"Thou art nothing. And all thy
desires and memories and loves and dreams, nothing. The little dead
earth-louse were of greater avail than thou, were it not nothing as
thou art nothing. For all is nothing: earth and sky and sea and they
that dwell therein. Nor shall this illusion comfort thee, if it
might, that when thou art abolished these things shall endure for a
season, stars and months return, and men grow old and die, and new
men and women live and love and die and be forgotten. For what is it
to thee, that shalt be as a blown-out flame? and all things in earth
and heaven, and things past and things for to come, and life and
death, and the mere elements of space and time, of being and not
being, all shall be nothing unto thee; because thou shalt be nothing,
for ever."
Everything really is stupidly simple And yet all around is utter confusion Fairy tales written may help you to see it Do you understand about Lewis's Alice? We fit all our lives into regular patterns All that we really know is that we're really living
Moreover,
to be conservative is not merely to be averse from change (which may
be an idiosyncrasy); it is alsoa
manner of accommodating ourselves to changes, an activity imposed
upon all men. For, change is a threat toidentity,
and every change is an emblem of extinction. But a man’s identity
(or that of a community) is nothingmore
than an unbroken rehearsal of contingencies, each at the mercy of
circumstance and each significant in proportion
to its familiarity. It is not a fortress into which we may retire,
and the only means we have ofdefending
it (that is, ourselves) against the hostile forces of change is in
the open field of our experience; bythrowing
our weight upon the foot which for the time being is most firmly
placed, by cleaving to whateverfamiliarities
are not immediately threatened and thus assimilating what is new
without it becomingunrecognizable
to ourselves. The Masai, when they were moved from their old country
to the present Masaidreserve
in Kenya, took with them the names of their hill s and plains and
rivers and gave them to the hills and plains and rivers of the new
country. And it is by some such subterfuge of conservatism that every
man orpeople
compelled to suffer a notable change avoids the shame of extinction.
It
is commonly believed that this conservative disposition is pretty
deeply rooted in what is called “humannature.”
Change is tiring, innovation calls for effort, and human beings (it
is said) are more apt to be lazy than energetic. If they have found a
not unsatisfactory way of getting along in the world, they are not
disposed to golooking for trouble. They are
naturally apprehensive of the unknown and prefer safety to danger.
They arereluctant innovators, and they accept
change not because they like it but (as Rochefoucald says they accept
death) because it is inescapable. Change generates sadness rather
than exhilaration: heaven is the dream of a changeless no less than a
perfect world. Of course, those who read “human nature” in this
way agree that thisdisposition does not stand
alone; they merely contend that it is an exceedingly strong, perhaps
the strongest, ofhuman propensities. And, so far
as it goes, there is something to be said for this belief: human
circumstances would be very different from what they are if there
were not a large ingredient of conservatism in humanpreferences. Primitive peoples are said to cling to what
is familiar and to be averse from change; ancient myth is full of
warnings against innovation; our folklore and proverbial wisdom about
the conduct of life abounds in conservative precepts; and how many
tears are shed by children in their unwilling accommodation to
change. Indeed, wherever a firm identity has been achieved, and
wherever identity is felt to be precariously balanced, a conservative
disposition is likely to prevail. On the other hand, the disposition
of adolescence is often predominantly adventurous and experimental:
when we are young, nothing seems more desirable than to take a
chance; pas de risque, pas de plaisir. And while some peoples, over
long stretches of time, appear successfully to have avoided change,
the history of others displays periods of intense and intrepid
innovation. There is, indeed, not much profit to be had from general
speculation about “human nature,” which is no steadier than
anything else in our acquaintance. What is more to the point is to
consider current human nature,to consider
ourselves.
'This was an assumption very much at
variance with the British historical experience, as represented both
by the first public representatives of Wicca and the magicians from
whom they had drawn their ideas. Mathers had been fascinated by
militarism and aristocracy. Yeat's right-wing tendencies developed
into a flirtation with fascism. Crowley was a lifelong high Tory, and
all Dion Fortune's expressed political and social attitudes point in
the same direction. Gardner, as said, was certainly a conservative,
and while Alex Sanders disclaimed an associations with specific
parties, he consistently expressed admiration for hierarchy and
monarchy. A writer who interviewed several Wiccan groups in the 1960s
noted that most of their members were politically right-wing.'
'There was no paradox in this; for most
of these people their interest in paganism and magic was part of a
wider rejection of modernity, a phenomena in which for many people in
the early and mid-twentieth century, industrialization, urbanization,
and high technology all formed parts of a package with socialism.
Their spiritual aspects matched closely with three different
emotional aspects of right-wing idealogy: nostalgia for a better
past, elitism and suspicion of the masses, and a free market, in
magic and sex as in economics.'
Ronald Huntford, The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft