Christianity's desired end being its own dissolution; religion being the means to a higher end in terms of individual life and consciousness rather than an end in itself- a dangerous notion which nearly cost him an unpleasant death at the hands of the Inquisition, a body far more organised than religious. Though perhaps these committers of satanic acts were very religious; they just weren't quite being truthful about the nature of the religion they believed in...a tree shall be known by its fruit and all that. The idea that people clearly immersed in evil might lie seems a strangely undervalued notion.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

good post, sir.

Have you heard any Arvo Part? Was thinking how to describe his music and realised i was kind of borrowing something you'd written about the experience of listening to Bach being a necessarily religious encounter.

If you have sound on your comp, i recommend searching for Spiegel im Spiegel by Arvo Part on Youtube and listening intently. Would be interested in your reactions. It's not for everyone, by any means.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the recommendation, and I don't think I'd heard of Arvo Part before. I'll search hi mout but at the moment Youtube is proving a bit awkward for me to access; something about needing an updated something or other which the computer won't update.
I came across a quote by the painter Marc Chagall which fits in with the Bach point:
"We all know that a good person can be a bad artist.But no one will ever be a genuine artist unless he is a great human being and thus also a good one."

Anonymous said...

The relationship between an artist and the everyday persona is tricky. i like to think - indeed, i can't BUT think, that even really obnoxious people like DH Lawrence or hideous bourgeois like Thomas Mann, are - in the moment of creation - truly human.

How the surface person can be so cold and egotistical and petty, yet have this connection to the primal depths, i don't know. i do take heart that the Nazi regime had perhaps only Heidegger in their ranks, that the other candidate for the greatest 20th C philosopher, Wittgenstein, would have spat on the Nazis even if he wasn't Jewish; Wittgenstein was himself an intolerable man but in his ideals, in that core of thought & feeling from whence he wrote, he seemed a thoroughly good man.

Check out the film of Amadeus sometime, it's a thought-provoking piece on the relation of genius to the personality, with the apparently morally upright Salieri a 2nd rate nobody and the childish egomanic Mozart, well, Mozart.

Are you still at the old address? Might send you some Part when this frigging postal strike blows over.

Anonymous said...

But I think the ideas about great men like Tarkovsky from spiritually & intellectually lessers are almost inevitably flawed. He might have the intensest compassion & deep reasons for such & such a stance but he is misconstrued as aloof, arrogant, etc.
Which isn't to say an artist can't be these things but who the artist is comes out in the art. A tree produces the fruit in relation to its own being. You're right about the core of the artist coming through. You'll see ignorant dismissals of the likes of John Lennon & Dostoevsy as being such a type of person-notwithstanding that they might actually have a defence- but you can't fake the emotion of a song like Julia.

I've watched Amadeus a few times, & really enjoyed it, but I think it has to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt in its depictions of Salieri & Mozart. Salieri is actually still regarded as a very fine artist in his own right!
Have you watched any Tarkovsky...I think it could have done without its last few scenes but Stalker is a must-see.

Anonymous said...

i hadn't even heard of Tarkovsky till a few months ago. i'll keep an eye out, if you can recommend a particular film of his?

i still firmly believe that many a great artist has been a terrible human being. Thomas Mann is one of my favourite novelists but i read his biography with disgust. i may be a lesser man than him but i'm pretty sure i'm right in saying the man who drove 3 of his children to suicide and responded to news of the first with "He has shamed the family!" was a bad man.

Sure, the process of creation is i think very difficult if not impossible for a non-creator to understand - and an artist may subconciously or not seek out the right conditions for creation (solitude, poverty, illness, exile) and be subject to well-meaning but wrong-headed advice & beratings from his friends as he creates these conditons, but i see that creativity as more like a virus in a host, that the human being Thomas Mann is subject to much the same judgement as the human being Elberry or Joe Bloggs.

Anonymous said...

Though I presume the character of the artist must still come through. Presumably Mann's work reveals a formidable intelligence though perhaps much less in teh way of soul or compassion. Though, naturally we're all myriad minded...we're not just the person we are in our worst or best moments. Novels also are an art form much les pure in terms of direct sense experience than painting or music, & needs conflict. But regarding Chagall's quote, it is clear that to paint his works he must have been a very warm person, just as Picasso must have been a more intellectual, less warm, more driven person to paint his.

Virtually everything by Tarkovsky is a masterpiece. His first full feature, Ivan's Childhood is a great introduction. Andrei Rublev is magnificent. Solaris great but not my favourite of his, & his own least favourite. Mirror & Stalker both maserpieces, as is Nostalgia, & a little less so his final film, The Sacrifice. Stalker is my favourite & Tarkovsky my choice of artist of the 20th century.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the recommendations - i have to say, any film (Rublev) that both you & Appleyard think is great is probably worth a viewing.

Yes, i think that's true about the writer's personality coming through in the work - but it's as if it's their least petty, most concentrated self - creation seems about concentrating & distilling the self so what is most enduring & energetic is given form.

Strange being annoyed by gifted artists in person - how you can see their irritating qualities are linked to some strength in their work.