Understanding the "Paganism" of the ENR - Part 2
Croatian philosopher Tomislav Sunic views paganism not as opposition to Christianity but as the enduring cultural foundation of European civilization rooted in local folkways and traditions.
Tomislav Sunic is another important figure in the European New Right. He is a Croatian diplomat, essayist, and author best known for his work Against Democracy and Equality, one of the first works on the European New Right in English. Tom is a personal friend of mine and in our discussions about the “paganism” of the European New Right, I felt he provided an interesting perspective. His understanding of the “paganism” of the ENR was far less hostile to Christianity than some of the other thinkers in the ENR. In our discussions, Sunic’s “paganism” of the ENR was more a reference to pagus, or the Roman administrative term used to describe rural, tribal territory. In this sense, the word, “pagan” is more a reference to the folkways of rural peoples. With Sunic’s perspective in mind, I wanted to provide another way in which we can understand the “paganism” of the European New Right by exploring another one of Sunic’s works, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity.
Sunic presents paganism as an important historical and cultural foundation of European civilization that was largely suppressed but never fully eliminated by Christianity. He argues that paganism represents a fundamentally different worldview from Judeo-Christian monotheism, one that is more naturally aligned with European cultural and spiritual sensibilities.
Sunic notes that while Christianity officially suppressed pagan practices after Constantine's conversion, pagan elements survived in various forms. As he states, "Although Christianity gradually removed the last vestiges of Roman polytheism, it also substituted itself as the legitimate heir of Rome. Indeed, Christianity did not cancel out paganism in its entirety; it inherited from Rome many features that it had previously scorned as anti-Christian."1 This survival is particularly evident in European folk traditions and cultural practices, which the author identifies as "prime examples of the survival of paganism, although in the secular city folklore has been largely reduced to a perishable commodity of culinary or tourist attraction."2
Sunic presents paganism as representing a fundamentally different approach to understanding society and politics compared to monotheism. He argues that pagan thought embraces plurality and diversity rather than absolute truth, is community-oriented rather than individualistic, values earthly existence rather than focusing on afterlife, and accepts tragic aspects of life rather than promising salvation. This distinct worldview is illustrated in his discussion of temporal understanding: "In pagan cosmogony, as de Benoist writes, time is the reflection of the non-linear or spheric conception of history, a conception in which the past, the present, and the future are not perceived as stretches of cosmic time irrevocably cut off from each other, or following each other on the single line."3
Sunic argues that pagan sensibilities continue to be relevant and even necessary in the modern world. He points to several important 20th-century thinkers who incorporated pagan elements in their work, including "Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger in philosophy, Carl Gustav Jung in psychology, Georges Dumézil and Mircea Eliade in anthropology, Vilfredo Pareto and Oswald Spengler in political science, let alone dozens of poets such as Ezra Pound or Charles Baudelaire." These thinkers represent what he calls "the legacy of pagan conservatism."4
A crucial aspect of Sunic's analysis focuses on how paganism maintained a different conception of the sacred compared to monotheism. He argues that "Judeo-Christian rationalization of historical time has precluded the projection of one's own national past and, in so doing, it has significantly contributed to the 'desertification' of the world."5 In contrast, pagan spirituality was more closely tied to place, community, and natural cycles rather than abstract universal principles.
The political implications of pagan thought are significant in Sunic's view, as it offers important alternatives to both liberal individualism and monotheistic universalism. As he states, "Pagan thought, on the other hand, which fundamentally remains attached to rootedness and to the place, and which is a preferential center of the crystallization of human identity, rejects all religious and philosophical forms of universalism."6 This perspective values the acceptance of diversity without demanding uniformity, recognizes the importance of community and tradition, understands the tragic nature of existence, and maintains a connection to place and natural cycles.
In conclusion, Sunic presents paganism not as something to be literally restored, but as an important philosophical and cultural resource that offers valuable alternatives to both religious universalism and modern secular individualism. He argues that understanding and drawing upon pagan traditions can help address some of the spiritual and cultural challenges of the modern world. As stated in the text: "To pledge allegiance to 'paganism' means to rekindle Europe's historical origins, as well as to revive some sacred aspects of life that existed in Europe prior to the rise of Christianity."7
Sunic, Tomislav. Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity. Arktos, 2017. p 4.
Ibid., p 4.
Ibid., p 13.
Ibid., p 5.
Ibid., p 13.
Ibid., p 20.
Ibid., p 12.
excellent piece. I’m Orthodox (Russian) which tends to regard Christianity as the fulfillment of what our noble ancestors thought. That primal connection to people and place was not meant to be disregarded. another american bastardization of a bad enlightenment idea.
Thanks for your dive into paganism. It helps answer the important question of what paganism in the modern world entails; it's not a literal restoration, but a spiritual revival of people and place, natural hierarchy, and transcendence. And all this, of course, outside of (though not strictly opposed to) Christianity.
That being said, I challenge the view that Christianity created liberal secular individualism through religious universalism, though the connection between Christianity, Liberal Individualism, and Universalism cannot be ignored. I don't want to be long-winded, but this trajectory is, if anything, the result of reformations, revolts, and separations from the deposit of the Church.
Properly understood, the Church is universal, but not homogenizing, the same as a good empire in the secular sphere. Rather than mandating crushing conformity, the Church mandates truth at a high level, while leaving intact the particular and localized expressions of this truth. In areas of preference or unknown matters, a diversity of thought and opinion is fostered.
Properly understood, the Church does not destroy the need for intermediary community and has not taught that man has direct access to God with no need of broader society. The individualizing nature of protestant thought, where each is a master unto himself about the deposit of faith, has nothing to do with the Church. The Church requires community to function.
Properly understood, the Church has not despiritualized the world, but imbued the entirety of creation with spiritual significance. Nor has the Church neglected the material order in favor of purely spiritual or afterlife matters, but instead emphasized that grace builds upon nature, a nature that we are obligated to foster and protect, including securing the common good for peoples, building places, and observing natural cycles.
It is true enough, however, that Christianity provides an arrow to time and the possibility of salvation. No more is reality stuck in endless loops, but it now has a past, present, and future. I hope the future of Christianity takes some lessons from the past and is able to move society away from the secular liberalism that is crushing man's spirit today.