Showing posts sorted by date for query PAGANS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PAGANS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, December 02, 2025

Theatre’s ‘Timid Libertarian’ – OpEd


Tom Stoppard on a reception in honour of the premiere of ‘The Coast of Utopia’ in Russia | Credit: Участник, Wikimedia Commons

December 3, 2025

FEE
By Diogo Costa

Tom Stoppard died on Saturday, November 29th, at 88. Some would call him a scholar’s playwright, due to his allusions and philosophical meditations. When my friend Pedro Sette-Câmara introduced me to his work, I was pursuing graduate studies in New York. The Coast of Utopia was premiering at Lincoln Center, and I couldn’t find an affordable ticket to see it. Instead, I read his trilogy in book format.

Partially because of my studies in political philosophy at the time, I started to see in his work the themes related to human freedom and human knowledge, as well as the forces that threaten them.

The Coast of Utopia is, in many ways, a dramatic rendering of Isaiah Berlin’s Russian Thinkers, a collection of essays on Alexander Herzen, Mikhail Bakunin, Vissarion Belinsky, and Ivan Turgenev that constitutes a meditation on the birth of the Russian intelligentsia. I was reading Berlin at the time I read Stoppard, and I found in his writing Berlin’s intellectual history made flesh. Later I saw that Stoppard acknowledged his debt explicitly: “Isaiah Berlin is an author without whom I could not have written these plays.”

What Stoppard found in Isaiah Berlin was a framework for understanding freedom that cut against the grain of revolutionary idealism. Berlin drew a famous distinction between negative and positive liberty: freedom from interference versus freedom to achieve some higher self or collective goal. In The Coast of Utopia, Bakunin dreams of a freedom that will arrive after the revolution, when the old order has been swept away and humanity can finally become what it was always meant to be. Herzen, by contrast, insists on freedom as it can be lived now, in the present, by actual people with their actual desires and limitations.

Stoppard saw that the concept of positive liberty, however noble in aspiration, can be twisted into its opposite. If true freedom means realizing your “higher” self, then those who claim to know what your higher self requires can justify coercing you in the name of liberation. The revolutionary who forces you to be free speaks as if he is liberating while conscripting you into someone else’s vision of the good. Berlin saw this logic at work in Soviet communism, in fascism, in every system that sacrificed present human beings for the sake of an imagined future perfection.



As Stoppard later put it, “positive freedom in the USSR meant empty shops, rubbish goods and rubbish lives for millions, but that was not the point for me, that was not the dystopia. The horror was the loss of personal responsibility, of personal space in the head, the loss of autonomy, of the freedom to move freely, and the ultimate Orwellian nightmare which is not to know what you have lost.”

Herzen’s From the Other Shore, written after the crushing of the 1848 revolutions, gave Berlin and Stoppard the language to articulate this critique. “If progress is the goal,” Herzen asked, “for whom are we working? Do you truly wish to condemn the human beings alive today to the sad role of caryatids supporting a floor for others some day to dance on?” The one thing we can be sure of is the reality of the sacrifice, the dying and the dead.

“Life’s bounty is in its flow,” wrote Stoppard through Herzen’s mouth. “Later is too late. Where is the song when it’s been sung? The dance when it’s been danced?”

Stoppard asks these questions in one of his most beautiful passages in Coast of Utopia. Herzen watches his son Kolya die and reflects on what it means to love something that will not last: “Because children grow up, we think a child’s purpose is to grow up. But a child’s purpose is to be a child. Nature doesn’t disdain what only lives for a day. It pours the whole of itself into each moment. We don’t value the lily less for not being made of flint and built to last.”

The utilitarian case for liberty—that it produces better outcomes, more prosperity, greater innovation—is true but incomplete. Freedom is valuable in itself, as an expression of human dignity, as the necessary condition for a present and meaningful life. “It’s only we humans who want to own the future, too.”

Stoppard presented an existential view of freedom. Freedom is not merely an instrumental means to something else. It is a constitutive part of what it means to be a human mind that thinks and acts in the world. This is why free people do not have to be politically motivated to threaten a totalitarian system. They just need to act and think as free people.

Stoppard returned again and again to artists, intellectuals, and dissidents as his protagonists. In Rock ’n’ Roll, set across the decades of Czechoslovak communism, the character of Jan insists that listening to the band the Plastic People of the Universe is not a political act. The authorities had a different understanding. A band playing music they want to play, for an audience that wants to hear it, outside the structures of state approval is intolerable precisely because it is not political. It is simply free. As Stoppard himself explained: “They’re not actually ideological, they just want to play their music and they don’t care about communism or anti-communism—they’re musicians, artists, pagans. The police resent them because they don’t care.”

This indifference is their power and their peril. At some point, the regime wants to make concessions to their performance, but in exchange asks them to cut their long hair. They agree to what sounds like a trivial concession. Then they are asked to soften a lyric, to make one small compromise after another. The cumulative effect is surrender. This is the road to serfdom as lived experience.

The totalitarian worlds that haunted Stoppard were not abstract to him. Born Tomáš Sträussler in Czechoslovakia in 1937, he fled the Nazi invasion as an infant. His father died when the Japanese bombed his ship fleeing Singapore. His mother remarried a British army major, and Tomáš became Tom. He later described himself as a “bounced Czech” who “put on Englishness like a coat.”

His biography gave Stoppard something that theoretical defenders of liberty often lack: the personal knowledge of what it means when freedom fails. Relatives of his had died in concentration camps, and he did not learn their names until he was in his fifties. He visited Prague in 1977 to meet Václav Havel and other dissidents. He wrote about Havel’s trial along with three other Chartists, noting the Kafkaesque absurdity of one of the charges: “damaging the name of the state abroad.” The show trial, he observed, was “not good theatre” because the puppets kept showing their strings.

Stoppard called himself a “timid libertarian.” He distrusted grand ideological pronouncements, having seen where they led in the 20th century. Instead, he explored freedom’s stakes through worlds that are simultaneously fantastic, deeply personal, and tragically incomplete. As he spoke while accepting the PEN/Allen Foundation Literary Service Award: “You kind of stand there in your Western idea of what morality is and what amorality is and suddenly you’re not quite sure. You thought you’d always known what was which and suddenly, you’re not sure. This is the fate of thoughtful people as the century unfolds.”

That uncertainty and epistemic humility is part of a fully human life. Questioning one’s reality was an idea that Stoppard returned to, through the frame of theatrical performance, from his early breakout work, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1966), to The Real Inspector Hound (1968) and The Real Thing (1982). In each play, the characters (and the audience) are challenged on what is real. To live among unanswered questions, rival interpretations, and half-finished conversations is not a regrettable price we pay for better theories. It is the atmosphere in which free and rational animals live and breathe.

In Stoppard’s Arcadia, Thomasina Coverly, a mathematical prodigy of thirteen, weeps for the burning of the Library of Alexandria, and all the knowledge that was lost with it. Her tutor Septimus consoles her: “We shed as we pick up, like travelers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind.”

Septimus’s consolation is also Stoppard’s epistemology. Knowledge is not a treasure locked in a single vault, vulnerable to any barbarian with a torch. It is dispersed across countless minds, rediscovered in countless contexts, carried forward through the unpredictable conversations of free people thinking aloud. The march of open societies is a distribution of intellectual risk, a world where no single fire can consume what humanity knows. As long as we keep thinking and talking, reading and writing, singing and dancing, truth will reveal itself again and again. This is why totalitarianism must control not just the state but the human soul, and why the dissident who simply insists on freely thinking his own thoughts poses such a threat.

Stoppard taught me that, in the political community, freedom and knowledge are not separate domains, nor are they abstract ideals reserved for a utopian future; they are things to be practiced now, amidst the mess and noise of the living. And now the playwright himself has become one of Septimus’s travelers, letting fall what we who follow will pick up.


About the author: Diogo Costa is the President of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He holds a bachelor’s degree in Law from the Catholic University of Petrópolis and a master’s degree in Political Science from Columbia University.
Source: This article was published by FEE


FEE

The Foundation for Economic Education's (FEE) mission is to inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society. These principles include: individual liberty, free-market economics, entrepreneurship, private property, high moral character, and limited government. FEE is a tax-exempt, 501(c)3 educational foundation



MANY OF AMERICAS RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIANS (ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS) ARE UNAPOLOGETIC CATHOLICS




Tuesday, November 25, 2025


1,700 years ago, bishops and an emperor wrote a creed. Millions still recite it in church

(AP) — Leo will commemorate the 1,700th anniversary with Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians.



Peter Smith
November 21, 2025
RNS/AP

Centuries of church schisms show that if there’s a doctrine to be fought over, there’s a good chance Christians will fight about it.

That repeated splintering is what makes the Council of Nicaea — a meeting of bishops 1,700 years ago in present-day Turkey — so significant today. And why Pope Leo XIV is traveling on Nov. 28 to the site of this foundational moment in Christian unity as part of his first major foreign trip as pope.

In 325, the council hashed out the first version of the Nicene Creed, a statement of faith that millions of Christians still recite each Sunday.

“The occasion is very, very important — the first global, ecumenical council in history and the first form of creed acknowledged by all the Christians,” said church historian Giovanni Maria Vian, coauthor of “La scommessa di Costantino,” or “Constantine’s Gamble,” published in Italy in tandem with the anniversary.

Convened by the Roman emperor, Nicaea marked the first — but hardly the last — time that a powerful political leader took a leading role in shaping a far-reaching church policy. It was an early collaboration of church and state.

Leo will commemorate the 1,700th anniversary with Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Catholic, Orthodox and most historic Protestant groups accept the creed. Despite later schisms over doctrine and other factors, Nicaea remains a point of agreement — the most widely accepted creed in Christendom.

Other events have been commemorating the council, from the global to the local. The World Council of Churches, which includes Orthodox and Protestant groups, marked the anniversary in Egypt in October. At a Pittsburgh-area ecumenical celebration in November, the tongue-in-cheek catchphrase was, “Party like it’s 325.”

Unified empire, divided church

The Council of Nicaea is important both for what was done and how it was done.

It involved an unprecedented gathering of at least 250 bishops from around the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine had consolidated control over the empire after years of civil war and political intrigues.

Constantine wouldn’t formally convert to Christianity until the end of his life. But by 325, he had already been showing tolerance and favor toward a Christian sect that had emerged from the last great spasm of Roman persecution.

Constantine wanted a unified church to support his unified empire. But the church was tearing itself apart.

It’s sometimes called the “Trinitarian Controversy,” though the debate wasn’t so much about whether there was a Trinity — God as Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit — but about how the Son was related to the Father.

Historians debate exactly who taught what, but an Egyptian priest named Arius gave his name to the influential doctrine of Arianism.

It depicted Jesus as the highest created being, but not equal to God. The opposing view, championed by an Egyptian bishop, said that Jesus was eternally equal to the Father.

An effort at compromise

Constantine called a council to sort things out. It’s called the first “ecumenical” or universal council, as opposed to regional ones.

The bishops nearly unanimously supported a creed endorsed by the emperor. It’s a shorter version of the Nicene Creed recited in church today. It declared Jesus to be “true God” and condemned those who proclaimed Arian ideas.

The creed described Jesus as equal to the Father, of “one substance” — “homoousios,” a term from Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.

The council also adopted a formula for determining the date of Easter, which had been controversial. The council approved the calendar favored by Arian sympathizers, setting Easter for the Sunday after the first full moon of spring. That gave each side a win, said David Potter, author of “Constantine the Emperor” and a professor of Greek and Roman history at the University of Michigan.

“The Council of Nicaea was an extraordinary diplomatic success for Constantine, because he got the two sides to agree,” he said.

As a result, an emperor’s theological legacy endures.

“I’ve often thought that it’s nice that a piece of imperial legislation is read out every Sunday,” Potter said.


Ominous language about Jews

When the council set its formula for determining Easter, it made a point of distancing the observance from that of Jewish Passover. It used highly contemptuous language for Jews.

“Institutional antisemitism was absolutely a feature of the church,” Potter said.

He noted that such harsh language was common on all sides of ancient religious disputes among early Christians, Jews and pagans. But it helped set a precedent for centuries of persecution of Jewish minorities in Christian lands.

The settlement unsettled

Despite agreement on the creed, it didn’t settle things. In fact, Arius made a comeback, returning to political favor.

NEW: Bring more puzzles and play to your week with RNS Games

Doctrinal debate raged for another couple of generations — even in the streets of the new capital of Constantinople.

“Old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers, they are all busy arguing,” wrote St. Gregory of Nyssa late in the fourth century. “If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told … the Father is greater and the Son inferior.”

In 381, another emperor convened a council in Constantinople. It affirmed an expanded Nicene Creed, with added lines describing the church and the Holy Spirit. The final version became the standard text used today. It’s sometimes called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Later -isms and schisms

That largely took care of the Arians, but new controversies arose in later centuries.

Some churches in Asia and Africa, including the Oriental Orthodox bodies, accepted the Nicene Creed but rejected later councils amid disputes over how to talk about Jesus being both human and divine. Pope Leo, while in Turkey, also plans to meet with representatives of two Oriental Orthodox groups, the Armenian Apostolic and Syriac Orthodox churches.

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had their own schism in the 11th century. They’d already been growing apart over such things as papal authority, but a big controversy was that the Western churches had added a clause in the Nicene Creed that the Eastern ones hadn’t agreed to. Specifically, the original creed said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” but Catholics added, “and the Son.”

Protestant churches later split over other issues, though most held to the Nicene Creed. Historic churches such as Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians explicitly affirm the creed. Many modern evangelical churches that don’t officially affirm the creed, such as many Baptists, have their own statements of faith that largely agree with it.

A few notable exceptions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, don’t accept the Nicene formula.

The Catholic and Protestant churches also began observing Easter differently than the Orthodox a few centuries ago, using an updated solar calendar — and opening yet another breach in Nicene unity.

Still, Nicaea offers hope to a divided church, said the Rev. John Burgess, a systematic theology professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary who is a Presbyterian minister and a scholar on Eastern Orthodoxy.

“An event like the 1,700 years of Nicaea is really the celebration not of a reality but of a hope — of what Christians at their best know ought to be the case, that there is a deep call to unity,” he said.

___

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.


Signs of the Times

Pope to be tested on first trip to Turkey and Lebanon

(RNS) — I don’t expect a home run on his first time at bat, but neither will he strike out.


FILE - Pope Leo XIV greets pilgrims in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Oct. 7, 2025. 
(AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Thomas Reese
November 24, 2025
RNS



(RNS) — While Americans are recovering from their Thanksgiving dinners, Pope Leo will be flying to Turkey and then Lebanon. His first international trip, these five days abroad will show whether Leo is ready for primetime on a global stage.

The trip has two major themes: ecumenism and peace.

The trip to Turkey was planned by Pope Francis to celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, most famous for approving the Nicene Creed that attempted to bring unity to Christians who were fighting over Christology and other theological issues.

The creed unites the Catholic Church with Orthodox churches and many Protestant churches.



Ecumenism has come a long way since I was a child, when Catholics and Protestants avoided each other’s churches (even for weddings and funerals) and treated each other as heretics. Earlier, it was even worse, with Protestants and Catholics killing each other over their differences in France (1562-1598) and in the Eighty Years’ War (1566-1648) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648).

Blood was also shed between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, including the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. The 1054 mutual excommunication between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople was not lifted until 1965 by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I.

Except in Ireland, the 20th century was a time of peace among Christians, but it was not until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that the Catholic Church fully committed itself to ecumenism. Heretics became “separated brothers and sisters.” Christians prayed together, exchanged pulpits, held theological dialogues and worked together for the common good.

Progress was made on many old issues, like justification by faith or works. Catholics are no longer selling indulgences. Although Catholics and Protestants still do not share the Eucharist, the Mass is now in the vernacular, the cup is shared with the people and the clergy encourage the faithful to read the scriptures. Luther would have been pleased.

But as quickly as issues were resolved, new ones came up, especially relating to sexual morality and the ordination of women. I joke with my Protestant friends that, considering the changes that have occurred in Catholicism and Protestantism, today Luther would be a Catholic.

The Vatican sees the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea as an opportunity to celebrate ecumenical progress and to stress that what unites Christians is greater than what divides them. Dialogue and cooperation must continue.

Leo had limited involvement in ecumenism as a priest or bishop. Only 14 percent of Peru is Protestant. But his work and travel as prior general of the Order of Saint Augustine educated him on the wide varieties of Christianity, and the Vatican has an office of experts whose sole function is ecumenical dialogue and who have doubtless prepped Leo for this trip.

But no trip to Turkey can ignore the war that is happening just north of the country on the other side of the Black Sea.

Pope Francis was accused of tilting toward Russia because of his comment that the U.S. provoked Russia with its desire to bring Ukraine into NATO. He also encouraged Ukraine to show the “white flag,” which was interpreted as surrender when he meant a ceasefire for negotiations.

He also hoped the Vatican could provide a neutral spot for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The Vatican has been successful in negotiating prisoner exchanges and the return of Ukrainian children taken into Russia during the war.

Like Francis, Leo had no diplomatic experience before becoming pope, but he will be well briefed before he gets on the plane to Turkey. He will avoid making spontaneous comments on the war and will stick close to the positions articulated by the Vatican Secretariat of State, especially by calling for a ceasefire and an end to the bombing and killing.

U.S. foreign policy can change radically with the election of a new president, but Vatican foreign policy stays pretty much the same no matter who is pope.

The trip to Lebanon will be a boost for Christians in the Middle East, where they are suffering, especially in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank. Christians have left the Middle East in droves. The region needs peace and stability.

Lebanon is still reeling from the 2020 explosion of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate in Beirut that killed 218 people, injured 7,000 more and caused $15 billion in damage. The pope has promised to visit the site of the explosion.

Meanwhile, Israel has targeted Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon with little concern for collateral damage. According to The Associated Press, “Israeli airstrikes over southern Lebanon have intensified in recent weeks.” The most recent attack in Beirut’s southern suburbs killed five people and wounded 25 others. This is just a few miles from where the pope will be visiting.


Everyone will be watching to see what the pope will say about Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. This is a minefield for even the most experienced diplomat, which Leo is not. Again, he will be well prepared by Vatican experts, and I predict he will stick to the policies articulated by the Vatican Secretariat of State. He will support a ceasefire, negotiations and the two-state solution.

This first international trip will be a very public test of Leo’s papacy. I don’t expect a home run on his first time at bat, but neither will he strike out. A base hit will be a win.

Wednesday, October 08, 2025

 

Seeds of Catholic Totalitarian Rule Against Pagans


Catholic Hysteria Against Pagans

 What is wrong with a sacred tradition that attempts to predict the future? What dangers lurk for those who host feasts are not under Church approved? What is wrong with making images of gods and goddesses? What will happen to you? Why not use chemical hallucinogens to heal and create altered states? Why is it so terrible to leave food and clothing for those who died in case they need them? Why not plot and scheme with elves, dwarfs, giants and trolls? Why must there be only one soul and not two or three? These beliefs and practices were so dangerous that the Catholic Church saw fit to smash images, burn down libraries, and torch forests to keep people from practicing these things? In my article, I link the reactions of the Catholic Church to totalitarian practices centuries before what anti-communists accuse Stalin of. In spite of centuries of effort, pagan practices persisted through the Middle Ages. What was it that a pagan life continued to offer people that the Catholic Church could not destroy? The image of the Alexandrian library before it was destroyed by Christian mobs.

The characteristics of totalitarianism
In my last article, “Dancing with the Devil,” I briefly defined totalitarianism as a loaded political vice word that the CIA saved mostly for the Communism of the Soviet Union and fascism in Germany. Usually the charge of “totalitarianism” includes at least the following:

  • abolition of the right to freedom of speech, assembly and religious worship
  • elimination of all political parties other than the ruling party;
  • subordination of all economic and social life to structural control of the single party bureaucracy;
  • liquidation of free enterprise;
  • destruction of all independent trade unions and creation of labor organizations servile to the totalitarian state;
  • establishment of concentration camps and the use of slave labor;
  • utter disregard for an independent judicial system;
  • social demagogy around race and class;
  • expansion of the military;
  • reduction of parliamentary bodies to rubber-stamp status;
  • establishment of a system of nationwide espionage and secret police;
  • censorship of the press and media;
  • disregard for the rights of other nations and disregard of treaties; and
  • maintenance and encouragement of fifth columns abroad

Claim of the article: The manner in which the Catholic Church treated pagans have totalitarian seeds
In my last article, I argued that the charges of totalitarianism against the Soviet Union were ridiculous. By comparison, the Catholic Church had a much more expanded and integrated totalitarian system.  Over the centuries they destroyed pagan sacred texts, shattered sacred groves around springs, cut down sacred forests and killed and ate their sacred animals. Their process was to:

  • Reshape external collective behavior – public confessions
  • Reshape external individual behavior – secret confession annually to a priest
  • Internal individual behavior – importance of conscience.

This article is based on three books, two by Claude Lecouteux including Return of the Dead and Witches, Werewolves and Faires as well as The Pagan Middle Ages edited by Ludo Milis.

Forbidden Pagan Practices
In the book The Pagan Middle Ages the author names the following practices as forbidden:

  • soothsaying – fate, astrology (as opposed to having faith and assuming free will)
  • sorcery (as opposed to praying to God);
  • unapproved feasting outside the church;
  • reverence for statues (instead of praying to an imageless God;
  • using charms against disease; using chemical stimulants like chewing laurel leaves for altered states or herbs such as mandrake, poppy, henbane and nightshade to stimulate the nervous system and cause hallucinations; Catholic rulers  approved of  states including self-flagellation and sleep deprivation and the use of holy unctions, confession and penance;
  • saturating the senses (as opposed to sobriety);
  • burying the dead with important grave goods or with luxurious clothing (the spiritual world needs no material things);
  • placing food in the graves (the spiritual world needs no material things);
  • animal sacrifice;
  • use of remedies;
  • too much leisure as opposed to hard work;
  • imagining divinity could exist outside a single god. Lower forms beings —dwarves, giants, trolls, elves and white witches – were much harder to fight against than gods and goddesses because they were seldom paid great attention to.
  • believing in the return of the dead (as opposed to going to heaven, hell or purgatory);
  • venerating the ancestors;
  • believing in the existence of two or three souls instead of one; and
  • enjoyment of sex.

Between the fifth and the twelfth centuries books of penance were compiled as judgment guides about sex:

  • distinctions made between adulterous men and adulterous women;
  • age categories introduced;
  • whether the offender was a cleric or a laymen, freeman or self;
  • area where adultery took place;
  • when sex took place (sacred holidays, menstruation);
  • the sexual position; and
  • the number of partners.

These are the very things for which the so-called totalitarianism of Russia would be attacked for. Let us see what the pagans believed.

Strategy of the Catholic Church
At first, the small numbers of the Church forced it to be selective in their approach. They went first to the rulers. The rulers had to grant permission to preach in his territory. Furthermore, before converting, the ruler had to be sure they had the support of nobles. They only went after the slaves or serfs or the peasants at the end. Finally, the missionary could not easily invent new words. They had to use existing native words but give them a new meaning.

The Importance of the Ancestor’s Pagans in the Middle Ages
What happens to people when they die? Catholics say you get a one-way ticket to heaven, hell or purgatory. But can you come back? People in the Middle Ages definitely believed you could return from the dead. In fact, they had no fear of death; they dreaded the dead. The true destiny of a dead person was to become an ancestor—to reincarnate or resurrect – to continue to live among his them. Reverence for the ancestors was of great importance to paganism. The dead are connected to their land, the place where they spent their life and they do not want to be separated from it. The dead need the help of the living. In the Middle Ages, the center of all activity remains the farm, and the family is not limited to the living. The tomb was placed within the borders of the farm. There was no reason to separate the dead from the familial community. These pagans lacked all knowledge of the idea of solitude of we moderns. For them the worst penalty was not death but expulsion of the group. The Church worked very hard to suppress this belief that the dead could return. They only partly succeeded. Why did the church not want the people and the ancestors to have a relationship? What benefits does the Church receive from these spiritual politics?  Le Goff in his book The Birth of Purgatory showed the profound metamorphosis that the dead underwent in the 11th and 12th century.

Where, When and Who of the Dead Returned?
Claude Lecouteux tells us that for as long as humans have existed they have spoken of shades of the departed who return to trouble the living. In fact, in pre-Christian and even Christian times pagans and their peasant base said the dead could come back, either of their own volition or by being evoked. Castles clinging to the tops of peaks of mountains, forests covered in fog are places where we are likely to see apparitions of the dead. We are likely to see them in rural areas rather than in cities. The mountains were understood as an intermediary between humans  and gods. Pagans claimed to have seen them on the longest nights of the year. The mountain dweller and the sailor have experienced ghosts and believed in them because mountains and water were believed to be bodies that are bridges between the material to the spiritual worlds.

Not everyone comes back from the dead. It is those souls who have not integrated well into the community that are claimed to return. Claude Lecouteux tells us a Polish ethnologist analyzed 500 cases of dead people who became revenants and drew up the following demographics about who came back.

The DeadNumber of casesPercentages
Drowning victims10120.2
Unbaptized children9018
Abortions5511
Suicides438,6
Spouses who died on their wedding day408
Dead fetuses387.6
Those dying in violent or unnatural deaths153
Women who died after giving birth but before they arose from the same bed142.8
Fiancées who died right before the wedding142.8
Women who died in labor102
Other cases428.4
Total500100

How far do revenants travel? Usually not far. They are mostly attached to their homes and manifest across their lands (affecting the growth of crops). It is rare for one to attack directly the members of their family. Revenants lived in oral and folk tradition anchored firmly in local culture. They would return and wander as apparitions.

Fear of the Dead
In Rome the deceased were regarded as impure and dangerous. It was necessary to gain the good graces of the dead if they would commit more than one misdeed. The deceased were believed to be the cause of epidemics and cases of madness and possession. In Germany the dead were bound before burial. Why? To prevent them from leaving their tombs. The mounds were solid. Earth and good-sized stones were piled up on top of a wooden chamber framed by standing stones as if it were necessary to keep the dead from leaving. Discoveries made in Scandinavian peat bogs had revealed bodies covered with branches, and logs of stones to prevent escape.

Preparation and Handling of the Body
For those preparing the body, it was necessary to protect themselves from evil and to protect the dead person’s spirit from leaving the corpse. The blindfold over the eyes protected those present from the evil eye. The nostrils and the ass were corked with wax. Nails were hammered into the feet of a corpse to prevent any roving after they died. The custom of keeping vigil over the dead is ancient. Vigils were accompanied by singing, spinning and dancing.

Who Were the Revenants?
Claude Lecouteux wrote that revenants are believed to return from the dead in physical form. The revertant dead man is able to intervene physically in the world of the living. He fights like a man and eats and sleeps like a man. Revenants continue on sensuously into the next world. They are believed not to decay and they continue to meddle in people’s lives. Revenants were not evanescent. They were not images or mists, but flesh and blood individuals. They were imagined to be large, alarming, sometimes black in color and more harmful. They inhabit mounds and are unable to find their peace through return. The strengths of the dead were greater than when they were living. When a body was disintegrated in order to be destroyed, it very often seemed as large as an ox.

When the revenant walks on top of a roof, it is imagined to barely avoid collapsing the structure. The mental powers of the dead are thought to be increased. Lecouteux claims people  have also encountered revenants in animal form such as an ox and seal. The revenant seeks to attract people outside. They stay on the roof and do not seem capable of operating inside the house. The house was considered a good refuge for the family if the door was closed. Revenants can avenge themselves. The dead who caused harm did not get off when they died. The revenants were connected to fertility. They ravaged farms and could bring death to most of the household. They can cause harm to neighbors’ farms and make attacks on herdsman. In other words, whenever a revenant raged, the earth became a dessert, the earth no longer bore fruit.

The Challenge of Revenants to Christianity
The undead who have returned can be divided into two large categories depending on whether they had appeared to people in dreams or while awake. They are:

  • corporal 3 dimensional – awake who are called revenants; and
  • evanescent immaterial beings are known as ghosts – they can be ectoplasms, reflections, or images – rather than being physical, ghosts come only in dreams.

Revenants offer a challenge to the Christian division between the kingdom of the dead and the living. They open a third way with respect to existence beyond the grave. They create a challenge to Catholicism that installed a simple reward  or punishment with three places – hell, purgatory and heaven.

Why Does the Study of Revenants Matter?
Revenants should be understood as far back in time as possible before its mutations and transformations due to the intrusion of the Church. The record of where these events is clearest is in Scandinavian society because Christianity penetrated there much later. More than any other people, Icelanders have preserved sagas that give us foresight of beliefs and practices in other places before the Church disrupted things. Claude’s work seeks to dissipate those shadows by letting the people speak of a bygone age for themselves again. In other countries Christianized earlier and with Christian suppression and the marginalization of paganism, the stories of revenants is difficult to sort out. Therefore, Lecouteux decided to study revenants in the Germanic countries from the 10th to the 13th centuries. In the north there was a transition – co-habitation of pagan and Christian and the coherence of the non-Christian culture were still distinguishable after the 13th century.

Christian Repression and Marginalization
Wanted revenants dead or alive!
Christians want to slam the door on reverence of the ancestors whether they are revenants or ghosts. Christianity encountered in Germany wished to exile the dead to a cemetery around the church starting in the 12th and demons and later became the site where witches were thought held century because of its pagan character.  The mountains became the abode of the fairies their sabbaths. Around 1000 BCE, Burchard of Worms prohibited what was called “singing diabolical songs” as well as playing games and capers in the presence of the dead because they were pagan customs. Revenants were stripped of all physicality. All that really appeared were images, reflections and true copies that would later be called ghosts. Directives served to eliminate the reverence of the dead, a core feature of paganism. Whenever possible the saints replaced the ancestors and liturgical feasts replaced pagan festivals.

Controlling perception
At the same time the causes of the perception of the dead were all nailed down by Christianity. Everything had to come from God. There was no independence for ghosts or reverends. They were either:

  • interventions from God in the form of miracles;
  • diabolical acts of the devil including the creation of delusions;
  • the untrusty nature of the senses due to idolatry or magic; and
  • everyday untrustworthiness of the senses.

The theologians who played the most important role in the history of ghosts and revenants are Tertullian and St. Augustine. For the church, the deceased must have a time and a place, and there could be no wandering around. It was difficult for Christians nourished by the Bible and the church fathers to accept that people could reappear after their death. For them they went to either heaven of hell. When purgatory was established in the 13th century, this third place naturally became the residence of the dead who were not resting peacefully. With purgatory, the dead were banished into the beyond. The evolution that transformed revenants and ghosts into souls undergoing punishment for their sins. Please see Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory. 

As for dreams, pagans passed on to the Middle Ages a very elaborate dream decoding system where regular dreams were distinguished from visionary dreams. Under Christianity, this system was reduced to the rank of idolatry and was forbidden by the Church in 789 AD.

Spiritual politics of the Church
Now Lecouteux drew up a brief overview of the means the Church used to resolve the problem of revenants:

  • they were discarded and their wandering nature and attributed to it to demons;
  • human perception was implicated because the senses had been blinded;
  • revenants were stripped of all physicality and became ghosts;
  • little by little they were destined to be dismissed as fantasies, illusions or superstitions; and
  • Revenants were gradually repressed into the realm of witchcraft.

The Church transformed the evil-doing dead into demons- for whom tutelary spirits and revenants were pagan devils. The harmful dead became trolls. These clerics had an excellent linguistic tool at their exposure. They only had to erase certain portions, details of the story to make the word draugr (living dead) disappear and replace it with troll. History would then concern itself only with the battles between man and a demon. There was a totalitarian desire to put everything in its place – to shut out the world between here and the beyond.

How Many Souls?
For Catholics, people have one soul. But for most of human history all the way back to the shamans, people had at least three. The soul is borrowed from the old Saxon German word “seele.” Soul did not exist in the Norse language. The idea of a single individual soul is foreign to Germanic paganism. Ancient Egypt religion speaks to us about the ka; the Greeks speak of daimon; the Romans tell us that every man has a genius and every woman a Juno.

The root of the belief in more than one soul is squarely painted in shamanistic concepts of the soul. The soul is a triple entity:

  • lower soul dwells in the bones and leaves humans only at death;
  • the second is not so solidly fixed in the body…it can leave the body during sleep without the sleeper’s awareness; and
  • the third soul separates itself from the body at the time of death and appears to humans in the form of ghost.

These texts suggest that there are two ways of the soul leaving the body. One is involuntarily through sickness. The body must be in a critical state in order for the soul to become free. The second way is voluntary – through asceticism such as fasting sleep deprivation, discipline, mortification and exposure to cold.

The soul was more than the spirit. It was perceived as being reserved for ecstatic voyages to the next world. Stories claim that clerics rarely noted the wounds an individual brought back from an ecstatic voyage as a revenant because they didn’t want to see it. For Christians the soul cannot be marked in any way. The clerics wished to make people believe that ecstasy was a uniquely spiritual phenomenon. For pagans the other world was less the world of the gods and more the world of the dead. It is the reservoir of potentialities of each individual and each family. To the pre-Christian mindset, sleep permits the free movement of genies, spirits and doubles where distance is no obstacle. As long as the corpse of the dead had not completely decomposed, the double does not disappear. When the double is absent the body is extremely vulnerable. It must not be moved or touched or it would lead to death.
There is at least three types of souls in the Scandinavian sagas.

  • Fylga
  • Hamr
  • Hugr

The fylga literally means female follower. She appears as a tutelary genie attached to the man and his family. A person can have several fylgas. It is closely linked to destiny in the Scandinavian tradition. Its primary mission is to protect the person to whom she has attached herself. It has a corporeity and it appears that the animal nature of the

She is linked to sleep and trance and they can travel. She cannot act physically. The fylga takes leave of a man before death while the hamr (see below) remains attached to the body until total disintegration

The hamr is the physical double. Certain individuals were born with the ability to double themselves. However, when the alter ego travels it runs risks, most notably that of not being able to reenter the body. The physical double—hamr is skilled at metamorphosis. The hugr roughly corresponds to the animus and spiritus. It is more or less independent of individuals. The following is a table which contrasts pagan practices with Christian interpretations.

Pagan practice Category of comparisonChristian Interpretation
A person is able to double themselvesBelief in doublesAn evil spirit takes him over
A person isolates himself from the community and has a vision questMeaning of out-of-the-way placesA demon throws them in an out-of-the-way place and abandons him there as if he were dead
Their double takes the form of a wolfPlace of the wolfA demon puts themselves inside of the wolf
The person knows he has a wolf double at his disposalKnowledge of this processThe human believes the wolf is an external being
The double reenters the worldRe-entrance into the physical worldThe human is possessed and the holy man frees him by Christian exorcism

Pagan Resistance
As hard as the Catholic Church tried, its hold was less complete than it was generally assumed. What is not true is that paganism disappeared because it was superstitious. Like any sacred tradition paganism had its superstitious wing and its more reasonable wing. The policy of the Church was to destroy pagan images while taking over and consecrating the temples.

In spite of everything, paganism could still seep into the spiritual landscape because it fulfilled certain religious functions for which Christianity was not concerned with:

  • how to spur their husbands to more love;
  • how love can be activated or reactivated;
  • how sickness in loved ones can be cured;
  • processes for venting hatred on enemies;
  • how can childless produce children; and
  • how to prevent a plague.

19th Century Decline of the Ancestors

The denser the communication network, the stronger the industrialization process became and the more widely pagan beliefs became marginalized. In addition to Christianity, breakup of the family unit during the 19th century helped to lead to less interest in the fate of the ancestors. Today a dead man is just that, a dead man and his wishes were no longer important. In England, the good man’s field was allowed to survive into the 17th century. This was a piece of land that was never plowed or planted and was left instead to be left fallow. No one harbored any doubt that it was reserved for some spirit or demon.

  • The dead were expelled into the underworld;
  • their decedents no longer felt responsible for meeting the requests of the dead ancestors; and
  • The family no longer included the dead and the living in a single community.

Industrialization dealt a blow by shattering of the old familial structures and uprooting individuals. Oral transmission is weakened further. People no longer died at home surrounded by family, but in hospitals and hospices from where they are taken to stone gardens on the periphery of the community of the living and are no longer huddled around a church. They are no longer cherished as before. Cemeteries are no longer meeting places where people go to share the latest news with the dead. People would sit in the cemeteries when important decisions were made. The door to the otherworld has closed and the beyond keeps our elders for eternity.

The Rise of Neopaganism
The Catholic Church and industrial capitalist society did not have the last word. The Romantic movement of the 19th century rebelled against both Christianity and the industrial revolution. Poets, artists and intellectuals sought to bring back Pan and pantheism. At the end of the 19th century there was great interest in renaissance magic and Western mystery tradition. This continued into the 20th century. After World War II interest in witchcraft and covens emerged first in Britain in the 1950s and then in the United States in the 1960s. Today Neopaganism is thriving in both countries.

The Bitter Totalitarian Harvest  of the Catholic Middle Ages

Catholic totalitarianism attempted to control people by anxiety, fear and hatred of life. Let us return to the sixteen characteristics of paganism at the beginning of this article and try to understand the Church. In the first place there is a hatred of life. There is a condemnation of the celebration of leisure, feasting, saturating the senses and sex. Anything this-worldly is forbidden or looked at suspiciously. Secondly, there is a radical separation between spirituality and the material world. The use of charms or hallucinogens is condemned. When pagans buried their dead and feasted on the Day of the Dead, they left food and implements for the dead. This says that for pagans the veil between this world and the next is fluid, a matter of degree rather than kind. For the Catholic Church there is an absolute separation. Thirdly, the heads of the Catholic Church were obsessed with control. They could not tolerate any kind of independent flow between human beings and other spiritual beings. Soothsaying, sorcery, and the use of charms all suggest that spirituality is horizontal, plural, competitive and chaotic. The Church insisted that people narrow their focus to a single God and have faith that there is a time and place for everything. People go to heaven, hell or purgatory. They do not wander around independently. The Church insisted on having faith in an invisible God far away. Altered states of consciousness were only permissible if it made themselves miserable (flogging, sleep deprivation) in the process. Finally, Catholicism insisted that there could only be one soul rather than three, moving in and out of doubles. One soul stayed in one place until told to move on.

Why did people tolerate such a miserable set of beliefs and practices that the Catholic Church advocated? For one thing, the material life in the Middle Ages was difficult. Food production was erratic, disease was rampant, travel was difficult and feudal lords were selfish with had no social vision. The Catholic Church simply presented a spiritual cosmology that explained why people were miserable but the spiritual authorities wanted also to control the peasants and artisans because of the material  resources they provided. On the other hand, pagan life in Greece and Rome was better for both artisans and peasants. It makes sense that a more life-affirming way of sacred life would go with better material circumstances.

Conclusion
I began this article by naming thirteen characteristics of what Cold War anti-communists accuse the Russians of under Stalin. After dismissing this as ridiculous I argue that the Catholic Church over the centuries is a much better candidate for a totalitarian rule. My claim in this article is the way Catholics treated pagans in the Middle Ages have totalitarian seeds. After naming sixteen characteristics of paganism that the Catholic Church objected to, I focus my article on three: return of the dead, veneration of the ancestors, and the plurality of souls. I describe how the Church’s obsession with controlling people insisted that there was to be no open gateway between life and death. The dead could not return. Instead they were assigned either heaven, hell or purgatory. So too, people did not have three souls but one a single one. There are no souls wandering around in astral life or the underworld. When pagan people claimed the contrary they were told they were deluded or fooled by the devil. Pagan beliefs became demonic.

I close my article by claiming that the Church’s attempt at totalitarian control was only partly successful and I argue for the loopholes in the Catholic assessment of people’s needs that allowed pagan beliefs to continue to survive on the margins of the Middle Ages. I also point out the rise of Neopaganism out of Romanticism created a renaissance of interest in paganism that has expanded through today. I ask why people allowed themselves to commit themselves to such an otherworldly, life-negating, hateful, narrow set of beliefs and practices. My answer is that at least as far as the Middle Ages it was the difficulty of material life. We could ask why people continued to let themselves be controlled by the Catholic Church even when life got better in the High Middle Ages. The answer is partly that the Church became less life-denying which made it possible to stay in the Church. In fact, it was the materialistic nature of the Catholic Church that partly explains the emergence Luther’s and Calvin’s protestant opposition.

Bruce Lerro has taught for 25 years as an adjunct college professor of psychology at Golden Gate University, Dominican University and Diablo Valley College in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has applied a Vygotskian socio-historical perspective to his three books found on Amazon. He is a co-founder, organizer and writer for Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism. Read other articles by Bruce, or visit Bruce's website.

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

‘No More Dudes in Dresses’: Hegseth Targets ‘Woke’ Diversity, ‘Nordic Pagans’ and ‘Beardos’


 September 30, 2025 
By David Badash
THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVMENT



Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth addressed hundreds of generals and admirals flown in from cross the globe, outlining his new standards for America’s armed forces: no focus on diversity, no race or gender quotas, no ban on toxic leaders and hazing, no “woke,” and no “beardos.”

“An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that our diversity is our strength,” Secretary Hegseth declared. “Of course, we know our unity is our strength.

“They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQI+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing. Or that males who think they’re females are totally normal. They were told that we need a green fleet and electric tanks. They were told to kick out Americans who refuse an emergency vaccine,” he said.


“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons,” he continued. “Based on their race. Based on gender quotas. Based on historic so-called ‘firsts’. We’ve pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing. We’ve weeded out so-called toxic leaders under the guise of double-blind psychology assessments, promoting risk-averse go-along-to-get-along conformists instead.”

“We became the Woke Department. But not anymore,” he vowed.

“This administration has done a great deal from day one,” the Defense chief also said. “To remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department. To rip out the politics.”

“No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses,” he said. “No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction, or gender delusions. No more debris.”


“As I’ve said before, and will say again, we are done with that s–.”

Hegseth also made clear that he was returning to the days of the past in other ways.

“Basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough, and disciplined. We’re empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits. Ensuring that future war fighters are forged. Yes, they can shark attack, they can toss bunks, they can swear. And, yes, they can put their hands on recruits. This does not mean they can be reckless or violate the law, but they can use tried and true methods to ‘motivate,'” he said.


And he addressed “grooming standards,” declaring that beards are not allowed.

“No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We gonna cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards. Because it’s like the broken windows theory of policing. It’s like, you let the small stuff go, the big stuff eventually goes. So you have to address the small stuff.”

“If you want a beard, you can join Special Forces. If not, then shave. We don’t have a military full of Nordic pagans, but unfortunately, we have had leaders who either refuse to call BS and enforce standards, or leaders who felt like they were not allowed to enforce standards.”

“And that’s why today, at my direction, the era of unprofessional appearance is over,” he professed. “No more beardos.”


Hegseth scolded on Fox News over televised speech: 'Something you'd see in China'

Robert Davis
September 30, 2025
RAW STORY


U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Quantico, Virginia, U.S., September 30, 2025. In an unprecedented gathering, almost 800 generals, admirals and their senior enlisted leaders have been ordered into one location from around the world on short notice. 
Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was scolded Tuesday by a Fox News host who said the Pentagon chief's televised speech reminded him of "something that might happen in China or North Korea."

Harold Ford, Jr., a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee and co-host of the Fox News show "The Five," talked about Hegseth's speech to the American military's top brass on Tuesday morning. During the meeting, Hegseth told military leaders that there would no longer be any "woke" policies and that the military would return to male-oriented standards.

Some military leaders described the meeting as a "waste of time" and an "insult."

"I didn't like the televised part of this," Ford said. "Because it reminded me of something that might happen in China or North Korea."

"If I were an adversary of the United States... and I'm watching this, I'm not convinced I would be more fearful of the United States or wanting to be more like them," he added.

Ford also took issue with the new moniker that Hegseth and President Donald Trump have come up with for the Department of Defense, calling it instead the Department of War.

"It should be called the Department of Deterrence," Ford said. "President Trump is the first president in my lifetime who openly talks about not wanting war, wanting to end wars, wanting to get people out of wars. Even when they're not Americans shedding blood, he has shown compassion on behalf of the Ukrainians and the Russians."



A tiny Pete Hegseth preaches to America's military giants

Nick Anderson.
 Raw Story
September 30, 2025 


Nick Anderson/Raw Story
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist

'Disbelief': Pentagon reporter can't find one military official who liked Hegseth's speech


Sarah K. Burris
September 30, 2025
RAW STORY


U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, U.S., September 30, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS

Longtime Pentagon reporter Helene Cooper said that she can't find any military officials who attended the meeting in Virginia with President Donald Trump and Secretary Pete Hegseth and liked what they heard.

"I have yet to find a single military official who was in the audience today who thought that this was a good presentation," she told MSNBC on Tuesday afternoon.

"All I've had from them so far, from the people I've talked to, is a combination of disbelief that some of them were made to fly from, some of them, Asia, from all over the world ... all the way to Quanico to listen to the same familiar type of culture war complaints that we've been having since Trump was reelected," she added, calling Trump's remarks a "campaign-style stump speech."

"Nothing that was said today could not have been put in an email or in a directive. So there's that, to begin with. There's also the fact that so much of this was partisan, and this is a military that is supposed to present itself as nonpartisan. So you didn't hear the kind of cheering that we usually get, because President Trump is used to playing for the type of crowds that favor him," Cooper explained. "And so he's not very used to performing in front of an audience that's just giving, looking back stone-faced. But that's what you were getting from these generals."

The other thing she noted is that she's gotten "so many emails from women in the military" who are seeing this as a message "that they are not welcome."

Hegseth has opposed having women in combat roles.

“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” Hegseth told a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7, 2024.

However, Hegseth has promoted content on his social media from a pastor who believes women shouldn't be working at all. Hegseth even shared a video of that pastor saying women shouldn't vote.



Bizarre Trump ramble to military seen as 'truly significant turning point' in presidency

Travis Gettys
September 30, 2025
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a meeting of senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Quantico, Virginia, U.S., September 30, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparked concerns with his unusual order summoning hundreds of military commanders to Virginia for an all-hands meeting — but it the speech by President Donald Trump that left onlookers really confused.

The president and his Pentagon chief pledged to end "woke" and "politically correct" policies they believe had undermined military readiness, but neither speech seemed to justify the extraordinary order summoning the top brass from posts around the world to a Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, in the eyes of many observers.

"Pete Hegseth has recalled America's top military leaders from around the world for a meeting that's livestreamed on Fox," said the Capitol Hunters account. "It truly could have been a Zoom call."

"It’s really funny that Hegseth’s little GI Joe fantasy league speech was met with… silence," noted writer Roxane Gay.

"I didn’t want America to go fascist. I think that is very bad," posted Nicholas Grossman, international relations professor at University of Illinois. "But I take some solace in the fact that we got such stupid, petty fascists, the sort who order an in-person meeting of military leaders not to execute a large-scale purge, but to make them listen to him wax philosophical about gender."

"I'm still thinking it out but it sort of feels like this is the only form a fascist project could take in the America of this century," replied Bluesky user First Wordle Problems. Entirely phony and aspirational, assembled from bits of popular culture and popular pyschology. With no mass following committed to it in any real way."

"Hegseth complained about fatties and beardos, and now Trump is bragging about the quality of stationary [sic] he uses," added historian Kevin Kruse. "Their 'warrior ethos' is all about appearances, nothing more. Which is ironic because Trump looks and sounds like a-- here."

"Trump is now saying (and I am not making this up) that the U.S. should build more battleships because of a black-and-white movie he likes," wrote journalist Philip Bump. "Trump notes than in World War II they were building a ship a day but we don't build ships anymore. Does he … not realize that the military needs of 2025 are different than those of 1945?"

"Everything else aside (and it’s a lot) he sounds 100 years old," noted MSNBC's Chris Hayes.

"A serving member of the military might be court-martialed for saying in public what Trump did here," argued journalist James Fallows, reacting to Trump disclosing the U.S. had recently deployed a nuclear submarine near Russia. "The entire *point* of super-quiet submarines is that adversaries do not know where they are. Navy goes to extreme lengths to conceal any clues to their location."

"Bombing my big stand-up special in front of a totally silent room of generals," joked writer David J. Roth. "'What else, what else. Bagram Air Force Base, we're going to do that again, okay? And we're going to do it the right way: through specific types of tattoos, and haircuts.'"

"Trump opens with a threat to the generals: 'I've never walked into a room so silent … Have a good time. And if you want to applaud, you applaud ... If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future. but you just feel nice and loose,'" noted MSNBC producer Kyle Griffith.

"There have been a lot of rubicons crossed, norms destroyed, principles abandoned, ideals betrayed over the past 10 months but this seems like a truly significant turning point," added historian Paul Cohen.

"Pathetic," sighed writer Gary Legum, reacting to Hegseth's remarks. "Just a pathetic, weak coward overcompensating for his deep insecurities."

"We all know this 'warfighters' talk isn't about convincing our military to do anything except kill more civilians, specifically American civilians," argued the LOLGOP account. "That's the only new thing here."

"If I were a would-be dictator whose only civilian check on power had been consumed by total-complete partisan loyalty, something I would definitely do is call an unprecedented in-person meeting of the only people who could stop me and then proceed to illustrate why they should stop me," wrote journalist Timothy Burke.
.


'Dead silence': Observers cringe as Hegseth's 'FAFO' applause line lands with a thud

Travis Gettys
September 30, 2025
RAW STORY


U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, U.S., September 30, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's euphemistic applause line landed with a thud before an audience of top military brass — and the awkward pause did not go unnoticed on social media.

The defense secretary ordered hundreds of U.S. military leaders from around the world for an unusual gathering in Quantico, Virginia, where the former Fox News host regaled them with a pep talk on the "warrior ethos" he believes is currently lacking. A particular portion of the speech stood out to observers.

"Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of the War Department," Hegseth said. "To our enemies, FAFO."

Hegseth spelled out the abbreviation, which is a genteelism for the phrase, "f--k around and find out," then paused for a moment surveying the room.

It remained silent – save for one audible "woohoo" – in keeping with Pentagon rules regarding speeches by military commanders.

"If necessary, our troops can translate that for you," the secretary added.

Social media users reacted to the content of Hegseth's speech and the reaction in the room.

“'To our enemies: FAFO,'" said the widely followed Tennessee Holler account. "Holds for applause that doesn’t come. Cringey awkward moment as Hegseth summons all generals to hear him do a one-man show about how strong we are."

"Him spelling out FAFO instead of saying f--k around and find out is parody," agreed Bluesky user Earl Verdant. "That he followed it with a pause and a grin like he was expecting applause is beyond parody."

"So he def keeps dropping lines he expects applause for and in the clips I watched there's dead silence every time. Has he gotten a zilch reaction the whole speech?" noted tech consultant Aram Zucker-Scharff. "A single person gives a lackluster cheer for FAFO."

"Enjoying myself imagining the thousand yard stares that all the four star generals must be greeting this with," posted The Atlantic's Helen Lewis.

"Major ROFL says FAFO. China responds YOLO. Rest of the world FUBAR," replied Bluesky user lucidbeaming.

"This is, no exaggeration, some of the most loser s--t i have ever seen in my life," said New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.

"These clips from the secretary’s speech have the same energy as a 9 year old boy who decided to start a secret club and is explaining to his friends why they should all call themselves 'the vipers' from now on," quipped Vox's Elias Isquith.


'I traveled 8K miles to hear this?' Retired general rips into Hegseth's 'canned' speech


Matthew Chapman
September 30, 2025
RAW STORY


U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, U.S., September 30, 2025. 
Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY


Retired Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson had nothing but scathing words on CNN Tuesday morning for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's all-hands speech to generals and admirals who had been called off their assignments from around the world to hear him speak — an event other experts have warned is an unnecessary security risk

"Have you heard anything that constitutes a change, or an announcement or a reason to be addressing the group in the room today?" asked anchor John Berman.

"I think that there's probably a lot of general officers sitting there right now muttering to themselves, I traveled 8,000 miles to hear this?" said Anderson. "I mean, this is essentially a canned speech that really could have been delivered by anybody in almost any time. But I think that there are some clues that he's leaving about refocusing on homeland security and taking away perhaps some of our forward presence in the strength of our alliances overseas. And that really concerns me."

"I mean, that has kept this world safe for 80 years," he continued. "I mean, the NATO alliance and the alliances that we have in Japan and Korea have kept this world relatively safe for a long time, and for us to come off on that would be a terrible, terrible mistake. And I think that there were probably a couple of clues that he left there to that regard.

"The other thing that he talked about was changing the culture and, you know, talking about accountability and responsibility. I mean, there's nothing like being lectured to by a reserve major about things like that. I mean, these guys can write books about their service and their sacrifice and the bravery that they have shown."

Ultimately, Anderson said, "If you talk about accountability, responsibility, he needs to start with himself. He should have resigned after the Signalgate disaster. We shared our classified secrets on an insecure line. Every single person in that room knows that they would have been fired had they done the same thing. So, I mean, this is really a sad moment in our history."

"I thin that the speech in what's going on right now is probably going to turn into a political rally for President Trump, but it's really all about trying to get the military to kowtow to them and their will," Anderson concluded. "And unfortunately, I think we're going to see a lot of that for the next hour or so."