I believe our French visitor is correct on where things are headed;

“Thus there have ever been, and will ever be, men who, after having submitted some portion of their religious belief to the principle of authority, will seek to exempt several other parts of their faith from its influence, and to keep their minds floating at random between liberty and obedience. But I am inclined to believe that the number of these thinkers will be less in democratic than in other ages; and that our posterity will tend more and more to a single division into two parts – some relinquishing Christianity entirely, and others returning to the bosom of the Church of Rome.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

The strength of this article is the clear and sharp division between the “Far Right”, with its neo-paganism and Real Conservatism and its Christianity. We have absolutely nothing in common with the “Far Right”. We’re not even close to Benoist and Evola.

I am less impressed with the equation of paganism with the natural law and Aristotelean tradition.  The Greek philosophers, starting with the pre-Socratics, rejected paganism. Mr. Havers seems just as unwilling to acknowledge the Scholastic synthesis of Christianity and ancient philosophy as the Straussians.

I have said before that the West is unique among civilizations in having two Golden Ages, to be denominated “Athens” and “Jerusalem”.  This history of the West is the history of the dynamic between these two forces.

The school of Personalism that developed out of Realist Phenomenology offers a far better grounding of human dignity and rights than the liberal tradition, and is in itself a synthesis of Athens and Jerusalem. That the Personalists, especially of the German and Polish schools, are mostly Catholics should be noted.

As children of the West, we are products of both European paganism and Christianity.  Western Civilization, in a sense, is a synthesis of these two trends.  Even early Christians praised and preserved the pagan writings of their ancestors.  While I am no pagan, and while I disagree with much of what Benoist has to say, he is right in his criticism of post-Enlightenment Christianity in that it has become so influenced by egalitarianism that it is in some respects self-destructive.  (His criticism here is not unlike Thomas Fleming’s observation in Morality of Everyday Life that post-Enlightenment Christianity has dangerously become shaped by universal human rights ideology.) Early European Christianity, which was greatly influenced by paganism, was certainly more vibrant than what we have today.  Didn’t C.S. Lewis believe that only by returning to paganism could Christianity be resuscitated?

Regarding Strauss, I don’t think he was so involved in any neopagan project as he was involved in a revisionist project of reading modern values into ancient texts, i.e. of wallpapering over the real West with liberal abstractions.  The Greeks and Romans, very tribal and superstitious people, Strauss rewrites as classical liberals guided by “natural right.” N.B. that for writers like Cicero the basis of morality was not some abstraction, but rather the concrete mos maiorum, the tradition of his ancestors.  So, in their revisionist projects, the real enemy for the neocons is (as Claes G. Ryn has noted) “the ancestral.”

“Didn’t C.S. Lewis believe that only by returning to paganism could Christianity be resuscitated?”

No. He said the pagan culture of antiquity was ripe for evangelization, stirred as it was by a primitive remembrance of God and filled with Christian precursors. The neo-pagans, on the other hand, having rejected their patrimony are harder to re-convert to that which they have already discarded.

“The self-styled “neo-pagans” of the movement—who presumably desire a return to pre-biblical civilization—fault Christians for destroying nature, emptying the sacred groves of the gods, wiping out indigenous earth-friendly cultures, and depriving cows of the power to produce milk.”

This is probably true in regard to left-wing pagans, but I thought this article was supposed to be primarily about neopaganism on the right. Unfortunately, Havers did not address the real reason many right-winger are attracted to Odinism and other pre-Christian religions. Paganism isn’t preferred to Christianity because it’s more tolerant. Rather, it’s attractiveness is based precisely on its intolerance. For conservatives who wish to escape the ideology of suicidal “multiculturalism,” the Christian church—in both its Catholic and Protestant manifestations—is useless. Unfortunately, when it comes to “diversity,” the church’s view is indistinguishable from the academic left’s. If neopaganism continues to grow, it will be because Westerners have grown tired of universalism and unimpeded non-Western immigration; paganism that embraces tribal thinking offers an outlet for these contemporary frustrations in a way Christianity does not.

An additional perspective:  the article discusses “Christianity” largely as a single entity.  Yet, Christianity, particularly Protestantism, seems to be continuously mutating.  Furthermore, those mutations are so large that even basic ideas are lost.  Just in the last century we have seen the appearance of the social gospell movement and dispensationalism, both of whom have had massive influence, and both of whom are drastically different from what Protestantism used to be.  Go back a bit further, and German Protestantism adopted the “elect nation” idea, which turned it into a prop of nationalism and totally abandoned the core idea of all humans as equals in nature and in law (i.e., in last judgment).

Grant Havers is very correct indeed in his description of external attacks on the Christian tradition and its role in West.  A more serious danger, however, may be an internal, self-destructive tendency that seems to be particularly strong in Protestantism.  Somehow this religion has an incredible ability to change while emphatically—and in its own opinion honestly—arguing that it is adhering to its original ideas.

I’m sorry, but this is the silliest thing I’ve ever read on Taki’s. The author seems totally confused about what Benoist actually advocates. The discussion of the Straussians is a bit better, but even there the author seems to miss the real point of the Straussian dismissal of Christianity.  Is it not relevant that Strauss and many of his followers were Jewish intellectuals? I wouldn’t expect them to view Christianity favorably any more than I would expect the same from a believer in the pre-Christian religion of Rome. I don’t intend to suggest any “Elders of Zion” nonsense; it’s just that there is a certain essential antagonism, not necessarily between Jews and Christians as people, but between their religions, since it is one of Christianity’s most fundamental claims that Judaism is now obsolete. Whether or not most Straussians are Zionists or religiously Jewish, a degree of resentment based on such an explicit dismissal of their ancestral faith is to be expected.

“For conservatives who wish to escape the ideology of suicidal ‘multiculturalism,’
the Christian church—in both its Catholic and Protestant manifestations—is useless.”

Traditional Christianity is attacked on the pagan Right for tolerance, from the pagan
Left for intolerance.  Interesting.

One is inclined to suspect that for the ancient pagan, the gods were not accessories
to some political ideology—nor attempts to construct a symbolic framework of
meaning with which to impose comforting illusions upon an otherwise meaningless reality
ultimately defined by scientific materialism. 

He actually believed in them.

Unless you genuinely think there is such a person as Thor, you have no business
talking about paganism.

Hence Mr. Havers is quite right to link Straussianism & neopaganism. 

Straussians find Christianity convenient from a utilitarian political POV,
yet they don’t believe a word of it.

“attempts to construct a symbolic framework of
meaning with which to impose comforting illusions upon an otherwise meaningless reality
ultimately defined by scientific materialism.”

Some ancient philosophers and playwrights apparently thought this.  Euripides comes to
mind.  Actually, the Christians may have had more belief in the “real existence” of some
of the pagan gods.  The Christians regarded many pagan deities as real demons, unlike
some of the philosophers who thought they were allegories.

But none of that detracts from G.S.’s point, which, as almost always, is spot on.

Benoist’s ideas are far more interesting than this article characterizes them. He, unlike most paleocons, is willing to looking critically at the effects of a market-based society from a conservative point of view. Palecons tend to try to reconcile their demand for a free market with their desires for a stable, conservative society - without seeing how these two demands contradict and undermine one another.

Benoist is smarter than that and he is also able to see how the values in bourgeois democracies invariably tend to lead to the kind of socialized state that paleocons object to. In this respect, the nostalgia that many in the paleocon community feel for the bourgeois life of the 19th century (and we see this undisguised yearning frequently in Paul Gottfried’s work), reveals itself to be about as illogical as people who love kittens, but don’t desire cats. Benoist, unlike nearly all American conservatives, sees the silliness of this nostalgia.

Was H.L. Mencken an authentic American conservative and a paleocon icon? If he was, then how do we reconcile his own revulsion with Judeo-Christianity and his support of Nietzsche? Anyone reading his early book on the German philosopher (The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche which can be easily downloaded here, will see that Mencken’s criticisms are not far from Benoist’s. Given the praise Mencken gets as a stalwart of the “Old Right” by folks like Murray Rothbard (in his recently published book The Betrayal of the American Right), it’s hard for me to reconcile this Nietzsche-bashing with Mencken’s positions - to say nothing of those of Nock.

there is a certain essential antagonism, not necessarily between Jews and Christians as people, but between their religions, since it is one of Christianity’s most fundamental claims that Judaism is now obsolete.
– craig

Nope.  Because Protestantism is the laudatory subject, let’s be Protestant, turn to The Bible, and see if there is a “fundamental claim” of an “essential antagonism” between the two faiths, or any sense that Judaism is “obsolete”.

1. Certainly not in Matthew, whose “fundamental claim” is that Christianity is simply fulfilled Judaism, or “radical” Judaism in the literal sense: going to Judaism’s root.  “Not one iota” of the Torah will be changed (5:17-20).  Our Lord, in good Rabbinical form, strengthens the Commandments (5:21-37), e.g., the Commandment against adultery by forbidding divorce, and to protect the Commandment on the The Name not being taken in vain by forbidding an oath.  To do good on the Sabbath is to return to the original idea of the Commandment about the Sabbath: not a religious observance but simple that folks deserve a day off. The Sermon on the Mount is really a Rabbinical treatise; it could fit nicely in the Mishnah.  Matthew take Isaiah literally (Isaiah 2:1-4), the pagan astrologers coming to worship the Lord (Matthew 2: 1-12).

2. Nor in John, whose “fundamental claim” is that Christianity is simply transfigured Judaism.  Our Lord is always at a Jewish feast in John’s gospel, a feast the meaning of which He deepens and transfigures.

3. Nor Paul, who gives us the ultimate model of Jewish-Christian relations in Romans chap 9-11, what I would call an “incorporation” theology.  The ultimate view here is hardly one of antagonism.  What is more, for Paul the difference is only on how one “gets in” to the Covenant Community (circumcision vs baptism), not on how one “stays in” (keeping the Torah and the Noahite Covenant with gentiles), as the New Perspectives on Paul school rightly teaches.

4. That James and the authors of Hebrews and Revelation are Judeophilic hardly needs mentioning.

5. That leaves the former God-Fearer and Greek gentile, St. Luke.  Luke does indeed have a “replacement” theology, yet even he assume a vast knowledge of the “scriptures”, which for the early church was the Torah, the Prophets, and The Writings (i.e. the “Old” Testament).

(Mark doesn’t have time for this theologizing, he writing urgently to a Church under fire – as is the Church today)

As for a “fundamental claim”, these writers are certainly the most fundamental, and are especially fundamental for Protestants.  There is no “essential” antagonism between Christianity and Judaism in the minds of these sacred writers, nor do they consider Judaism “obsolete”, instead they developing Judaism as fulfilled, transfigured, incorporated, or as an essential heremeutic basis for the Christian faith. Indeed, it is the very “Old” Testament that is the glasses one must but on to read the New (Luke 24:27, 45-47; see also how Peter’s sermon in Act 2 is utterly Old Testament based).  And Our Lord’s moral theology is simple an endorsement and elaboration of the Old Testament’s. 

That certain small minds – who can’t or won’t read – have made for antagonism between the faiths is a sad fact.  Mr. Craig says that he abjures The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and I am glad that he has done so.  Does he then turn around and argue for one of its central concepts, that of a putative Jewish conspiracy?  I pray not.

Carl, I’m a Mencken fan too, but—alas—his book of his youth on ol’ Fred is a vast misreading, as any Nietzsche scholar can tell you.

Kevin, there is a vast Catholic literature than faults much of the free market.  So we hardly need a goose-stepper like Benoist for such fault-finding. 

You are correct to see that Fascism and fascism are very, very anti-bourgeois (and anti-Christian), however much Fascists and fascists made the bourgeoisie (and Clerical Fascists and conservatives) their “useful idiots”—something they are still trying to do.

I like best Chesterton’s comment on Paganism. That it found itself at a dead end, and thus
gave way to Christinaty. Also that all institutions and customs we have come from
Christianity. The only exception, the only institutions that comes from Paganism is
Christianity.

This is an old.. old.. argument and it has not gotten better with age.

On the other hand, the last time there was an attempt to return to Pagan sources, we
ended up with the Third Reich…

Mencken never repudiated the anti-Christian positions in his early book. Most of his critiques in this text involve Mencken’s own opposition to egalitarianism - something he has in common with Nietzsche, Benoist, and the European New Right in general. The message I’m getting here is that “True Conservatives have to be pro-Judeo-Christian, except when they aren’t… and then we ignore that part of their position.” Nock wasn’t a bible believer either, was he? Are his positions on these questions valuable, or should we join the neocons in reading him and Mencken out of the movement? Whose agenda, exactly, would that serve?

Re: calling Benoist a ‘goose-stepper” it seems to me that the people on these pages should be extra careful when making these kinds of comments - when they themselves are often labeled such by the neocons and others.

Carl is quite correct that Menecken opposed The Faith, inasmuch as he opposed all faiths.  Alas, his Treatise on the God is even worse than his book on Nietzsche.

Mencken seems to me far more a libertarian than a follower of the goose-steppers Benoist and his “New [sic] Right”, the membership of which could likely fit into a phone booth.

@Sid Cundiff:

If Christianity is a “fulfillment” of Judaism, it is a fulfullment that the Jews themselves reject. Yes, of course Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, and of course one must study the Old Testament (and other sources) to understand the New, but the very existence of a New Testament states quite clearly that the Old, however venerable it may be, is not sufficient in itself and is in at least some regards outdated or “obsolete.” Surely those who continue to hold to the Old Testament to the exclusion of the New might take offense to such implications. By Christian lights, there is no reason for anyone to continue practicing Judaism rather than convert to Christianity, and in fact there was just recently some discontented rumblings from some Jewish authorities over Benedict XVI’s Good Friday prayer, in which he said (translated from Latin), “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.” It is just ridiculous, and indicative of someone going through life wearing blinders, to suggest that this is not an essential conflict between the two faiths and a source of friction between their adherents, which was the real point I was making.

Carl,

I can’t speak for anybody else, but I admire much of Mencken’s work—and up to a point the man himself-- for the same reason that I can admire much of the work & character of, say, fervently anti-Catholic journalist George Orwell:  Because I am not, or at least try not to be, an ideologue who is blind to the individual & particular virtues of those who do not share the Faith… much less (much, much less importantly) those who happen not to share “paleoconservativism” with me.

I really only refer to myself as “paleoconservative” as a term of convenience.  I grow increasingly inclined to think “paleo” refers more to a certain temperament & attitude, vice a specific set of clear-cut principles re/ political philosophy, religion, etc. 

Was Mencken a proto-paleo, or was he not? 

Who cares?

For that matter, in the final analysis, who cares about “conservative”, either?  I mean, yes, conservatism is a valid & worthwhile principle, and yes, we can safely describe as “conservative” many admirable men....

... but at some point, at the bottom, SOMEWHERE, shouldn’t we start to care a little more about whether a man or principle is TRUE, than whether we can apply the sticker that says “conservative” onto him/it?

@Kevin S. :

“He, unlike most paleocons, is willing to looking critically at the effects of a market-based society from a conservative point of view. Palecons tend to try to reconcile their demand for a free market with their desires for a stable, conservative society...”

Perhaps your critiques are accurate re/ some paleos, but the paleo writers I am familiar with—and here I use the simplest definition of “paleo”, i.e., those who consciously choose to call themselves such—utterly *loathe* any propaganda on behalf of “the free market”. 

If I’m not mistaken there’ve been several debates within the Takimag itself on the subject:

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/sometimes_a_hamburger_is_just_a_hamburger/

Paleos & Libertarians have gone at it over the free market pretty fiercely over at Chronicles, too.  I don’t have the link handy but I think we’re at a civil enough level that you can take it as read that I’m not trying to pull a fast one.

Caper is of course correct about those occasional smart-aleck philosopher/thinkers of the pagan world… the difference today being that their attitude has become the norm vice the exception, and it is especially assumed to be the norm among self-styled intellectuals.

I would make an exclusion, in my previous remarks, for Julius Evola—I have read “Ride the Tiger”, and it seems to me that Evola is actually striving for some sort of real grip on reality and eternity, and I don’t get the sense that he is just trying to erect contrived symbols.

Possibly Benoit, too—though I haven’t read anything by him.  I hardly take Sid’s condemnation as the final word.

But the fact is that regardless of what Evola thinks, I have yet to encounter a rank-and-file “neopagan” who promotes neopaganism by anything other than a utilitarian ethos. 

Which is as much to say that ultimately Richard Dawkins is right, it’s all just “memes”, and all religions are make-believe in the end, only some have survival value by deluding us into hope during our pointless struggle for existence.

If this is one’s take, well, OK…

Except that in that case the neopagan must recognize that he/she has more in common with liberalism than with ancient paganism.

Both Christianity & ancient pagans agreed that Man is made by and for the purposes of God or the gods.  Whereas both modern liberals & modern pagans (again, the ones I’ve encountered) seem to agree that God or the gods are made by and for the purposes of Man.

This is a huge issue:

Both ancient pagans & Christians expressed humility toward the Divine… whereas moderns (of whatever stripe) who think gods are tools we invent most decidedly do not.

Frankly I’m more inclined to think that a certain type of metaphysically-minded yet nonreligious scientist—of whom I’ve met quite a few—has more in common with the ancient pagans than anybody. 

Such scientists tend have not so much rejected Christianity as they have never really seen it or considered it; meanwhile their belief in some form of transcendent order or harmony is based on actual observation, and thought. 

That is, it is a belief about *objective* reality.

Not Joseph Campbell-style mythic archetypes.

I mean, hell, if we’re going to pretend to believe in Athena, then why not worship the Incredible Hulk? 

He’s stronger, and could smash our puny enemies into itsy-bitsy pieces.

Without Havers who would have have imagined Benoist’s rock star status among crystal channelers, the Revilo P. Oliver revival at <i>The New York Review Of Books<i> or the popularity of imitators of the ever famous Fustel de Coulange on <i>American Idol<i>.

To avoid sinking into the slough of parochiality, we must all get up and out to Trinity Western (Canada) more often.

You just can’t get hierophantic insights like Havers’ by reading the <i>University of Woolameroo Bookman <i>or back issues of right wing journals like <i>Ramparts<i> or the Whole Earth Catalog.

G.S., I think it’s weird to see this kind of bashing of Christian-critical conservatives even after Paul Gottfried recommended Tomislav Sunic’s book in these pages last year. Sunic, who has written an entire book on the European New Right, is also harshly critical of Christian conservatives and he points out, in the very book Gottfried recommended here, the very same problems Alain de Benoist does. Are Gottfried and Sunic “goose-steppers” too? Oswald Spengler once said that “Christianity is the grandfather of Bolshevism.” Does this mean we must dismiss Spengler too?

The sentimental ideas many Christians seem to evidence about Jesus do not seem to me to be all that different from children enraptured by “The Incredible Hulk” and/or other imaginary super-heroes. “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike,” as Delos B. McKown once wrote.

I did not mean my above comment to elicit any Protestant / Catholic divide.  Unfortunately, most Protestants and Catholics alike have been infected with the post-Enlightenment “universal human rights” ideology.  Fortunately, there are a handful of traditionalist Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians who have wisely rejected this nonsense.

G.S:  “Mr. Havers is quite right to link Straussianism & neopaganism. ”

Leo Strauss was either an atheist or an agnostic.  This is certain.  Hostility towards Christianity alone does not a pagan make.

Actual pagans were very religious people.  Take a look at E.R. Dodds’ The Greeks and the Irrational, or investigate some of the mystery cults of ancient Greece, Rome or of the Germanic or Nordic tribes.  These people were ‘religious’ in the traditional sense, in the sense of the Latin ‘religio’ of a “binding” in a tribal and local sense.

The typical MO of Strauss (and his followers) is to drag out the bogeyman of historicism / relativism, and then to invoke liberal universals (from “natural right") to combat these Quixotic threats.  The perceived problem and solution places Strauss and the neocons antithetical to any accurate understanding of paganism.

“Unfortunately, when it comes to “diversity,” the church’s view is indistinguishable from the academic left’s.”

Cool bumpersticker, but too easy to peel off.

The Catholic Church asks us to encounter the real person as made in the Image of God and not reduce him to a demographical statistic, political abstraction, or faceless entity dependent on group identity.

Lazy thinking, incapable of discerning between virtue and it’s corresponding vice; Natural Law = Universal Rights, Preferential Option for the Poor =
Managerial State, Conscience = Private Judgement, and on and on it goes.

The Tower of Babel is at full-capacity. I would hope this site would not serve as it’s holding pen.

Could it be that we have here some confusion about what is meant by “conservative”?  What I have in mind with this suggestion is the observation that the small-central-government form of “conservatism.” that originally appeared in late 17th century England has actually been the most revolutionary form of political organization history knows of.  The causality was simple:  once government removed controls on the economy, the creative competition of the free market unleashed Englishmen’s creativity, and the result was the industrial revolution and the biggest changes that have ever occurred in people’s everyday lives.  In controlled economies, such as mercantilist France, this kind of destructive progress could never have happened.

Could the above explain some of the dilemma of Christian (and other) conservatives?  They want small government and great individual freedoms, and at the same time they are also attracted to traditional lifestyles.  Yet, the freedom created by small government is bound to produce technological developments that destroy those lifestyles.  Maybe people should face more directly the fact that what is commonly called “conservatism” is actually immensely revolutionary.

Sid: Calling Mencken a Nazi is just insane, nor did he resemble the ENR.

The ENR guys are mystical, ethereal and constantly whine about how Christians and Americans are oppressing them. They do it in refried postmodern jargon too. Mencken was more of a down to earth guy.

The ENR may indeed be facist, but it is the most metrosexual brand of facism ever. The more I read of them, the less they impress me.

The ENR seems to have taken the typical Roman Catholic hatred for all things Protestant and universalized it. It is as if the pagan elements of the RCC were turned against Christianity. Instead of the nonsense that everything went bad with Luther, they track the meltdown back to Paul.

“Unfortunately, most Protestants and Catholics alike have been infected with the post-Enlightenment ‘universal human rights’ ideology.”

One problem is that the Catholic paleocons stopped thinking about natural law, leaving the turf entirely to airhead neocons. Granted, tradition transcends ordinary rationalty, but rationality remains part of the tradition. It is as if the paleocons cannot tell Thomist from neo-Thomist.

You see this mistake even in the great Russell Kirk, who seems to have prized imagination and habit in conservatism, but not memory and scholastics. Thomas Fleming, who no doubt loves the classics, talks this way as well.

“Alas, his Treatise on the God is even worse than his book on Nietzsche.”

Sid, we agree on something. I would say, however, that Mencken’s work is more substantial than Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. It is also some of the bleakest reading I’ve ever suffered through.

“once government removed controls on the economy”

What Western government has EVER removed controls on the economy? Certainly not Britain or the USA. In fact, the current system is the product of quasi-distributist schemes like the New Deal and the Great Society.

“Just in the last century we have seen the appearance of the social gospel movement and dispensationalism,”

They are just as misguided as the Dorothy Day “Catholic Social Teachings” movement and certain alleged mystical encounters at Fatima, Medjugorie and Guadalupe. Those who live in live in glass houses…

Thanks for a very interesting piece. I wondered if you have been following the work of British philosopher John Gray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray who seems to have gravitatd towards some form of Paganism, and anti-humanism and anti-Christianity (he argues that Christianity had given birth to humanism). See his “Straw Dogs” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Straw-Dogs-Thoughts-Humans-Animals/dp/1862075123

This is an incredibly slanderous article on Greek civilisation which lacks basic historical accuracy.

If one wants to critique De Benoist’s understanding of “paganism” then go ahead but don’t make puerile comparisons between Christianity and Greco-Roman civilisation. Also, the “heartless” nature of Greek thought gave people like you the opportunity to express your thoughts and opinions. Would one call Plotinus heartless when he adopted 9 children? Would one call heartless the beautiful will Aristotle bequethed to his wife? Would one call hearltess the tragedies of Euripides? Would one call heartless the touching grave steles of ordinary Greek families? Would one call heartless the marriage vows found in the sands of Egypt of Greek couples?

I will not venture into the authors misunderstanding of De Benoist. However, let me say it is truly appalling.

For the record, I fully agree with
Grant Havers’ attempt to call
attention to the specifically
Protestant roots of the American
founding. Although I appreciate
some of Dr. Sunic’s insights about
the reasons for the neopagan revival, it seems unlikely that the attempt to build a traditionalist movement on some revived Celtic religiosity or an airbrushed Graeco-Roam pseudo-synthesis will save Western society from the post-Marxist Left. My only reservation about Grant’s analysis is that he may do the Straussians too much credit by associating them with neo-paganism.

Craig”
Read Romans chap. 9-11.  The Almighty himself will bring the Jews in. The Good Friday prayer was re-written with this part of Romans in mind. We should regard the Jews as just people on the way to joining us; any other view is repugnant to Scripture. “People on the way” is hardly grounds for “antagonism”. And because Judaism is essential to understanding Christianity, then its hardly “obsolescent”.

By the way, it might be argued that the Catholic Faith is the least antagonistic to Judaism, not only because of the mutual respect for law, education, penance, Scripture AND Tradition, Magisterial authority, opposition to private judgement, and observance, but also because the Catholic Faith has preserved the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice.

What is more, “Christ” means “messiah”.  “Christians” are literally the people of the Messiah and awaiting the Messiah. Jews are the people of the Messiah and awaiting the Messiah.  Therefore Jews are Christians. Christianity and Judaism are the same religion.

Dr. Gottfried, with respect, is it really fair to characterize Benoist’s ideas as being that shallow - or even to suggest that his insights reveal nothing more than an “airbrushed Graeco-Roam pseudo-synthesis”?

Wouldn’t that be like saying your own political-cultural ideal is nothing more than an idiosyncratic kitsch-fueled nostalgia for the Austro-Hungarian empire?

Mr. Sid Cundiff wrote:
“Christianity and Judaism are the same religion.”
Wow! I usually like Sid Cundiff’s posts, but how am I to see this as anything but rank heresy?

Jesus and His apostles make exclusive claims for Jesus as the gate of salvation.
The Christian Church has defined the doctrine of the Trinity as essential for salvation. For example, the Athanasian Creed.

Certainly we are to pray for the conversion of the Jews and not be unnecessarily antagonistic, but the antagonism to Christ is on their side.

“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” - 1 John 2:22-23

Heartless pagans?  Why would we have that idead?

Would it have to do with all those babies left to die in
junkyards because they were defective, or just female?

Would it have to do with the gladiator games?

Would it have to do with economies built on slave labor? (Ask yourself why it is
only in Christianity that slavery was abolished)

Would it have to do with the hostility to the disabled? Or with anyone who was too weak in
their eyes?

Would it have to do with human sacrifice?  I notice that when they talk about paganism they
talk about the Greek and Roman gods. No one remembers Baal Moloch and the children burned alive there?
Or the Aztec pantheon and the torn hearts (followed by cannibalism).

There is a lot of ground covered in paganism, and you cannot pick and choose those pleasant elements only.
TAke a gander at Frazer’s “Golden Bough” to get a feel of what real paganism was like.

The intellectual, high-minded, paganism of the classics was a too rarified elitist phenomenon. The real
paganism was as tacky as popular Christianity, but far more ruthless in dealing with the weak and helpless.

“Dorothy Day “Catholic Social Teachings” movement and certain alleged mystical encounters at Fatima,...”

Dorothy Day founded the Catholic Worker movement and lived a life of radical othodoxy sustained by the Eucharist. I think she is arguably the quintessential paleo, even though much of the current day CW movement lacks her insight and genuine piety.

The mystical nature of God’s presence in our lives manifests itself in countless ways. Pity those who either dismiss it due to doubt, or exploit it for personal aggrandizement.

“I fully agree with
Grant Havers’ attempt to call
attention to the specifically
Protestant roots of the American
founding.”

Agreed. As a Catholic, I am very grateful to my hosts and know, despite some profound differences, we must strive for unity against both the secular juggernaut and the Islamic jihad.

Kevin:

John Lukacs believed that Dorothy Day was a true conservative, and was very
much irritated when National Review did not see fit to mention her passing - while
eulogizing Sir Oswald Mosley.

John Rutowicz,

There are enormous difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. A space alien would take a look at each and judge them different religions.  Yet if they are the same religion, then so are Christianity and Judaism. Uniformity in dogma is not the hallmark of a religion.

Mr. Sid Cundiff,

You are quite right that there are enormous differences between Protestantism (particularly the American type) and Catholicism.  If an unbeliever (or an alien)were watching T.V. and ran across EWTN and then the analogous Revivalist circus channel there would be no doubt in his mind that they had little to nothing in common.  I’m not sure that would be the case comparing a mass at St. Peter’s or one in an Anglican Church in England or a Lutheran one in Sweden.  And while there are very serious doctrinal differences between Rome and say, Lutheran doctrine (sin and justification are significant), they are agreed on the Trinity, Christ’s role as Savior, the concept of salvific sacraments, etc.  While uniformity in dogma is not the hallmark of a religion, there are doctrines that are essential to Christianity.  That’s how we can determine that Presbyterians are Christians and Mormons are not.  Dogma about the Person and work of Jesus Christ is pretty fundamental to the definition of Christianity.  When asking the question, “Who is Jesus?,” Jews and Christians are polar opposites.
Having said this, I wish to say that I have numerous traditionalist Roman Catholic friends whom I love and respect.  I hope to spend eternity with them.  And I wish to make common cause with them (and you Sid)socially and politically.  I’ll pray for the Jews.

As I think about it I’ve rudely butted into this conversation.  Sorry Sid.  I’ll give you the last word and then but out.

Somebody said above that Protestantism is in constant mutation. I have to point out that the gyrations of Roman Catholicism are stomach-churning.

“Yet if they are the same religion, then so are Christianity and Judaism. Uniformity in dogma is not the hallmark of a religion.”

Chesterton said Rome was great because it was pagan. Vatican II told us us that Rome was the handmaiden of social democracy. Sid says Rome is great because it is Judaism. Is it too much to point out that Rome is supposed to be Christian?

My church hasn’t changed its official teachings since the 1640s. I can’t keep up with all the mutations of Catholicism.

“The intellectual, high-minded, paganism of the classics was a too rarified elitist phenomenon. The real
paganism was as tacky as popular Christianity, but far more ruthless in dealing with the weak and helpless.”

A brilliant quote. Bravo.

“We must strive for unity against both the secular juggernaut and the Islamic jihad.”

That one, not so much. Rome has no intention of fighting Islam. Read Peter Kreeft’s horrible blasphemies on the subject.

John Rutowicz wrote: “While uniformity in dogma is not the hallmark of a religion...”

Catholics would aver that it is the hallmark of the One, True Religion.

Grant Havers wrote: “Thomists are also prone to using pagan ideas of ‘natural hierarchy’ to hammer the alleged libertinism of Protestantism, even as they enjoy the freedom which the Protestant separation of church and state made possible.”

What a silly thing to say. Are you suggesting that Thomists lock themselves up so as not to be guilty of hypocrisy (for “enjoying” the fruits of freedom of speech while arguing against it, for example), or that Thomists somehow rely on the separation of Church and State to do what they do?

If the first, it’s a dumb argument. This is like liberals arguing that conservatives must accept liberalism because it’s their tolerance as liberals that makes conservatism possible. No, it’s not.

The second interpretation is even more absurd. How can a doctrine require Enlightenment Protestant patronage when that doctrine itself was born and prospered a couple of hundred years before Martin Luther was even born?

I thought Mr. Havers piece was a very timely and thought-provoking one.  I’m glad that he “names names”: GRECE, de Benoist, Oliver, etc. in exploring this sort of European New Right thinking.  Most of the European New Right is simply ignored by the “mainstream” conservatives of today.

I also appreciate Havers dismantling of pro-pagan arguments by noting the hidden agendas of Straussians and Catholic Straussians who seem sympathetic to them.  I came away from the article, however, thinking that Havers left two items about neo-paganism unmentioned. 

First, he seems favorable to the idea of egalitarianism that Christianity spreads. Many on the Right, and not just neo-pagans, have noted how a tendency towards egalitarianism very quickly becomes a kind of radical egalitarianism favored by the French Revolution or Maoists and other radical egalitarian Leftists.  Nature has created hierarchies, which old time Christians once understood and respected.

Second, the neo-pagans charge Christianity with promoting dysgenics.  One only need read the latest Buchanan work or study from the National Policy Institute to know where we are heading demographically.  This was left unmentioned in the Havers article, and it does no good to either ignore the issue or try to dismiss it.  The egalitarianism and universalism of Christianity, it seems, often does lend itself to a kind of fervent racial Leftism on the part of many Christians, i.e., “it makes no difference what the demographic composition of America, Europe, Australia, etc. are, so long as we’re all Christians.”

The Sunic book mentioned by others, “Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right”, with foreword by Dr. Gottfried devotes a chapter to the neo-pagans.  I should note I’m not in agreement with Sunic on everything, but it is still an interesting read.  He sums up the neo-pagan critique of Christianity on pages 93 -94 stating:

“By cutting themselves from European polytheistic roots, and by accepting Christianity, Europeans gradually began to adhere to the vision of the world that emphasized the equality of souls and the importance of spreading God’s gospel to *all* peoples, regardless of creed, race or language (Paul; Galatians 3:28).  For his part, De Benoist sees in Christian universalism a form of “Bolshevism” of antiquity, and notes that in order to fully grasp the meaning of modern egalitarian doctrines, particularly Marxism, one must first trace their origins to Christianity.”

The neo-pagans argue that by tying their beliefs of the sacred with the particular (that is, the European people), they offer a less dysgenic worldview.  I do not find the argument convincing as it may just as well lapse, as Havers noted, into New Age paganism of the Leftist variety.  Yet on the other hand, the points they raise are still valid: today’s Christianity no longer defends Western Man, as Western Man.

Adriana,
Lukacs tends to get it right, doesn’t he?

“Rome has no intention of fighting Islam. Read Peter Kreeft’s horrible blasphemies on the subject.”

Not so with Peter Ramus. He mistakes the writings of a Catholic layman for Church teaching and/or Benedict’s strategic engagement of both Islam and the secular West.

Well, here’s another opponent of Rome who now realizes there is only 1 institution capable of resisting Islam;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06donadio.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

John Paul II kissed the Koran in 1999. He wasn’t a layman.

“By cutting themselves from European polytheistic roots [sic], and by accepting Christianity, Europeans gradually began to adhere to the vision of the world that emphasized the equality of souls...”

The ENR stole this argument from Roman Catholic polemics, which blames the Reformation for the Enlightenment and modernity. They got it from French reactionaries and turned against their teachers. In fact, the ENR represents the pagan elements of Roman Catholicism turned against Christianity.

Right wing Catholics have a tradition of coddling paganism. This very site reprinted Charles Murras. Consider the ENR as blowback.

“John Paul II kissed the Koran in 1999. He wasn’t a layman.”

And? He was a secret Islamist, a defeatist, blinkered lefty - what’s your point?

John Paul II worked on a level closed to those incapable of eliciting the Spirit, blinded as they are by the spirit of the age.
Being preoccupied with ideology leaves one brittle and ungenerous.

As someone who professes to be a Christian, most of your time is spent denigrating your fellow Christians through shallow sophistry or, calling upon political solutions absent any spiritual insight.

I expressed thanks for the Protestant underpinning of our nation’s origins. That gratitude does not extend to the likes of you, as I believe your real interest is sowing division, discord and despair.

“There are enormous difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. A space alien would take a look at each and judge them different religions.  Yet if they are the same religion, then so are Christianity and Judaism.”

I’m sorry, but that is about the silliest thing I have ever read on this blog.  While I certainly acknowledge that there are differences between Protestantism and Catholicism in matters such as transsubstantiation, ordination of women, purgatory, intercession of saints and so on, the main distinctions amount to issues of authority—primarily, is the Catholic Church the one true church and the Pope Christ’s specifically ordained head, or may Christians properly practice their faith through whatever churches they might choose to establish?  Judaism, by contrast, rejects the fundamentals of Christianity that Catholics and Protestants alike embrace, and I cannot imagine any practicing Jew asserting that his faith is the same as that of Christians.

Sid, Fletcher,
When it comes to differences between Christianity and Judaism, please look at the Sermon on the Mount.  When giving the moral rules contained in that sermon, Christ repeatedly makes the point: “ it has been said by those of the old . . . but I say unto you . . . “ This strongly implies that Christ thought this teaching to be something not contained in the Jewish tradition.  He appears have been right, since the values he taught, such as meekness, humility, not revenging wrongs, turning the other cheeck and loving your enemies, ideed do not seem to be part of the Jewish tradition. 

Instead of seeing them as opposed (or similar) to each other, the most accurate way to perceive the relationships between Judaism and Christianity is probably to see the latter as a development of the former.  After all, in Judaism pride is the wors of sins, the sin of the devil.  This logically makes humility, the virtue that Christ taught by his speeches and by the personal role-model he set, the highest virtue.  Christ thus simply pushed Judaism furter than any other Jew of his time—the Essenes apparently developed ideas very similar to those Christ taught. 

The above difference in religious morality is quite revelant to the connection between Christianity and conservatism:  early modern English Protestantism subscribed to the view that pride/lust for power was the sin of the devil and humility one of Christ’s most important teachings.  17th-century English preachers applied to politics and politicians the idea that a desire to dominate others is the worst of sins, and that people who manifest this desire—which usually rationalizes itself as a selfless wish to help one’s fellow humans—are incarnate devils.  This application creates a very strong link between some forms of Christianity and traditional small-government, strong-individual-rights conservatism.  Unfortunately, just about all branches of modern Christianity have lost the ideas that pride is a sin and humility a virtue.  This loss extends to Jews, who no longer take seriously the idea that pride is a sin.  (A Jewish friend summed the situation nicely:  “In modern Judaism pride is a sin with a very, very small s.")

Mr. Roberts,

I certainly share your respect & empathy for the ancient pagans, and if I implied any analogy between the ancient pagans & modern Straussians then I erred gravely.  You are quite correct to note the vast differences between the two.

My concern is not with the ancient pagans but with neopagans. 

Now, I am about as mellow as one can be about religious differences without being an ecumenist, and frankly I would be sympathetic to a certain type of neopaganism.

For example, if I got the impression that neopaganism represents some sort of worldview akin to that of Aristotle or Confusius—a belief in some Prime Mover or Mandate of Heaven which shines divine order down upon the world, an order upon which we may base our families, communities, nations, etc.... then this is a worldview I could very much respect. 

I would still regard it as falling far short of Christian revelation, but it is at least pointed somewhere in the general right direction, and is a vision with which I could find much common ground.

Or, if neopaganism represented a sincere belief that the world we inhabit is a domain informed by many spirits—akin to Japanese Shinto or Greek pantheism—I could also find some common ground for discourse.

The problem is that the more I encounter neopagans, the more suspicious I get that it is an ideology rather than a faith or philosophy. 

By ideology, I mean a system which deliberately places political utility ahead of the truth.

That is, the previous descriptions are what I would LIKE to think neopagans are all about—because I am not the sort of person who relishes thinking the worst of others.

However, the invocation of Mencken on this thread does not encourage me, given that Mencken defined poetry as being a pleasant, colorful deception, and thought that all religions were big fat illusions which could on occasion be useful for holding society together. 

How this jibes with respect for Homer and Sophocles utterly eludes me.

That is, I am inclined to suspect that neopagans at heart believe that men are ultimately just clever beasts devoid of divinely-endowed dignity, meat-machines who need to be fed well-calibrated lies in order to keep them running properly.

If this is true, then neopagans are fools in a myriad of ways, not the least of which in thinking themselves different from any other modern ideology, and for thinking their ideology represents a logical continuation of the pagan world.

If I am mistaken and have mischaracterized their outlook, then I apologize to the neopagans in advance. 

And I mean that sincerely—I would be relieved if one of them were to deny this latter view, for as I said I prefer to believe the best of people.

But in my defense, no neopagan on this thread have said anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Perhaps I am just being obtuse—which is fine, it’s not the first time this has happened.

One other note which may be worth chewing on-- we’ve all vilified universalism so much that we may have gotten carried away.

Where exactly would science be, without universalism?

How exactly is our tribe supposed to make it in the struggle between tribes without science, and the technology it confers?

We all bash Sid (and rightly so) when he refuses to recognize race & ethnicity as scientifically-verifiable
realities.

But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:

Mexicans, Africans, and Chinamen ARE human beings. 

This is a verifiable fact as well.

How we react to this fact is of course an open question—we may decide to follow the Enlightenment route, or we may agree with Augustine that we should pay more attention to the needs of our kin and next-door-neighbors, about whom we actually know something.

But if we construct a worldview so tribalist as to be actively dedicated to denying this humanity of the Other, then we are once again playing the ideology game, and shunning truth.

Which has practical consequences, if I may appeal to nothing else. 

Perhaps the Reich would have been better off recognizing that Slavs were not subhuman weaklings who would fall down impotently before the German onslaught. 

Perhaps American policy toward the Middle East would be wiser, were we to recognize that terrorists are in fact human beings with human motivations (a la Ron Paul), vice inhuman demons who only hate us for our freedom (a la Giuliani).

To Mr Newland:

Now, now, how can you imagine that I recommend imprisonment for Thomists?  That is truly ridiculous.  If I oppose the attempt of Italian leftists to put Julius Evola on trial for stirring up fascism, why would I support oppression of Aquinas’s heirs?

As for your 2nd point, yes, there were Christians who supported the separation of church and state before the Reformation, but they made little impact on the church hierarchy of their time (except in prison cells).  Like it or not, we all benefit from the Anglo-American Enlightenment in achieving (at least until the radically secularist 20th c) this separation.

since the values he taught, such as meekness, humility, not revenging wrongs, turning the other cheeck [sic] and loving your enemies, ideed [sic] do not seem to be part of the Jewish tradition.

Absolutely untrue, and clear defamation of Jews.  All these moral concepts are in the Tanakh.  For starters, and for the ethical ideal of the “Old” Testament, see Jobchap 29-31, noting that 31: 38-40 are a copyist’s error and belong earlier in the discourse. As for our Lord’s teachings in Matthew 5: 21-48, learn something about Rabbinics and the “hedge around the Torah”!

As for humility and meekness, try Psalm 130 (Protestant and Jewish counting 131). 

The general ignorance about Judaism is quite astonishing. People who claim to know the “Old” Testament clearly have never read it!

@Dr. Havers:

“Like it or not, we all benefit from the Anglo-American Enlightenment in achieving (at least until the radically secularist 20th c) this separation.”

The problem is that to establish that separation in the first place, you have to set social forces in motion (or legitimize forces already in motion) that lead inexorably to the “radically secularist” society we have today. To borrow a lovely simile from someone earlier in this discussion, saying that you like separation of church and state but you don’t like today’s “radically secularist” society is like saying you love kittens but can’t stand adult cats—and worse, it implies that you don’t understand that it is the nature of kittens to grow into adult cats.

Sid,
I noted earlier that modern Protestants have an incredible ability to forget what used to be the key ideas of their religion.  Jews seem to share this same capability, or can you give me examples of modern Jews emphasizing the importance of pride as a sin and giving detailed descriptions of what it means to be proud, so people can avoid this sin?  Similarly, can you give examples of large-scale Jewish discussions of the meaning and importance of humility, meekness, turning the other cheek, not revenging wrongs and loving your enemies?  Also, can you give examples of large numbers of Rabbis scolding people who claim to be Jews for not adhering to these virtues?  As innumerable branches of Christianity prove, the fact that a moral ideal is mentioned somewhere in the Bible does not mean people who today call themselves Christians would adhere to that moral.

“Craig”:

If you can prove to me that anything is “inexorable” other than death and taxes, you must possess a special wisdom....

I very much doubt, however, that what the US and Canadian founders meant by “church-state” separation inexorably led to the Frankfurt School, human rights tribunals, First Amendment set-asides, hate speech laws, and Christianity-bashing.  If you have proof that these are the results, well, please share them with all of us.

Dr. Havers,

If you have actually read de Benoist or Nietzsche in depth (which is not at all clear from your article), you should already be familiar with the relevant arguments.

Mr. Konkola, had you any contact whatsoever with observant Jews and their religious discourse, you would not ask the questions that you have.

Look up your local Rabbi, and he’ll give you an earful. Then report back to us, with his name.  One ought to educated about a group before one comments on it, or defames it.

Sid,
If these sins and virtues are widely discussed, there should exist plenty of literature about them.  Just give me the citations, and I’ll be glad to read.  I’m particularly interested in material about the history of pride and humility in Judaism.  (Some of the educational texts on sins and virtues that were widely used in early modern England seem to have come from old Jewish sources.)

Note that I’m not selecting Jews for special criticism. I have criticized Protestants equally emphatically for having lost the idea that pride is a sin and humility a virtue.