Aryan Mysticism and Judaeo-Christianity

By Bill White

Home

Articles

Jerusalem

An investigation of the relationship between the Aryan Tradition and Judaeo-Christian mysticism has to start with the city of Jerusalem - the place that Jews wished for two millennia to meet in next year.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the city of Jerusalem was given its name, Ursaliimmu, by the Assyrians. In 1400 BC Assyrian records refer to the city as Urusalim. The word is derived from the root "Ur-" and the secondary root "-Saliimm". "Ur" is very clear - it is a root shared by Indo-European and Semitic languages from which modern words such as "origin" are derived. The Germanic roots "ur-" and "or-" are related, as is the Hebrew root "Ir-".

According to an unpublished paper "The Well of Urth and the Will of Man" by Glenn A. Magee:

The or is the ancestor to modern German ur as in Ursprung, ‘origin,’ and Ursache, ‘cause.’ Perhaps a better illustration would be Goethe's Urpflanze, the ‘originary plant,’ from which he thought all plants had developed. What is ur or or is primal, originary, ultimate.

The second root "-Saliimm" is recorded by the Old Testament as being the Hebrew word "Salem". According to Genesis chapter 14, verse 18:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

That statement alone is interesting. Melchizedek was a king, and one wonders if he could be both that and a Hebrew. As is said in Samuel:

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

One can see that the Judaeo-Christian God does not approve of royalty, leading one to question whether the Jerusalem ruled by a class of priestly kings was Semitic, as some assert. The rule of Melchizedek is similar to the Pharoah of Egypt, the Sol Invictus of Rome, the Emperor of China, or other similar sun-king hierarchies found in cultures of Tradition.

The character of Melchezedik’s rule is also of interest. Besides there being no evidence that he is ethnically or culturally of the Jewish tradition, and given the timeframe in which his reign occurred (prior to the 8th and 9th Century BC Jewish conquest of Jerusalem) it is reasonable to postulate he was not; there is reference to a mystical Order, possibly initiatic or Traditional in nature, that springs from his kingship. According to Pslams 110:4: "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Melchizedek is referred to in some texts as the "Heralded Prophet Messenger of Elohim" and the Dead Sea Scrolls often use his name as one of the names of the Messiah (Michael and Hashem being the other two.) In modern times, there are still orders of Elohim occultists who engage in some form of mystical training. And in Europe during the time of the revival of the Holy Roman Empire, the order of Melchizedek was one of the strongest partisans of the German monarch against the Pope.

Returning to the meaning of the city, accepting the roots "Uru-" and "-Salem" we get Urusalem the "origin of peace". According to Evola, Tradition sees the origin of peace as being the center of the wheel of generation - the kyklos ths genesews - and Melchizedek figures prominently in that understanding. As Evola states:

‘Peace’ and ‘Justice’ are two more fundamental attributes that have been preserved in Western civilization. … These attributes were also found in the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, king of Salem … [Rene] Guenon has pointed out that in Hebrew, mekki-tsedeq means ‘king of Justice’ … Tradition upholds the superiority of Melchizedek’s royal priesthood over Abraham’s. It is not without reason … that he declared that neither Christianity nor Islam knew any longer which … is the true religion.

This same king of justice was known as the dharmanga in Aryan India, and as the giver of that caste system which divided all people according to svad-dharma, their nature. The concept of innate differentiation is equivalent to Plato’s oikeiopragia or cuique sum - the just order meant by Plato’s idea of dikaiosynh.

That Jerusalem was not originally a Jewish city, but was conquered by the tribes of Judah and Israel, under Joshua, is significant. The Bible describes the capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites as a process of the assimilation into Judaism of the alien element:

As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day. (Joshua 15:63)

and

And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. (Judges 1:21)

It appears likely that in addition to integrating the physical people, that the Jews also integrated those people’s spiritual tradition, and appropriated the idea of the origin of peace, integrating it into a religious way of thinking that they did not naturally possess.

When the people of Tradition, represented by the Romans, retook the city near the end of the First Century AD, Latin writers such as Pliny, Tactitus, and Cicero had already been referring to it as "Hierosolyma," a word with an interesting formulation: Latin treats its root as "Hierosol-", with the ending "-yma" and "-orum". The title given to Pompey after capturing Jerusalem, according to Cicero, was "Hierosolymarius." This spelling closely follows two Greek and Latin roots in use at that time: "Hiero-" Greek for "holy" and "Sol", Latin for "sun". While it is true that a word cannot have mixed Greek and Latin origins, (with the exception of some hybrid words of 18th and 19th Century European science), one should remember that the root of Jerusalem was "Urusalem", and that "Heirosolyma" reflects a transmutation of that root by scholars who were likely unaware of that origin, and who adopted the name to the languages in common use among the educated at that time - Greek and Latin.

That the city of the "origin of peace" would become the "holy city of the sun" indicates that the city has a central-masculine-solar connotation, and that its reverence would be what one would expect from a civilization of Tradition, rather than one of the external civilizations of the destructive principle. It is thus a paradox that Judaism, whose followers have generally built cultures based on destructive egalitarianism, would base their religion on Aryan symbolism. One sees in it an undercurrent of desire to be like the Aryan - an undercurrent that has carried through to modern Jewish schools of thought like Freudian psychoanalysis, Zionism, and neo-conservatism - each of which represents an imitation of a non-Jewish ideology which proceeded it, and each of which has turned into a parody of its original pattern.

A particularly telling quote on Jerusalem is from Psalms 125:1-3, where one is told:

They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever. For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.

As Evola says, the mountain and particularly the rod are two of several occult symbols of the Divine Kingship and his peace. In Evola’s words:

One of the fundamental symbols of regality was the scepter, the main function of which is analogically related to the ‘axis of the world’.

This mirrors the medieval Traditional Catholic view of Jerusalem as the center around which the world revolves, and the function of Jerusalem as axis helps explain the Medieval aspirations of the Ghibellines - those who wished to reinstate the Holy Roman Empire - to return Christianity to the "true religion of Melchizedek."

But to the modern Judaeo-Christians, terms such as these are typically taken naively and literally, and thus lose all real meaning --in fact taking on the opposite of that which was intended. The uninitiated, like the early Jews, have access to the substance of a mystery, but not its proper interpretation. In fact, the idea of losing Jerusalem - of losing the origin of peace and rule of the holy sun - is central to a major Jewish mythical event - the Babylonian captivity. As is said in 2 Kings 23-27:

And the LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there."

or in Isaiah 3:8:

Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory"

The idea of this loss repeated was for millennia the defining center of the Jewish faith, and clearly these stories tell of the people of Judah being found unfit heirs of Tradition and unable to hold onto the regality associated with the origin of peace. This loss brings us to the story of Nebuchanezzar, a holy king of the Babylonian Tradition, and the horrid misinterpretation the Jewish soothsayer Daniel makes of his dream.

The Dream Of Nebuchadnezzar

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. (Daniel 2 31 - 35)

This was the dream of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Jews while they were in captivity. To the student of Aryan occultism this dream, and its meaning, is no mystery. The idea of the Golden Age, and the subsequent cyclical decline, is the doctrine known to the Persians as the time of the realm of Tina, or to the Greco-Romans of the reign of Saturn-Kronos, where according to Hesiod mortal people live "isos tetheoi" - as if they were Gods. As Evola describes in the "Doctrine of the Four Ages":

According to Tradition … [there is] a process of gradual decadence through four cycles of ‘generations’ … Hesiod wrote about four eras symbolized by four metals (gold, silver, bronze, iron) … The Hindu tradition knows the same doctrine in the form of four cycles … Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga and Kali Yuga ... The Persian version of this myth is similar to the Hellenic version: the four ages are known and characterized by gold, silver, steel and an "iron compound". The Chaldean version articulated this same view in almost identical terms. … Egypt knew the tradition mentioned by Eusebius … Likewise the ancient Aztec traditions …

What Nebuchadnezzar dreams is of the destruction of the Aryan through the cyclical spiritual collapse of his people. Daniel, in seeing this, is clearly imitating religious forms that predate both him and his people, and which are universal to the Indo-European cultures.

But not understanding the Semitic God as an agent of destruction, and the adherents of Judaeo-Christianity as the instruments heralding this destruction, Daniel puts an amusing spin of the dream, inverting its true meaning. He tells Nebuchadnezzar that:

Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise … And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

What he has done is take the doctrine of cycles and turning the lesson of it on its head - praising the act of destruction and labeling that act as consecrated to his God. It is like seeing Ragna Rokkr from the perspective of the Fenris Wolf. As Evola put it, this represents the essence of the Semitic faiths, characterized by:

the transformation into sin of what in the Aryan version of the myth was considered heroic. … These elements … reveal a curious oscillation, which is typical of the Jewish soul, between a sense of guilt, self-humiliation, deconsecration and carnality, and almost Luciferian pride and rebelliousness.

To Daniel the destruction of the Aryan Middle Eastern peoples represents the triumph of the spirit he embodies. The king, already existing in a stage of decadence, accepts this interpretation without question. According to the Old Testament:

Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon.

Of course Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - three Jews, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, who have assumed Babylonian names -- immediately begin to plunder the kingdom and exploit its inhabitants. As the Babylonians complain:

There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

The story that follows - the attempted purge of the three Jews, and the parallels between this and the ascension of Joseph to power in Egypt -- are instructive as to the nature of the Semitic people. Suffice to say that the three Jews survive, and eventually the Jewish people leave captivity and return to Palestine, where time passes and eventually a Christ arises for them to crucify.

Christ-Odin and Sacrifice

The idea of Messianic redemption in a time after the destruction of the world is not one that is unique to Judaeo-Christianity. As Amber Ravensong tells us in her "The Balder Myth from a Jungian Perspective":

Many have interpreted [the Balder] myth as the hope of mankind, because as long as Balder remains in Hel he will not die in Ragnarok and will come to rule with the other survivors in the new order of the world. … Odin’s plan was for Balder to succeed him after Ragnarok and so he must keep Balder safe in Hel.

For those not familiar with the story, Balder’s mother, Frigga, had extracted a promise from all things not to harm her son - all things except the mistletoe - and Balder invites the other Gods to play a game where they hurl sharpened sticks from various trees at him. Loki puts the mistletoe into the blind god Hodr’s hand and he throws it, ending Balder and sending him to the Norse underworld of Hel.

It is interesting that the instrument of Balder’s destruction would be the mistletoe - a symbol of life among the pre-Christian Northern European peoples (reference my essay "Merry Pagan Christmas", [http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/12/28/24666.html]). As Lewis Spence tells us in his History and Origins of Druidism:

The mistletoe or branch was ... the life of the divine representative. … It was regarded as the semen of life essence ... the glutinous matter that was contained in its berries was though of as the spermatozoa, or impregnatory fluid of the gods.

And thus we see that the instrument of Balder’s death is also the generative power of new life.

So can the Tradition of the redemption of the world through Balder after Ragna Rokkr be compared to the final Messianic redemption of Christ after Armageddon? G. du Purucker, writing in 1938 in the Journal of Theosophy on the "Story of Jesus", states that the Martyrdom of Jesus was in fact a mimicry of the act of sacrifice of Odin. In du Purucker’s words: "The Gospel story is merely an idealized fiction, written by Christian missionaries in imitation of the esoteric mysteries of the Pagans."

Odin himself is said to have written in the Nordic Edda Havamal:

I hung on that windy tree nine whole days and nights, stabbed with a spear, offered to Odin, myself to mine own self given, high on that Tree, of which none hath heard, from what roots it rises to heaven.

In the literal sense the act of crucifixion seems to bear a strong resemblance. Witness the description given in the Bible in the book of John:

They had crucified Jesus … One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear … Jesus said … ‘I am ascending to My Father and Your Father, and to My God and Your God.’

Michael Moynihan argues, though, in an unpublished essay entitled "The Hanged Man versus the Crucified Criminal," that the two acts cannot be compared except in the superficial sense, as:

[T]he specific details of Odin's and Christ's sacrificial ‘deaths’ can be recognized in many respects as nearly diametrically opposite. …

The nature of Odin's self-hanging can be viewed as a reaching, faring forth, or ‘descent’ to another realm (since he describes gazing ‘below,’ presumably this is to Hel, the land of the dead, in order to acquire the knowledge and wisdom of its denizens …While the means employed are painful and unpleasant, his ultimate goal is unquestionably a positive one. By enduring and overcoming his trial, Odin returns to the worlds of gods and men a superior being with newfound illumination and powers. Thus his rite is successful, and it ensures his place as the supreme entity among the gods of the Aesir.

The crucifixion of Jesus is a wholly different type of event …Viewed from a historical/realistic perspective, the crucifixion of Christ is not even a ritual at all, but rather an entirely mundane act …Crossley-Holland asserts that Christ's death is ‘voluntary’ like Odin's, but this is questionable. True, it may be voluntary in the sense that Jesus brings it down upon himself through his actions which are perceived as blasphemous by his fellow Jews … However, this form of ‘voluntary’ death is entirely pacifistic and submissive at root.

But du Purucker, discussing Odin and the tree, sees a similarity there with Christ and the Cross, saying: "The reference … to ‘hanging on a tree’ is most suggestive, because the very phrase was frequently used in the early Christian writings as meaning ‘hanging on the cross.’"

Du Purucker also discusses the Christ’s last words, claiming:

’Eli, ‘Eli, lamah shavahhtani. These words, called the ‘cry on the cross", have been translated into Greek … and this is the English rendering of the Greek translation: ‘My God! My God! Why hast though forsaken me?’ This is a false translation into Greek, although correct in English from the Greek, because these words in the original Hebrew mean "My God! My God! How thou hast glorified me!" For these words are good ancient Hebrew, and the verb shavahh means ‘to glorify’, certainly not ‘to forsake’. Then in the twenty second Psalm of the Old Testament in the first verse, there are the following words in the original: ‘Eli, ‘Eli, lamah ‘azavtani which mean ‘My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?

So one sees at the root of Christianity, just as at the root of Judaism, the appropriation of Aryan symbols by Judaic myths which then reinterpret the symbols and invert their meaning. Balder-Odin and the Wyrd (an Anglo-Saxon concept roughly equivalent to the Tao of the Chinese) becomes the Son-Father and Holy Ghost, and in that transformation loses its heroic characteristics and instead becomes the anti-thesis of the hero - the condemner of "sin".

As Moynihan writes:

[Christ’s] teachings only become unique and imperative in the face of the ‘spiritual extortion’ which results [from the] Christian doctrine [that salvation can only be reached through Christ.] … If, on the other hand, one were to view Christ as a historical or mythical role-model [in the Aryan sense of the idea of God], he would be difficult to emulate, and many of his actions appear downright absurd. His ‘reality’ is so far removed from our indigenous European one as to be practically incomprehensible."

Conclusions

What one sees in Judaeo-Christian myth is imitation and perversion of Aryan and Indo-European Tradition. The ideas that existed before the Jews or Christian got to them are stood on their head in the translation from Aryan to Semitic, and the moral lessons become confused. To the adherent of Judaeo-Christian Semitic values, Aryan heroics become sinful, while the mentalities and traits that tend to destroy society and bring misery in the material world become virtuous.

When viewed from this perspective the "prophetic" nature of the Judaeo-Christian faith is subsumed into the Aryan concept of the destruction of the world through cyclical collapse of Tradition. The Jewish messiah becomes for the Western man what the Fenris Wolf was for Odin - an all-consuming adversary, not a God to be followed. Odin and the Aryan father-god is the Semitic Anti-Christ, because he represents the character of civilization that Semitic nihilism seeks to defile. The Semitic-Messianic victory in the battle of Armageddon is the victory of death over life - his reign is the destruction of earth by fire. The Semitic Messiah’s role is one opposed to that of the Norse Balder, who restores the Golden Age, rather than making permanent the dark one.

And this is not to glorify what the Christians know as "Satan worship", "Lucifer worship" and the like. Each of these are inappropriate for the people of Tradition for such worship implicitly accepts the Semitic valuations of Semitic people as the good and as those outside of Semitism as the evil. One sees in the concept of Satan/Lucifer the alien evil, seeing itself as good, trying to understand the true good, and not a true representation of the pantheon of deities those names subsume.

As Evola puts it:

There are ancient traditions according to which Typhon, a demon opposed to the Gods, was the father of the Hebrews; various Gnostic authors considered the Hebrew God as one of Typhon’s creatures.

And therefore solarity in the Semitic faith must always manifest itself as a Titanic character:

a materialized violent race that no longer recognizes the authority of the spiritual principle … ; this race … attempt[s] to take possession, by surprise and through inferior types of employment, of a body of knowledge that grant[s] control … This represents an upheaval and counterfeit of the privilege of the previous ‘glorious men.’

Perhaps no other words can better define the Judaeo-Christian usurpation of Western society - an imitation that has counterfeited and usurped the glory of the original. Through this understanding, and through understanding exactly how the original Tradition has become perverted through misinterpretation and through time, can the initiated begin to return society to the original faith.

Understanding the nature of the Judaic roots, can we see ahead to a time when the avatar of the Sun God will return to the origin of Peace and re-establish his divine rule over all the nations of Earth? Such a time is told of after the destruction of the earth by fire. Until then, we can only educate ourselves in order to teach these others their error.