Michael O'Meara interprets the European New Right's paganism as a philosophical framework aimed at recovering Europe's cultural foundations rather than reviving ancient religious practices.
More thought provoking material. Some criticisms to consider. I wonder if some of the ideas are not nuanced enough? Christianity is extremely complex, highly nuanced, and defies easy categorization. Even many Christians don't grasp this fact.
(1) The God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He is transcendent -- He is pure Being who is Spirit dwelling in highest heaven *and* He is immanent -- He came in the flesh in the person of the Son of God. So, the assertion that the Christian God is only transcendent is not accurate or, at least, incomplete. It overlooks the person and works of Christ. Also, the Holy Spirit works in the world, here and now.
(2) The Church has always contained a side that is mystical. The mystical side of Christianity does not operate according to the rules of logic as they have been described by Aristotle or any other logician. Instead, the mystical side rests in the mystery of God. In other words, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. A cursory study of Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Bonaventure will introduce a newcomer to the mystery of God.
(3) Homer, Hesiod, and Heraclitus were all religious to varying scope and degree. Also, Hesiod and Heraclitus had their own logic as the structure of Theogony and the aphorisns of Heraclitus show. Their logic may not have been as sophisticated as Aristotle, but it operated according to basic rules.
I am somewhat surprised by the extent of my sympathy towards the ENR. Although I reject their embrace of paganism without hesitation, I sympathize with their frustration and disgust with the current state of affairs amongst the western elites, who have embodied the ideals of the Radical Enlightenment for the last two and a half centuries.
I'm so very sad to see all these young men embracing paganism as though it will be the medicine that cures the gravest ills of Western society. The problem isn't Christianity, but the soul-destroying agenda of the Radical Enlightenment. The solution isn't a return to paganism, even in a revisioned iteration. The solution is union with true Being.
The rejection of the immaterial, the spiritual, and universal ideals is folly. It solves nothing of lasting substance.
The critique of Christianity is spot on. But with a caveat -- the Christianity being criticized and rejected isn't the only form of Christianity out there. It's a distinctly Western form of the faith that is deeply, deeply indebted to the ideals of the Radical Enlightenment.
And it deserves to be dismantled brick by stinking brick. Because it is an interloper
Read Petrarchs scathing critique of late medieval scholasticism and his appeal to return to the true form of Christianity, rooted in the past. Petrarch argued that the scholasticism of the Latin Church was new and innovative -- it was modern. The term modern means 'now,' 'the current moment,' and 'new.' The modern, therefore, is essentially opposed to the old, the tried, the established. Petrarch showed how the late medieval Church had forsaken the old ways and embraced innovation, which was most clearly seen in its scholastic ideals. Man's reasonable mind focusing on the study of time, space, and material existence replaced the revealed truth of Scripture and the way of life arising from that revelation
So, yes, there is a form of Christianity that needs to be thoroughly criticized. Because it's a false version -- or, at least, a very emaciated, very clouded, very confused version -- of the true faith
For instance, the critique of Christianity promoted by Nietzsche and others (Lessing, Kant, Bertrand Russell, etc) is directed against the radically enlightened version of Christianity. Nietzsche loathed the empty, vapid, arid, materialistic, controlling, emasculated version of Christianity -- and rightly so. That version is utterly loathsome and contrary to biblical revelation.
In other words, Nietzsche attacked a straw man
He didn't adequately grapple with the biblical revelation which is the standard that Christianity is to follow, obey, and embody
Europeans shouldn't tie our spirituality to a single book written by foreigners two thousand years ago. Long before christianity, White folks had profound experiences with the divine and possessed deep spiritual and moral knowledge. Our ancestors were brave, honest, strong, and capable men who conquered the basest parts of their own nature and lived in harmony with Natural Law. That is the truest spirit of our people, that is our connection to God, and it is inherent within us, if we choose to develop it and nurture it. We don't need the torah or jesus because we have Plato, Epictetus, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Edda, and so many more. We have a part of the divine within ourselves. Paganism is, in its essence, the recognition of the spiritual independence of our race.
More thought provoking material. Some criticisms to consider. I wonder if some of the ideas are not nuanced enough? Christianity is extremely complex, highly nuanced, and defies easy categorization. Even many Christians don't grasp this fact.
(1) The God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent. He is transcendent -- He is pure Being who is Spirit dwelling in highest heaven *and* He is immanent -- He came in the flesh in the person of the Son of God. So, the assertion that the Christian God is only transcendent is not accurate or, at least, incomplete. It overlooks the person and works of Christ. Also, the Holy Spirit works in the world, here and now.
(2) The Church has always contained a side that is mystical. The mystical side of Christianity does not operate according to the rules of logic as they have been described by Aristotle or any other logician. Instead, the mystical side rests in the mystery of God. In other words, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. A cursory study of Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Bonaventure will introduce a newcomer to the mystery of God.
(3) Homer, Hesiod, and Heraclitus were all religious to varying scope and degree. Also, Hesiod and Heraclitus had their own logic as the structure of Theogony and the aphorisns of Heraclitus show. Their logic may not have been as sophisticated as Aristotle, but it operated according to basic rules.
I am somewhat surprised by the extent of my sympathy towards the ENR. Although I reject their embrace of paganism without hesitation, I sympathize with their frustration and disgust with the current state of affairs amongst the western elites, who have embodied the ideals of the Radical Enlightenment for the last two and a half centuries.
I'm so very sad to see all these young men embracing paganism as though it will be the medicine that cures the gravest ills of Western society. The problem isn't Christianity, but the soul-destroying agenda of the Radical Enlightenment. The solution isn't a return to paganism, even in a revisioned iteration. The solution is union with true Being.
The rejection of the immaterial, the spiritual, and universal ideals is folly. It solves nothing of lasting substance.
The critique of Christianity is spot on. But with a caveat -- the Christianity being criticized and rejected isn't the only form of Christianity out there. It's a distinctly Western form of the faith that is deeply, deeply indebted to the ideals of the Radical Enlightenment.
And it deserves to be dismantled brick by stinking brick. Because it is an interloper
Read Petrarchs scathing critique of late medieval scholasticism and his appeal to return to the true form of Christianity, rooted in the past. Petrarch argued that the scholasticism of the Latin Church was new and innovative -- it was modern. The term modern means 'now,' 'the current moment,' and 'new.' The modern, therefore, is essentially opposed to the old, the tried, the established. Petrarch showed how the late medieval Church had forsaken the old ways and embraced innovation, which was most clearly seen in its scholastic ideals. Man's reasonable mind focusing on the study of time, space, and material existence replaced the revealed truth of Scripture and the way of life arising from that revelation
So, yes, there is a form of Christianity that needs to be thoroughly criticized. Because it's a false version -- or, at least, a very emaciated, very clouded, very confused version -- of the true faith
For instance, the critique of Christianity promoted by Nietzsche and others (Lessing, Kant, Bertrand Russell, etc) is directed against the radically enlightened version of Christianity. Nietzsche loathed the empty, vapid, arid, materialistic, controlling, emasculated version of Christianity -- and rightly so. That version is utterly loathsome and contrary to biblical revelation.
In other words, Nietzsche attacked a straw man
He didn't adequately grapple with the biblical revelation which is the standard that Christianity is to follow, obey, and embody
Europeans shouldn't tie our spirituality to a single book written by foreigners two thousand years ago. Long before christianity, White folks had profound experiences with the divine and possessed deep spiritual and moral knowledge. Our ancestors were brave, honest, strong, and capable men who conquered the basest parts of their own nature and lived in harmony with Natural Law. That is the truest spirit of our people, that is our connection to God, and it is inherent within us, if we choose to develop it and nurture it. We don't need the torah or jesus because we have Plato, Epictetus, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Edda, and so many more. We have a part of the divine within ourselves. Paganism is, in its essence, the recognition of the spiritual independence of our race.