In his works Revolt Against the Modern and Man Among the Ruins, Julius Evola states that Communism is the ultimate destination of monotheism, and with it, materialism, moralism, and a soul crushing, totalitarian anti-spiritual conformity that is the hallmark of the Kali Yuga. We see within Communism, like any destructive cult such as the philosophy of ‘political correctness’ a forced adherence to, or at least outward aping of agreement and imitation of the lowest common denominator. This regressive movement towards the most common is mistaken and intentionally misrepresented as a progressive and evolutionary movement towards the Universal. However, this error is easily seen. Unlike the universal, which is achieved and understood in and through the efforts of each individual, there is no room for the individual in collectivism, be it Soviet style Communism or the identity politics of political correctness sweeping the Western world.
Since the individual is nothing and can do nothing without the collective, the egregore or psycho-spiritual social control mechanisms of ‘identity’ is replaced with the false moralism of ‘otherness’. This otherness is not of an expansive and enlightening nature, but one of ‘duty’ and ‘obligations’ to one’s fellow man, the community, state, or even the world, and is presented in a messianic tone. The irony here is that the individual is always portrayed as having little or no power to act for themselves. Yet, they are obliged to add their powerlessness to that of the powerlessness of others in order to effect a powerful transformation of the world – to create utopia – usually under the guidance of an ‘enlightened’ individual leader who has ‘seen the truth’. With such a contradiction, it is no wonder that idealism is the source of our greatest suffering.
However, if we see the individual as having some power, and that power being capable of their personal transformation and maybe even enlightenment, then the individual becomes a threat – a potentially rogue element in society. A threat because they are able to see their place within, as well as outside the existing social structure and the egregore – emotions and ideas, psychic forces – that sustain it. The very idea that something exists, or maybe even desirable outside of the existing social structure is itself a heretical view and must be eradicated. One can easily see this when one questions any of the contemporary collectivist views; be they the falsely labeled ‘progressive’ politics of the Left, consumption and consumer focused philosophies of secular society, or various Right leaning nationalisms devoid of a clear idea of ‘nationality’ and what that means in terms of national culture as the basis for individual expression and development. In the end, sentimentalism, petty moralities, and the lowest common denominator become the basis for policies, planning, and activities within the existing social structure. Unfortunately, without access to viable alternative examples, those who reject the prevailing collectivist model often do so in a manner that is equally ineffective, as it is little more than debauchery and excess done in secret.
In terms of spiritual unfoldment, the philosophies and actions of the first and second chakras (those of survival and pleasure with emphasis on social approval and conformity), or psychic centers are mistaken for those of the fourth or the heart (broader social harmony). In fact, the individual who manages to master the energies of these foundational activities (Earth, Water, and to some degree Fire chakras) is the natural leader of the society he or she is in. They will even be mistaken for someone of spiritual insight if they chose to present themselves in such a manner proclaiming their human vices as divine virtues. They will in fact, be the very embodiment of the counter-tradition as some call it, or the demonic as other see it.
In his book, While the Gods Play, French musicologist and tantric authority points to this in a more polite while informative manner when he writes:
“The ethnological study of religion leads inevitably to the realization that the gods of all religions (or their substitutes: virgins, angels, demons, prophets) have developed from analogous concepts and represent universal principles born of perception of the fundamental structures of the world. This is one of the aspects of knowledge that the simplification of monotheism tends to obliterate.
The principle of self (aham), which developed from Mahat (the universal consciousness), is the basis of multiplicity. It is the opposite of unity. It is nonsensical to imagine the existence if a conscious entity being able to act before ‘I-ness’ came into being. There cannot be an entity who says ‘I’ and issues commands, and yet is not part of a multiplicity.
Monotheism is but the divinization of the stage of I-ness, the Aham in the hierarchy if creation. Monotheism presupposes the existence of a personal god who rules the world as he pleases and who is in fact merely the depiction of the divine according to the human model.
By personifying the word (logos), by reducing the transcendent hierarchies to a humanlike individual, the so-called monotheistic religions have simplified and falsified all concepts of the cosmos, of the natural world, and of the divine; they have also permanently severed theology from science and from mystical experience. Perceptions of the supernatural appear in many, very diverse forms. The experiences of mystics, visionaries, spiritualists, and occultists is in complete contradiction to monist simplification. “The number one is at the heart of error,” say the Tantra(s) (Eka Shabdatmika Maya). The religions that claim to be monotheistic are in fact always prophetic religions. The abstract god is merely an excuse for the deification of the prophet, whose revelations are presented as the words of God.
Monotheism reduces the celestial hierarchies to a single figure with whom prophets and pontiffs claim to communicate; this figure places upon them the responsibility of enforcing so-called moral and social laws of human invention, just as if man were the center of the universe and reason for its existence.
Monotheistic religions are, moreover, mutually exclusive, each one receiving contradictory instructions from its god. … This leads to contempt for the divine work, which man can then exploit as he pleases, referring to the instructions revealed to him by a fictitious personality, and which in fact are merely the projections of his ambitions, his wish for power, and the subjection of nature to his depredations. ‘A monotheistic god pave[s] the way for subsequent productivity and introduces totalitarianism.’(Michel Maffesoli, L’Ombre de Dionysos, p. 53).
It is the reduction of the subtle active forces to a single divine being which has allowed the monotheistic religions to become instruments of obscurantism and oppression, culminating in the ridiculous behavior of the religious sects characteristic of modern times, from the [Roman Catholic] Inquisition to Khomeinism [Islamic Fundamentalism]. The fiction that is monotheism will allow any tyranny.
The shaman and the medium are quite right to believe that they can receive information from the intermediary powers, whereas the high priest who claims to embody the will of a universal principle outside of creation can only be a madman, a liar, or a charlatan.
A denial of a single god by no means includes denial of the supernatural. Monotheism itself is in fact close to atheism; it prepares for materialism by replacing with an abstraction the reality of the celestial powers who are gods.
Curiously, it is thanks to the concepts expressed in the Samkhya (which tends to be thought of as atheistic since it does not recognize the possibility of a single active god) that once can observe among Hindus the feeling that the invisible is omnipresent, the respect for the mystery and unexpectedness of the work of the creator, and the principle of tolerance, which is in fact simply respect for the multiple paths in the search for the divine. (p. 117-119)
We need only take Danielou’s comments above and replace the words priest or prophet with social activist or politician; revealed with consensus; and monotheism with inclusion to see how easy it has been for ‘progressive’ politics to replace ‘religion’ as the new one, true faith.