If I had lived in the Roman empire in the fourth century, I would have fully supported the efforts of the emperor Julian to suppress Christianity and restore pagan tradition. However, this is not the fourth century, and the emperor Julian is not here. The situation regarding Christianity is now far more complicated, as the Christianity that Julian knew was not the same as the Christianity of the middle ages or the Christianity of today.
What I have written is not intended as an attack upon Christianity, though I understand that some will have little choice but to read it as such. I acknowledge that Christianity was a valid spiritual vehicle for European people in past centuries. And it may even be true that it was a necessary vehicle, as pagan tradition had broken down, and perhaps even if Julian had lived, it could not have been restored. But what I do not acknowledge is that Christianity is the one true faith, or that it is intrinsically superior to paganism. Ideally, Europe would have remained pagan.
But was it superior to paganism in at least one sense, that it provided protection for Europe from Islam, something that paganism would have been unable to do? Before I can answer this question, it must be asked, what’s the problem with Islam? Why would the conversion of Europe to that faith be a bad thing? There are two possible answers. First is that the religion is simply false. The other is that Islam is inappropriate for Europe, that its nature would prevent it from being paganized to the extent that Christianity was.
In my view the first answer is completely unacceptable, as it would discredit all Islamic culture, and potentially any and all other cultures, including European ones, that did not follow the ‘true’ religion. That answer also would present tremendous difficulties for anyone of an even vaguely Traditionalist perspective. That only leaves the second answer. If Islam was capable of sufficient ‘adjustment’ to Europe (though it certainly is not now), then there would have been no problem with Europe’s conversion. If that was not the case, then it was only right that Islam was resisted.
Whether or not Christianity alone could have protected Europe from Islam only has meaning if it was a paganized Christianity. If it was a pure non-pagan Christianity, then it would have already achieved the very destruction that Islam would have caused. There would have been nothing to protect. Unless the argument is that it is the Christian faith alone that gives value to European people and culture (in which case they are no longer truly European but Christian, and Christianity is not limited to Europe), one must acknowledge the validity of paganism.
The Christianity of the middle ages was far from perfect but it worked. It could not work today. One reason for this is simply the very poor quality of leadership in the church today. The Church can hardly manage its own affairs, it certainly cannot lead society. But there is another, more fundamental reason. It is true that the masses have lost their Christian faith, but they have also to a great extent lost their deeper, pagan identity. They have become modern, which must not in any way be confused with pagan. Paganism is anti-modern. It was one thing for a medieval peasant to live as a Christian but a very different one for a call center worker today. In order for Europe to be Christian, at least in any sense that matters, it must be pagan first.
In the medieval period, certain flaws of the Christian religion could be overlooked because of the overall strength of the culture and integrity of the society. For many reasons that I will not go into here, this strength and integrity no longer exists. Most people do not have the foundation necessary to resist the destructive forces of modernity, and Christianity as it exists now cannot provide that foundation. Therefore, if Christianity is to be a blessing to Europe and not a burden (or even the cause of its final destruction), some errors must be corrected. If they are not, Christianity cannot serve as the faith of Europe, and must be limited to the personal faith of a small number. In what follows I discuss six areas in need of correction. The intent of these corrections is not to adjust Christianity to Europe’s modern, decadent culture, but rather as part of an attempt to restore a functioning traditional society, one with the same spirit, though not identical external form as medieval Europe.
1: Sex, Marriage, and Divorce
End mandatory celibacy for the priesthood. While priests should be allowed to marry and have children, their families should be small (no more than three children) and their lifestyles modest. Any priest not able to perform his religious duties due to his family obligations will be moved to a lesser position or asked to resign. Moral teachings regarding prophylactics, irregular sexual activities, and masturbation will need to be reexamined, as foolish, unenforceable rules only lead to a loss of respect for the church. Also included in this reexamination would be homosexuality, which is simply a fact of life and needs to be accepted. However, this acceptance would not include homosexual marriage, or homosexual couples raising children which quite reasonably would be prohibited. Particularly important is a proper interpretation of Christ’s teaching about lust and adultery, which must not simply equate the two, but only desire for a married, and therefore unavailable, woman.
The church’s current position of prohibiting divorce but allowing annulments (and ignoring the fact that legally a divorce has taken place) is completely unacceptable, and if anything worse than simply allowing divorce, as traditionally understood. Christ’s own words allow for divorce, but only in the case of infidelity, and the implication is that only a husband may divorce his wife, not the other way around. Divorce should be discouraged but allowed in certain cases. The details of what happens in a divorce must in no way resemble what it is in the West today, especially the US. Full custody of the children would almost always go to the father, and financial compensation to the wife would be minimal. The church should encourage the standards of marriage to be raised, with women getting married at much younger ages and potential husbands screened by the family of the wife.
2: The Bible.
While the question of changing the Bible appears distasteful, I maintain that it is necessary. In the Old Testament the only religion and therefore the only culture given any validity is that of the Hebrews. Other religions are seen as false, evil, and ideally destroyed altogether. Any honest examination of history will reveal that this idea is false. If it were true, it would undermine any folkish or nationalist position. If the most fundamental and foundational beliefs of a people, that is their religion, is wrong, immoral, even evil, then how can any other part of the culture have value? It cannot.
Therefore the idea that Yahweh is the one and only true God, explicit in the Old Testament, and implicit in the New, must be rejected. Yahweh is and always was a local, tribal deity. His laws do not apply to the people of Europe.
The New Testament is at best ambiguous on the value of non-Hebrew religion and culture. That Christ’s message is for all people implies universalism. That idea that Christ fulfilled Hebrew prophecies again implies that they, more than anyone else, knew God, or truth. From a European, or any other cultural, perspective, that Christ fulfilled Hebrew prophecies is completely irrelevant. The question is instead, did he fulfill European, pagan prophecies? Also, the moral teachings of the New Testament, about leaving wealth and family behind, or eschewing violence, are counterproductive to the strength and stability of any society, and must be understood to apply only to certain individuals in specific circumstances.
It is not merely that the Bible does not explicitly give instructions about the form and function of a society, many teachings of the Bible undermine society. Therefore something must be done about the Bible. There are three options. The first is to change the actual content of the Bible, adding or removing books. The second is to change the accessibility of the Bible, making it a rare and difficult to obtain book and not available in the vernacular. The third option is to change the status of the Bible, recognizing it as an inspired book of spiritual value, but not necessarily of greater value than other texts, such as the works of Plato. I personally favor the third option.
3: Conditional Toleration of Religion.
In contemporary society, supposedly there is freedom of religion, but this not actually the case. There is freedom of religion only to the extent that that religion is compatible with the modern liberal worldview and consumerist lifestyle. Such a truncated religion is not worth very much. A true religion must be fully expressed in all aspects of life. However, different religions, fully expressed, may be contradictory and lead to conflict. Therefore any freedom of religion must be on the condition that the religion is not in conflict with the general culture. Some religious practices, such as circumcision, would be banned, criminal offenses, and Muslims and Jews would have to accept this.
In this situation Islam (European Muslims, not Arabs), would have three options. First it could increasingly be Europeanized and ideally paganized. If this were to happen, Muslims could be fully integrated into society. If this failed to happen, Muslims must be willing to accept a lesser status in society with limited options and restricted opportunities. Finally, if neither occurred, Muslims would have to change their religion or leave.
The same standard would apply to Christianity. Therefore support for third world immigration or the inculcation of white guilt for slavery would be prohibited. The church must recognize that its current position within society, its property, wealth, and power, is not due only to its own actions, but because of its connections to the state in the past. If the church is not explicitly pro-European (or pro-Italian, pro-Danish, etc) it must at least relinquish those things, and return to the status (political and economic) of the primitive church.
4: Protestants, Orthodox, and non-European Christians.
National churches such as the Lutherans of Germany or the Anglicans of England would be encouraged to seek reconciliation with Rome. Rome would be encouraged to tolerate some protestant views, and perhaps new ‘orders’ (not necessarily monastic) could be formed that only use sixty six of the Bible’s books, and two of the sacraments, while not rejecting the validity of the others. Other protestant groups, not associated with any state or culture, would hold a position similar to foreign religions, under scrutiny and subject to restriction.
Nationalist orthodox churches would likewise be encouraged to reconcile with Rome, and Rome encouraged to tolerate alternative views as much as possible. The orthodox could also be considered ‘orders’ of the Catholic church.
The European church would have minimal involvement with non-European Christians. An African Pope would be an impossibility. Neither priests nor money could be sent from the European church to Christians outside of Europe. Christianity outside of Europe would effectively be considered a different religion. Countries formed by people of European descent are an exception with South America being in an intermediate position. In that case contact with Europe would be gradually cut off.
Missionary activity outside of Europe would be banned outright. Priests engaging in that would lose their position, and others would be fined and perhaps serve short jail sentences. Evangelism within Europe would be heavily restricted.
5: Pagan Identity.
The relationship between paganism and Christianity must be resolved. This could be achieved in part through changing the place of the Bible, but that is not sufficient.
While in the New Testament there is a great deal of discussion about the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, such as whether converts in addition to believing in Christ must perform the requirements of the Jewish law, there is little about converts from paganism. It is interesting to consider the story of the Roman Centurion whose faith in Christ resulted in the healing of his servant. One wonders if his faith accomplished more than that, namely the saving of his soul, and if not, what value and significance that story would have. There’s no reason to believe that that Centurion was not a pious Roman, devoted to the emperor and the gods of Rome. This would imply that an acceptance of Christ does not entail a rejection of the old gods.
A great tension has always existed in the church where officially the old gods are rejected, but in reality, they are not, as the culture derived from those gods is retained. This conflict leads to Protestantism, which is the attempt to de-paganize Christianity, and reaches its lowest point in American style evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The only solution to this is to grant validity to the pre-Christian religions of Europe, regardless of whether the Bible supports this or not. If the pagan religions are not given validity, then European culture, tradition, and racial integrity simply does not have value.
The chopping down of Irminsul and the destruction of the Temple of Uppsala were crimes, indeed serious crimes, far greater than any persecutions the Christians may have endured under the emperors (which they could have avoided, if they had been only slightly less obstinate.) The Church should acknowledge this and seek to rectify this situation. First the church must relinquish the Pantheon, which it has no need for, and likely other sites of pagan significance. And second, this could be done through a small tax of five percent of the church’s income per year over a period of twenty years to be used for academic research into the ancient religions of Europe, and for the funding of pagan organizations. The church should do this gladly, as this has nothing to do with retribution or revenge, but rather with the understanding that by restoring paganism, the church is restoring part of its own foundation.
6: Order, Authority, and Power
Ideally the political and spiritual leader of a society would be combined in the same person, as is best exemplified with the Pharaoh of ancient Egypt. However, that is not a realistic possibility at the current time. Perhaps if the emperor Theodosius had not failed in his duty to assume the role of Pontifex Maximus a great deal of confusion and conflict could have been avoided.
Who has authority today? Is anyone or anything legitimate? If the Church is what it claims to be, then it has a responsibility to lead. And this leadership must be with action, not merely with words. Europe is in great danger, and the church is doing little to nothing of any significance. The church must take a strong position on important matters such as the nature of the economy, the family (condemning feminism as satanic), multiculturalism and mass immigration, war, and on what is the proper form of government (condemning democracy as satanic), and then it must act on what it believes, seeking to apply those beliefs in the real world. If it fails to do so, claiming that it is only concerned with spiritual matters, then it must relinquish its property and wealth to someone who will make proper use of it.
People are waiting for something to appear, some authority, someone who will use power to make the changes that need to be made, and do what needs to be done. The problem today is not that people do not attend mass frequently enough. The problem is that the church, along with all other authority, has failed. Until the church takes up its responsibilities, it is in no position to make demands or give instructions to anyone. What the church needs now is not the faith of Francis, but that of the crusaders.