"Nazism is by its very nature anti-Hellenic and thus an enemy of Hellenismos. Any attempt to identify the Hellenic tradition with nazism or fascism is an attack on Hellenismos.
Never forget what nazism stands for."
This is a translated post from Εθνικός Ελληνισμός - Ethnic Hellenism.
https://www.facebook.com/ethnikoshellenismos
Johann Chapoutot, "Greeks, Romans, Germans. How the Nazis Usurped Europe’s Classical Past"
The ongoing pagan counter-enlightenment and the constant false, anthropologically untenable information at the expense of Hellenism has to stop. Anglo-American paganism must eventually awake to the fact that the colonial age is over.
Contrary to the claims of some of the pagan groups that, unfortunately, like to intervene in Hellenic affairs and engage in the spread of misinformation under the false flag of being Hellenic, Hellenismos or Hellenism (as Hellenismos is called in the Western world) is not a religion but the entirety of indigenous Hellenic culture including its religion.
Furthermore,
- Hellenic does not refer to a time in Greek history, "Hellenistic" does (Hellenic refers to the Hellenic people)
- Hellenes are not "followers" of a religion called "Hellenism" (we are an ethnic group)
- Hellenism is not a "pagan path" (Hellenism is incompatible with paganism)
- Polytheism is only one aspect of Hellenic religion (other aspects include henotheism, animism, cosmotheism)
- Hellenism is not "reconstructionism" or "reenactment."It is a living presence, just like any other indigenous culture (the right name for the re-Hellenization movement, which is all too often confused with Hellenismos itself, is re-indigenization, and revitalization, when it comes to religion)
- Dodekatheism is not an appropriate term when discussing Hellenic religion since we have more than twelve gods (the orthdox church created this term to express the incorrect view that re-Hellenization is only about religion)
- You cannot "adopt the Hellenic ethnos", and it is simply impossible to disconnect ethos from language, religion and ancestry (Herodotos, 8.144.2), since Hellenism is also an ethnism (ethnic identity)
- Hellas and Rome are not the same thing (despite many common elements, Hellenism and Romanitas are two different cultures)
Hellenistic age https://www.britannica.com/event/Hellenistic-Age
Hellen https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hellene "Hellen, in Greek mythology, king of Phthia (at the northern end of the Gulf of Euboea), son of Deucalion (the Greek Noah) and Pyrrha and grandson of the Titan Prometheus; he was the eponymous ancestor of all true Greeks, called Hellenes in his honour. The Hellenes consisted of the Aeolians, Dorians, Ionians, and Achaeans, traditionally descended from and named for Hellen’s sons, Aeolus and Dorus, and his grandsons (by his third son, Xuthus), Ion and Achaeus."
What is Hellenism? Simply explained by Vlassis G. Rassias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmuyry96kZc
What does the term παράδοση (paradosi – tradition) mean to you? https://www.ysee.gr/faq-eng.html#13 "Tradition is a way of seeing and the knowledge transferred from one generation to the next, passing through the filters of social and moral differentiations and reaching its partakers always accurate and respected. Tradition concentrates in its essence everything that has been; all the ways, the narratives, the unspoken, the myths, the rites that have been expressed within its context in the past and at the same time all that have not yet been expressed but exist in a state of potentiality. At any given moment, tradition is complete and at the same time has the capacity to evolve. It embodies internal knowledge that co-exists harmoniously with every aspect of life: personal, collective, political. It is universal transfer and universal experience, given that the only thing that may vary among its different partakers is the extent and quality of this transfer and experience. Tradition is always objective (contrary to the subjective, individual perception and view). It is always ancestral and ethnic. It can never be imposed from one nation to another. There is no tradition shared by more than one nation."
Stealing Hellenism: The Erasure of Greeks by NeoPagans https://greekcitytimes.com/2023/04/03/stealing-hellenism-the-erasure/
“We are the Indians of Greece”. Indigeneity and Religious Revitalization in Modern Greece http://www.ysee.gr/article/Fotiou_WearetheIndiansofGreece_2014.pdf
The reconstruction of ancient Greek religion: Practicing Hellenic religious tradition in contemporary Greek society https://www.academicpublishing.co/uploads/1/3/5/3/135306095/wjcs_1_2_3.pdf
Recently I have found this article by Richard M. Ebeling from 2016. After reading it, I decided to share my thoughts about it. I think it holds an anachronistic and ethnocentric view on Greek freedom. It addresses a fascinating topic but the author fails to draw a logical conclusion from the given facts. He seems to understand the dynamic between the ancient Greeks and their poleis, but misses the reasons. The result is thus a notion of Greek freedom whose premises seem inconsistent.
Ebeling's opinion is based largely on the state of slavery in ancient Greece. And yes, slavery was a brutal institution, there is no reason to doubt that. Time and again I hear and read the argument that ancient Greek economy was based on slavery (which is only one side of the coin), and for that reason we should stop idealizing our ancestors. Personally, I agree with them. There is no reason to idealize ancient Greece, particularly since it is far more exciting to take a closer look at it and really try to get to know ancient Greeks as real persons, with both their good and bad features. But there is also no reason to deny Greek achievements. There would be no humanism, no enlightenment and no French Revolution without Hellenism. It was not Christianity that somehow civilized Europe, as many claim, but the rediscovery of Greek classics in the Latin West in the Renaissance. And that is not by chance: "The intellectual principle of the Greeks is not individualism but 'humanism', to use the word in its original and classical sense" (Werner Jaeger: Paideia: The ideals of Greek culture, Vol. I: Archaic Greece, the mind of Athens, Oxford 1946, p. XXIII).
But our current era, especially the Western world, is often portrayed as the epitome of progress, justice and innovation. I consider this to be an untrustworthy narrative for the rationalization of the status-quo. Are Western societies more human than ancient Greece? Some would say yes. Are they better? I doubt that. The lives of temporary employees and subcontract workers can be hardly described as a bed of roses. Poverty among the elderly is increasing at an alarming rate. The educational opportunities for children depend strongly on the parents' financial situation.
"The more modern conception of man as a free, autonomous agent who chooses his own ends, selects his own means to attain his desired ends, and in general lives for himself, was an alien notion to the mind of the ancient Greeks," says Ebeling. This may be true for some people, however, it is the state that provides the more or less safe framework in which people do not have to worry about their next meal, wild animals and other threats, so that they can satisfy individual desires. Anyway, this concept of freedom is more a romantic idealization than a reflection of reality.
The socio-economic conditions under which people in the Western world live, work and die are quite rough, and in many cases, brutal. Not only that, the economy of Western societies is based on slavery in other parts of the world. Certain metals and the rare earths we need for our mobile phones, military and e-cars are mined from slaves in terrible conditions. In fact, the fulfillment of many of our desires goes hand in hand with slavery, body-destroying exploitation and severe human rights violations. That too is part of the truth.
The truth is, Hellenism has a different and complex understanding of freedom. The reasons for this primarily lie in the fact that it is a collectivistic culture, meaning "the society took precedence, or priority, over the individual," as Mr. Ebeling rightly remarks. From a Hellenic point of view, individualism seems quite "barbaric" or could at least be described as hybris, since it places almost everything under the primacy of subjectivity, feelings and whims, even man's duties towards society. Carl Gustav Jung regarded individualism as "an inflation of the ego of man" (The Seminaries, Vol. 2, Part 1. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1934-1939, London/New York, 2014, p. 348)
The Hellenic concept of freedom revolves around the polis (state), and you simply cannot appropriately evaluate its meaning without taking into account the relevance of the polis among the Greeks. The polis is not just some community structure or political unit. It is the manifestation of the peoples living in it. All of their sovereignty and self-sufficiency, their very dignity, depends on their polis. It is the polis that provides the conditions under which the Greeks develop their relations to one another and their ancestral gods. In general, Greeks were free only within the boundaries of their particular polis. Only due to the polis they were citizens. Outside of it, they were socially and politically dead.
The Western notion of freedom was, of course, alien to ancient Greece, since it did not exist at that time. However, it still remains alien to Hellenism because individualism tends to depoliticize and atomize people, reducing them to mere "individuals." We see this today where consumption has replaced the sense of community. Hellenism is political to the bone. And by political I am referring to the term "politics" in its authentic sense. The Greek word "politike" means dealing with the affairs of the polis, and has, of course, nothing to do with parliaments, political parties, the so-called "right," the so-called "left," and the various forms of political monotheism (conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, internationalism).
An individualistic person may find this "sterile" or even oppressing, but from a Hellenic point of view, individualism may appear interesting but not necessarily appealing, particularly since it fails to understand man's political nature. Apart from that, individualism could also, under certain circumstances, endanger the polis and thus freedom itself.
So yes, the Greeks believed in freedom. They still do. Actually, the "motto" of our war of independence in the 1820s was "Eleftheria i thanatos" ("Freedom or death"). Freedom has always been very important to Greeks. That's why we react very sensitively when it comes to our sovereignty and freedom. Or cultural appropriation.
From a Western or "missionary" lens, this understanding of freedom might be considered paradoxical, since freedom is interpreted as the act of expressing one's true desires and wishes. But this seems more a question of the ego rather than the Self. However, I am not gonna argue that individualism is "evil" and should be "corrected" into collectivism. On the contrary, I think it is legit in the context of its own culture, but so too is collectivism which is not the same at all times and in all places.
Cultures have different views, specifically due to their geopolitical interests, values and political dispositions. That's not a bad thing, actually it is the natural state of the ethnosphere whose very foundation is based on "otherness." Interpreting or evaluating other cultures based on the standards and norms of one's own culture is easy, and only leads to the reproduction of culturally determined notions that all too often remain unreflected. But if we try to understand the other on their own terms, we could learn so much more about ourselves and the world around us. Beyond our projections and culturally determined prejudices, there is a whole world to explore.
In the end, the worlds in our heads are only small spots on the map of a universe that is so much bigger than we could possibly imagine.
First published on hellenismos.org on December 9, 2021.
Mr. Jordan Peterson,
It has come to my attention that in a lecture which you gave some years ago, you stated that you like the idea of a relationship «between polytheism and psychological confusion» and «monotheism and psychological unification,» an idea you ascribed to Carl Jung. I don’t know about you, but the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians don’t appear confused to me. Or would you say that the creation of science, administration, philosophy and democracy are symptoms of confusion? And what about the Bible or the Christians? Is genocide at the command of a god a sign of «psychological unification» to you?
What in your opinion is psychological balance? Hearing the voice of god? Or creating the institutions of freedom, i.e. self-government? Personally, I find myself unable to associate sanity with the enslavement to a questionable book, with illiterates from the desert being proud of being unwashed or with so-called holy men preaching hate against the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and all the other people who were «different,» meaning themselves. I would like to remind you that it was monotheism, not polytheism, that set the ancient world on fire, destroyed the temples and altars of the gods, burned down whole libraries, pathologized sexuality and massacred the European ethnicities. Genocide is interwoven with the mindset and dogma of monotheism, because the monotheistic doctrine is intrinsically unable to accept or at least tolerate alterity.
Mr. Peterson, I think I understand why you deny the existing phenomenon of cultural appropriation, or praise orthodox Christianity and, of course, individualism. Nevertheless I find it very concerning that you ignore the criminal history of Christianity, its totalitarian attitude towards collective otherness, its immanent devaluation of the objective world in favour of an incoherent fantasy, the countless genocides it committed through the ages and the plans for new genocides in the «Revelation to John,» the last book of the so-called New Testament. Not many centuries passed since civilization put a stop to Christianity’s barbarity. But Christianity didn’t change, the world did, it changed due to the Enlightenment and the French revolution, which would not have taken place without the rediscovery of classical literature for which the humanists were responsible the majority of whom were anti-Christian. It was the enlightenment and French revolution that to some degree civilized the Western world. Not Christianity.
As an advocate for individualism, which by the way was regarded by Carl Jung — who is mentioned very often in your lectures — as a «cheap substitute» for the relationship with «das Selbst» (the self) that is lacking, you are opposed to collectivism which is the essential characteristic of indigenous or «polytheistic» cultures, but also the basis of democracy, since the idea of humans as «persons» was and is foreign to Hellenism. The «individual» is the central idea of the West, as you rightly said. The central idea of Hellenism, on the other side, is «political man,» and this idea is the logical consequence of collectivism, because politics is all about the polis, state, community. As a term «politics» means «dealing with the affairs of the polis [state].» But the polis is the expression of a well ordered and thus free i.e. autonomous collective. Without the polis there is no polites (citizen), no politismos (administration) and no politeia, which is the «condition and rights of a citizen,» the collective «body of citizens» (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon, entry: πολιτεία). Isegoria (equality in freedom of speech), isonomia (equal application of the laws to all) and isokratia (equality of power) are the collective fundaments on which freedom is based and without which democracy cannot exist, for democracy is nothing more nor less than the self governed society, free of tyranny, heavenly dictators, parties and parliaments.
Hellenism sees man as a social being defined by his relationships to his family, clan, tribe and state, as member of a group, a limb of the political order of his polis. Against this backdrop, individualism isolates man, counteracts his political nature and, more importantly, places all collective needs under the primacy of individual desires, wishes and likes, cementing the atomization and depolitization of man. When individual choices or desires rise above collective necessities, tyranny is not far away. The immaturity of individualism is the very antithesis of Jung’s concept of individuation, which he thought was a natural process «by which individual beings are formed and differentiated.» Its goal is «the development of the individual personality» (Collected Works 6, 757), to «achieve wholeness» (Collected Works 17, 307). Individualism, on the other hand, is not natural at all. It’s a modern ideology. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines individualism as a «political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual … According to the individualist, all values are human-centred, the individual is of supreme importance, and all individuals are morally equal» (Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry: individualism), whereas the definition given by Analytical psychology looks somewhat different: «Individualism. A belief in the supremacy of individual interests over those of the collective, not to be confused with individuality or individuation» (Daryl Sharp, C. G. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms and Concepts, entry: individualism).
Jung himself was very careful to differentiate individualism from individuation: «Individualism has nothing to do with individuation; individualism is an inflation of the ego of man» (The Seminaries, Vol. 2, Part 1. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1934-1939, London/New York, 2014, p. 348); «relationship to the self is at once relationship to our fellow man, and no one can be related to the latter until he is related to himself» (Collected Works 16, 445). But this is not surprising, since Jung wasn’t very keen on individualism: «the development of personality is an ideal … the cry of individualism is an insult» (Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 17: Development of Personality, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954/1981, p. 175). In his Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (London: Routledge, 1992, 2nd ed., p. 173-174), Jung goes into more detail about the true meaning of individuation:
«Individualism means deliberately stressing and giving prominence to some supposed peculiarity rather than to collective considerations and obligations. But individuation means precisely the better and more complete fulfilment of the collective qualities of the human being, since adequate consideration of the peculiarity of the individual is more conducive to a better social performance than when the peculiarity is neglected or suppressed. The idiosyncrasy of an individual is not to be understood as any strangeness in his substance or in his components, but rather as a unique combination, or gradual differentiation, of functions and faculties which in themselves are universal. Every human face has a nose, two eyes, etc., but these universal factors are variable, and it is this variability which makes individual peculiarities possible. Individuation, therefore, can only mean a process of psychological development that fulfils the individual qualities given; in other words, it is a process by which a man becomes the definite, unique being he in fact is. In so doing he does not become ‹selfish› in the ordinary sense of the word, but is merely fulfilling the peculiarity of his nature, and this, as we have said, is vastly different from egotism or individualism.»
In this light, it is understandable that you hold onto a notion of «polytheism» (which is part of one’s collective ethos) that allows you to draw a conclusion that confirms your thesis. It’s a logical fallacy, and therefore maybe also human nature I guess. But I certainly don’t understand why you seem to confuse the archetypal images with the archetypes themselves, since you are a clinical psychologist. The archetypal images are «only» the «externalization» of inherited neuropsychological dispositions called archetypes. They are not the archetypes themselves nor the gods worshipped by indigenous people, especially given that the gods are external forces. Returning to the issue at hand, I would like to clear up one misunderstanding that dominates not only your thinking, but the entire Western imagination, and is often used to justify the disregard of ethnic religions. The gods of my ancestors, the gods of the Greeks, are not «archetypes.» They are not personalities and not even personal gods, but multiplications of the True Being (ontos on), and thus impersonal, asexual beings (onta), since they are connected to the first cause «in the same manner as intellections are not separated from intellect» (Sallustios, On the Gods and the World, Ch. II.). This idea seems strange to many people because they were taught to confuse the myths with the actual cult. However, the reality is very different from the notions that were established as «common knowledge» in the Western world. «Greek religion, religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Hellenes. Greek religion is not the same as Greek mythology, which is concerned with traditional tales, though the two are closely interlinked. Curiously, for a people so religiously minded, the Greeks had no word for religion itself; the nearest terms were eusebeia (‹piety›) and threskeia (‹cult›)» (Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry: Greek religion).
In Hellenic religion, the sacred is diversity in unity, the gods multiplicity of oneness. Besides the strange stereotypes surrounding the terms «monotheism» and «polytheism,» the core of Hellenic religion lies in its cosmotheism. i.e. the relationship between the gods and the cosmos. The term «cosmotheism» is a recent construction. It describes a religious conception or notion of the universe as an eternal wholeness. According to this view, the cosmos is beginningless or arose out of itself. Its laws come from within. However, the cosmos is permeated by a principle that is superior to the will of the gods. This principle is called in Hellenismos moira(fate), ananke(necessity) or heimarmene(causal determinism). Consequently, in cosmotheism, the cosmos itself takes on the central role and also ranks above the gods in importance. The gods did not create the universe, they just gave order to the world, united the various primordial substances into the cosmos.
The god of monotheism, on the other side, is a person or, to be more precisely, a personal god. He creates the cosmos by will and is not subjected to any law. The universe is his to do with as he pleases. He is not accountable to anyone, and is the source, not the divine «pillar» of ethics. While in Hellenic religion justice is the «sister» of the seasons, in other words an objective reality, in monotheism, justice is solely the will and work of god. This makes him the «archetype» of authoritarianism. Religion is only one part of what we call monotheism. Monotheism is not limited to theology or the apotheosis of the individual, because it is also culture and politics. This is what makes monotheism so dangerous for the body and mind of people. However, the really tragic thing is: monotheism passed the previously described deified arbitrariness and its eschatology onto its political derivations: conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, internationalism. Fascism and bolshevism, however, are undoubtedly the worst and most deadly emanations of political monotheism that humanity has had to face since the genocide of the Indigenous populations of the Americas. Now, while the former endeavor to present themselves as more secular and rational ideologies that promise bliss to the world, for the most part the latter two make no secret of their «world-correcting» agendas and totalitarian will to assert their particular fetish, be it the triumph of the «white race» or the realization of the «classless society.» It is this sense of mission and the transformation of the Western religious habitus into what is euphemistically called today «politics» that makes political monotheism so dangerous, not to mention so irrational. Western exceptionalism for instance is nothing other than the secularized self-image of Christianity.
Within two centuries, political monotheism managed to colonize almost all of humanity’s mental landscapes, with a lot of help from Western empires. But then again, this is the actual recipe of success of the Occidental cultural imperialism: it assails religion as well as culture and politics. Political monotheism is now dominating «politics,» all on a worldwide basis, turning history itself into a nightmarish epiphany of an imprudent god whose insecurity turns into aggression in the face of the natural polymorphy of the ethnosphere. Both religious as well as political monotheism is deeply imbued with the spirit of intransigent intolerance. Hence, it is not surprising that the religious wing of the Western cultural imperialism, or to be precise, the various by-products of Western Christianity are characterized by a similar intolerance towards heterogeneity and otherness, even though some of them deny their derivation from monotheism and genuinely consider themselves to be tolerant. Nonetheless they use the same core methods to «correct,» alienate or assimilate otherness into themselves. They use the violence embedded within the capitalist way of thinking to possess, own, consume, dissipate and ultimately dispose of the once desired object whatever that object might be: an ethnonym, a culture, its religion or even its history. This can be observed especially in occultism, neopaganism and the New Age movement, where cultural appropriation is well documented. Less extreme examples appear to depend on the same mechanisms. However, it was the exorbitant exploitation and distortion of Native American religious traditions that lead to the «Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality» that was ratified in June 1993 by the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota people.
Besides turning the sacred into a «product,» cultural appropriation has opened the way for cultural occupation, alienation and expropriation. For the cultures concerned, it’s an ethnocide by installments, though the occentocentric perspective resists this reality. What is expressed here is the imbalance of power acquired through military, technological and economic resources, that is so characteristic of cultural appropriation. Western Christian esotericism, commonly known as occultism, drives the homogenization of the ethnosphere by forcing ethnic religions into western concepts, under the spell of Western universalism, which is poisoning the much touted dialogue of cultures. This concerns in particular indigenous cultures as they are in a weaker, marginalized position. But this disrespectful, exploitative relationship to the world is not limited to occultism. For although it’s secondary products such as neopaganism and the New Age may appear more tolerant due to their syncretism and pluralistic rhetoric, they maintain a similar attitude toward alterity, have the same impact on the ethnosphere. One just needs to take a closer look at their actual interaction with the outside world and shouldn’t be dazzled by the bright colours and advertising texts. Their aggressive commercialization of foreign cultures and their ancestral cults, the market-conform distortion of indigenous practices and, above all, the active reproduction of Christianity’s false and derogatory stereotypes of ethnic religions are sabotaging the revitalization and re-Indigenization efforts undertaken by indigenous people in order to heal their communities. There are even cases where pagans claim to be members of the culture or tradition they exploit for their own private gain, or where they pretend to speak on behalf of a community of people they are not related to, while in other cases some of them attempted to define indigenous Hellenic culture from the outside (which means to decide what Hellenism is or should be) and presented themselves to the public as «Hellenic priests.» Unfortunately, the internet especially social media makes it easy for scammers and con artists to scam people and take their money: it provides a market where fraudsters can operate unhindered by borders. But such an activity is not just fraud. It is an outright attack on the self-determination and sovereignty of peoples. And this situation is further aggravated because self-staging and the priority of the subjective over the objective are intrinsic to Angloamerican paganism. Therefore a permanent solution to the problem outlined above seems unrealistic at this time.
Given these considerations, it should come as no surprise that pagans, but also nationalists who show a curious obsession with ancient Greece, call the Hellenes‘ right to define their own culture into question, masking cultural continuities in favour of a fetishized version of «ancient Greece» — a substitute for a lively connection to a culture that remains completely alien to them. However, a closer look at this self-staging reveals that some of these people are not just interested in personal gain, they also seek social feedback and admiration that they believe will confirm their self-conceptions and thus raise their self-esteem. Their unnecessary conflicts with reality are rooted in their inability to cope with their need for validation and appreciation appropriately. Their lack of awareness about what is going on in their mind, caused by their ignorance and infantility, is preventing them from understanding the reactions of the people whose culture they abuse. That they are crossing a line. Indigenous cultures are not consumer goods, their ancestral cults are not RPGs, their identity is not a plaything.
But this postmodern peculiarity is not only to be found in Angloamerican paganism, in fact it permeates the entire Western world. The German psychoanalyst Rainer Funke describes this kind of self-staging as follows: «Nobody has the right to say what is good or bad, right or wrong, healthy or sick, genuine or false, real or illusionary. What counts is the self-determined self-staging — that you are yourself» (Rainer Funk [ed.]: Einleitung: Das Leben selbst ist eine Kunst, in: Erich Fromm: Die Antwort der Liebe: Die Kunst des richtigen Lebens, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003, 2nd ed., p. 9). Cultural appropriation, however, is only one facet of creeping modernization — a popular euphemism for Westernization, which is in turn, a euphemism for cultural alienation. The approximation to the West is also accomplished by the occupation or «change» of the language, institutions and customs of the people concerned from the outside, often accompanied by rationalization of exploitation or denial and trivialisation of acts of genocide, in an effort to make this occupation of one’s cultural imagination appear less uncivilized. But that is another issue, which deserves its own paper.
The link below will take you to a 18-minute long video that provides more details on the nature of the gods and how my people perceive them. I’m sure it can remedy your misunderstanding and provide you with new insights that counteract the stories spread by Christianity during the last twenty centuries, which have now become «general knowledge» and reproduce one another, for instance in occultism or paganism. This «general knowledge» affects everyone of us, it affected even Carl Jung, since Christianity permeates the whole Western world, even the imagination of its atheists, because every imagination is culturally determined, and members of the Western world breathe and live inside the Christian categories, inside Christianity’s metalanguage and stereotypes, religious and secular. But it is not only the perspective, words are also culturally determined or rather permeated by the dominant culture (which is currently the «Western civilization» established by Charlemagne) – and language in turn shapes our cognitive realities and via that route our behavioural responses.
As a Hellene, I don’t expect you agree with me about this. As someone who believes in Jesus, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to acknowledge the ethnic gods as something other than «mythological gods.» Therefore, my intention is not to change your mind, after all we both belong to different cultures and represent different worlds. But that’s actually a good thing. After two thousand years of forceful homogenization and universalism of the ethnosphere, the last thing we need is more homogenization.
My motivation for this article was to try to communicate the Hellenic perspective and to contrast your public praise of «monotheism» or statement on «polytheism» with a more differentiated view regarding the differences between these two systems which generate fundamentally different values, cultures and thus types of man.
The above link is to a
very fair, objective and valid academic work on the revitalization of Hellenic
religion in Greece in PDF format. Alexandros Sakellariou, a Greek sociologist
and researcher, interviewed several ethnic Hellenes, researched what is
important to them and the reasons why they abandoned Christianity for
Hellenism. The result is a generally understandable presentation of the complex
phenomenon of re-Hellenization.
His thoroughly
researched and written study paints also a realistic picture of the religious
situation in contemporary Greece and offers an insight into the unknown world
of Hellenism, which is very rare when it comes to corresponding academic
studies. Almost all papers on Hellenic revitalization are written by non-Greeks
with no access to Greek material and no insider knowledge about Greek society.
This paper is
qualitatively different; the author didn't write about ethnic Hellenes, he
actually talked and listened to them. He knows Greek society, the Hellenic
organizations and the development of the re-Hellenization movement over a
period of several years. Sakellariou treats the topic with respect and
scholarly stringency. Unfortunately, that is not always a matter of course.This
enabled him to set some things straight and, more importantly, to provide a
basic understanding of Hellenic revitalization to people who are unfamiliar
with Hellenism.
Therefore, if one wants
to know more about ethnic Hellenes, what they think and what motivated them to
embrace their ancestral tradition, I recommend reading this study.
Alexandros Sakellariou: The
reconstruction of ancient Greek religion: Practicing Hellenic religious
tradition in contemporary Greek society, Wuhan Journal of Cultic Studies,
Volume 1, Issue 2: 2021.
Introduction
The religious landscape
of Greek society
The reappearance and
reconstruction of ancient Greek religion
Theoretical background
and methodology
The role of tradition in
contemporary trajectories
Theology, values and
ideology
Practices and
participation: Individual and collective
When we take a closer look at the Greek or Hellenic people, we see a vibrant culture that manifests itself in a variety of different ways at the individual, local, and state levels. There are different dances, musical styles, ceremonies, superstitions, fairy tales, cultures of memory, family structures and unique traditions forged by historical experiences. All these emanations of Greek culture are interconnected and thus interact with each other. This interaction is possible because it is rooted on a common ground for all Hellenic tribes. Our pan-Hellenic identity is structured on the basis of this shared common ground. And this common ground is our Common Hellenism which, of course, entails all regional idiosyncrasies. Some contemporary scholars even conclude “that regional identities were always a weak concept compared to the state identities of individual poleis, descent-based identities as Dorians or Ionians, and to an over-arching sense of common Hellenism.”[1] But regardless of what we might personally think of this idea, one thing does not negate the other. On the contrary, they coexist with one another in our language, architecture and in the arts. “In fact, in epigraphy, as in other branches of Greek art, the independence of individual states, as well as their common Hellenism, is apparent.”[2]
Sometimes Greeks seem to forget their belonging to the same ethnicity. We tend to place tribal interests above those of all Greeks, sometimes even above everything else, which led to the popular saying: “The worst enemy of a Greek is another Greek.” It is for this reason that we need to remind ourselves of our common Hellenism and therefore naturally also of the pan-Hellenic togetherness. Considered from the historical point of view, it was always an outside threat, for example the Persian invasion, that forced us to pull ourselves together, though that did not last long. “The enemy was distinctly recognizable, as was the cost of submission: economic servitude and loss of autonomy. In the face of such a clear and present danger, many of the Greeks acknowledged their common Hellenism and agreed to work together to defend it.”[3]
We should always bear in mind that we are an ethnos, a word which is, unfortunately, often misunderstood in the non-Greek world or, even worse, confused with the Western European originated concept of “race.” The word “ethnos” derives from the ancient Greek éthos which means “character, idiom, behavior.” An “ethnos” is a group of people sharing a common ethos or culture, as we call it today. A Hellene is someone of Hellenic ancestry who participates in Hellenic ethos (language, religion, way of life), and hence a bearer of a specific ethnic identity based on a specific ethos, language and religion (“kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life,” Herodotos, 8.144).
Nevertheless, as an ethnos, we are, just like any other ethnicity, inhomogeneous. As explained above, our historically grown diversity expresses itself in a variety of customs, dialects and tribal realities. All this variety, however, flows to our Common Hellenism like a mighty river to the sea.
In Herodotus' Histories, we read what this common Hellenism meant to our ancestors:
8.143.1 But to Alexander the Athenians replied as follows: “We know of ourselves that the power of the Mede is many times greater than ours. There is no need to taunt us with that. Nevertheless in our zeal for freedom we will defend ourselves to the best of our ability. But as regards agreements with the barbarian, do not attempt to persuade us to enter into them, nor will we consent. 8.143.2 Now carry this answer back to Mardonius from the Athenians, that as long as the sun holds the course by which he now goes, we will make no agreement with Xerxes. We will fight against him without ceasing, trusting in the aid of the gods and the heroes whom he has disregarded and burnt their houses and their adornments. 8.143.3 Come no more to Athenians with such a plea, nor under the semblance of rendering us a service, counsel us to act wickedly. For we do not want those who are our friends and protectors to suffer any harm at Athenian hands.”
8.144.1 Such was their answer to Alexander, but to the Spartan envoys they said, “It was most human that the Lacedaemonians should fear our making an agreement with the barbarian. We think that it is an ignoble thing to be afraid, especially since we know the Athenian temper to be such that there is nowhere on earth such store of gold or such territory of surpassing fairness and excellence that the gift of it should win us to take the Persian part and enslave Hellas. 8.144.2 For there are many great reasons why we should not do this, even if we so desired; first and foremost, the burning and destruction of the adornments and temples of our gods, whom we are constrained to avenge to the utmost rather than make pacts with the perpetrator of these things, and next the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life, to all of which it would not befit the Athenians to be false. 8.144.3 Know this now, if you knew it not before, that as long as one Athenian is left alive we will make no agreement with Xerxes. Nevertheless we thank you for your forethought concerning us, in that you have so provided for our wasted state that you offer to nourish our households. (Histories by Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1920.)
The loyalty towards the pan-Hellenic cults, our language and way of life are the basic characteristics that all ethnic Hellenes have in common, regardless of which school of philosophy (Platonic, Stoic or Epicurean) and tribe we belong to, regardless of the dialect we use at home or how we bury our dead. Common Hellenism contains all of that, and in addition offers the strength to face threats we could not face alone. The sovereignty of Hellenism and Greece must always be our highest imperative. Our ancestors regarded sovereignty as the most precious value of all. “There are to be found no innovations in constitutional theory, no extension of the criteria of citizenship, no mergers of autonomy within a common Hellenism, no binding alliances, and no ideology of subordination beyond recognition of de facto sovereignty and the obvious need to preserve the safety of koinonia.”[4]
It is only when we work together (or at least towards the same goal) that we experience the underlying certainty of Common Hellenism: Even though we come from different tribes, we are one. Even in ancient times “each polis had its own cults, and each was a community of its citizens and could forge its separate culture ... The shared and common Hellenism expressed itself through regional and polis variations on the theme.”[5]
It does not matter if the main god of your tribe is Zeus Stratios or Pallas Athena, if you belong to an Ionian or another tribe, if you speak this or that dialect, if you live in Thessaloniki, Athens or in the diaspora, if you are able to speak Greek fluently or if you struggle to not forget your native language: You are a member of the Hellenic family. That is the message of Common Hellenism. Wherever you are, whatever you experience, do not ever forget that.
[1] Kathryn Lomas, “Introduction,” in: Kathryn Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean. Mnemosyne Supplementum 246. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004, pp. 3 and 7.
[2] Gisela M. Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art: A survey of the visual Arts of Ancient Greece, New York: Phaidon, 1969, 6th edition, p. 389.
[3] James Romm, Herodotus, New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1998, p. 197.
[4] W. G. Runciman, “Doomed to extinction. The polis as an evolutionary dead-end,” in: Oswyn Murray and Simon Price (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 354.
[5] Rosalind Thomas, “The classic city,” in: Robin Osborne (ed.), Classical Greece: 500-323 BC, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 71.
The terms “Autochthonous,” “Indigenous” and “Native” have been used and
are still used in literature and in the academic discourse to designate
Hellenic culture, ancient and contemporary. Furthermore they are used to
address single components of Hellenic culture such as religion (“polytheism”),
music, language or architectural style. They are also self-chosen terms by
ethnic Hellenes. However, some individuals outside the scientific community,
especially on the internet, are questioning the validity of these terms when it
comes to Hellenes. In this context, the term “ethnic” or “ethnic Hellenic” is
also seen as problematic by people who are unaware of its history and
etymology.
The objections raised can only be explained by an unfamiliarity with the
meanings of the terms used for describing those ethno-cultural groups whose
members maintain the original language, cults and customs of their countries or
countries of origin.
This article is intended to set things right and explode erroneous
assertions, both regarding the aforementioned terms as well as Hellenic culture
itself. To this end, quotations from academic sources concerning various
periods and aspects of Hellenic culture were selected to demonstrate the
legitimate use of these terms in regards to Hellenism. The focus is on the
legitimate use of terms only.
As a result of this selection, it becomes apparent that the misgivings
in this respect are empirically unfounded. All the following citations are from
books written and edited by non-Greek authors. Citations from Greek authors
have been omitted onlyto avoid
anything which could arouse the suspicion of a biased attitude. This decision
is in no way intended to depreciate the academic work and contribution of Greek
scholars.
All terms are treated individually and in alphabetical order. The
quotations are listed in chronological order. Emphasis was added by me.
AUTOCHTHONOUS
“The autochthonous
Greek religion had been successful for centuries [...].”
Ina Wunn,
Davina Grojnowski: Religious Speciation: How Religions Evolve, Berlin:
Springer, 2019, p. 155.
“According to the
legend of Perseus—a real autochthonous Greek hero [...].”
Adriana
Cavarero: Horrorism: Naming Contemporary Violence, New York: Columbia
University Press, 2009, p. 7-8.
“The autochthonous Greek population on the two Turkish islands in the Aegean was not
to be subjected to compulsory exchange.”
Ferenc A. Váli: Bridge across the
Bosporus: The Foreign Policy of Turkey, Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1971, p. 260.
ETHNIC
“Herodotus emphasized the
last three factors – ancestry myth, history, and culture – in his Histories as
the definition of ethnicity, creating the foundations for Hellenic ethnic self-determination for
all Hellenes overseas or in Aegean poleis.”
Rachel J.
Mittelman: Macedonian, Greek, or Egyptian? Navigating the royal additive
identities of Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus, in: Aaron W. Irvin (ed.): Community and
Identity at the Edges of the Classical World, New York: Wiley
Blackwell, 2021, p. 120.
“Florin
Curta notes that Julian's ethnic Hellenism derives from his Neoplatonist
interpretation of ethnic diversity [...].”
Ari Finkelstein: The
Specter of the Jews. Emperor Julian and the Rhetoric of Ethnicity in Syrian
Antioch, Oakland: University of California Press, 2018, p. 19.
“[...] either ethnic
Hellenes who were losing their language or Central Asians not altogether
fluent in Greek.”
Frank L. Holt: Lost World of the Golden King: In Search of Ancient Afghanistan, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2012, p. 181.
INDIGENOUS
“It compares Cassandra's prophetic function with
that of the indigenous Greek Pythia [...].”
Emily Pillinger: Cassandra and the
Poetics of Prophecy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 65.
“The style and the motifs overall are
determinedly late antique and Hellenistic: a fully indigenous
Hellenism.”
Aziz al-Azmeh: The Emergence of Islam
in Late Antiquity: Allah and His People, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2014, p. 507.
“[...] as resurgent Turkish forces under Kemal Ataturk pushed the Greek
forces out of Asia Minor in September 1921 and, along with them, the indigenous
Greek populations.”
Keith R. Legg, John M. Roberts: Modern
Greece: A Civilization on the Periphery, London: Westview Press, 1997, p.
36.
“This period of Greek history is known as the
Hellenistic Age (from the spread of indigenous
Hellenic culture over a large part of the ancient world) [...].”
R. J. Hollingdale: Western Philosophy:
An Introduction, New York: Taplinger Pub. Co., 1979, p. 90.
NATIVE
“[...] whose
protagonist is a romantic idealist devoted to the regeneration of his native Hellenic culture, that most fascinated the
young Nietzsche.”
Graham Parker: Introduction, in:
Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Graham Parker,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. xii.
“Posidon, a native
Greek god—though not originally of the sea [...].”
Michael Grant: The Myths of the Greeks
and Romans, New York: Penguin Books, 1995, p. 57.
“The term Hellenistic, therefore, properly refers
to an amalgam of Greek and oriental customs and motifs which contrasts with the
earlier native Hellenism of the fifth century.”
Finley Hooper: Greek Realities: Life
and Thought in Ancient Greece, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967, p. 422.
.jpg)
