[** Export to PDF](/wp-admin/tools.php?ghostexport=true&submit=Download+Ghost+File&pdf=118)
Any traditionalist Christian has likely encountered people saying something along the lines of “Jesus was a socialist,” “Christianity is Marxist,” or the like. This has primarily been the battle cry of “liberal Christians” trying to reconcile their religion with their politics, but it also became a tool of atheists trying to subvert conservative Christendom. These attacks are not limited to the political left anymore, however, and they have taken on a particularly nasty attitude among some atheists and pagans of the far-right, or Alt-Right.

The argument appears to be that Christianity is a “foreign (Jewish) religion” that amounts to some sort of proto-Marxism. All of the problems that plague the West today—multiculturalism, believing races are interchangeable, moral relativism—can apparently be traced back to Christianity. Implied in all of this, of course, is that what came before the “Judeo-Christian conspiracy” was a proper, native religion that would not abide multiculturalism, multiracialism, or moral relativism. This is typically assumed to be Germanic paganism with a specific focus on the Scandinavian interpretation, albeit Europe was home to many different ethno-religious systems. If whites would return to their pagan roots and embrace Odin, they would wake up to the fact that all of the cancers that have plagued the West were the fault of Jesus, a subversive Jew.

Traditionalist Christians would naturally dismiss these allegations and assumptions, but the negativity has nonetheless persisted despite Christians remaining a steadfast component of the far-right. We must then address not only the nature of traditional Christianity itself to refute the accusations against it, but we must also address the nature of paganism to show whether or not it holds some unique value.****

I. Christianity is multicultural while paganism is not**

This argument tends to follow the line of thought that Christianity allows for, or even encourages, multiculturalism because non-whites can be Christian whereas paganism is restricted to only those of the relevant blood and soil. Let’s first stipulate that universalism—the universal applicability of something—is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Truth is universal even if we, as individuals, do not like or understand it. Is that not the attitude taken by the far-right whenever discussing IQ among racial groups, that there are only two genders, and so on? Truth is truth regardless of your feelings or personal understanding. In this context, however, the accusation is that Christianity is inherently subversive due to universalism.

Now, there is no denying the fact that Christianity is universalist in that anyone can be a Christian regardless of their ethnic background, but this does not mean that Christianity inherently promotes multiculturalism. For example, in Genesis 11:9, we are told that God “confound[ed] the language of all the earth” and “scatter[ed] [the people] abroad upon the face of all the earth.” Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that God purposely “divided to the nations their inheritance,” “separated the sons of Adam,” and “set the bounds of the people.” Acts 17:26 reiterates that God made “all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” The Greek Ephesians and Celtic Galatians were both Christian, but they also remained Greek and Celtic, respectively. If God created and purposely divided Mankind, how can Christianity be said to inherently espouse multiculturalism, miscegenation, &c.?

We must separate intended outcomes of doctrine from possible outcomes. The fact that some modern Christians espouse multiculturalism, miscegenation, open borders, and the like does not mean that they do so because of Christianity. After all, the Church stood against Muslim invasions for centuries, and medieval Christians certainly did not worship the Pharisees. Some pagans like to claim that those Christians were just hypocrites, bad at their own religion, &c. As they like to argue, Christianity does indeed encourage multiculturalism and such, and the Europeans comprising the Church for those centuries just ignored their own religion. Again, however, how can a religion be said to promote cultural Marxism when its own religious text says the opposite was God’s plan? If God intended for Man to be one, muddled race with one, muddled language, why is that not what was created? Why purposely create natural diversity if desiring the opposite?

One problem with this ongoing “debate” is that the process is largely always the same. Pagans (and atheists) toss out the same attacks, and traditionalist Christians end up charging up the same hills every battle. This is obviously pointless because it allows anti-Christians to define the terms, and they will never concede that Christianity is, or could be, valid. Why fight battles where the terms of victory are purposely set to be impossible? They will remain unconvinced, and the fact that they remain so is somehow evidence that Christianity and Christians are wrong. No rhetoric or dialectic will ever be good enough within that context.

To that end, let’s rather address paganism on its own terms. Let’s not charge up the prepared hills set before us. We can show that Christianity is not what some pagans try to paint it as, but that is of little consequence since they already hold that all things Christian are false. We must ask instead if paganism is inherently more “blood and soil.” Does it live up to the standards to which the pagans try to hold traditionalist Christians? We can look at this issue on two fronts—the spiritual and the temporal. Is Norse paganism itself explicitly against what plagues us today? Did the historical pagans themselves live up to any such standard?

In terms of the spiritual, consider that the Norse pantheon actually consists of the Æsir, Vanir, and the jǫtnar, who occupy Ásgarðr, Vanaheimr, and Jǫtunheimr, respectively. Odin and his sons, Thor and Baldr, are the primary Æsir along with Odin’s wife, Frigg. Njörðr and his children, Freyr and Freyja, are the primary Vanir. Loki is the son of a jǫtunn, or giant, named Fárbauti and is not a god proper. According to the Hymiskviða, the god Týr is also said to be the son of a jǫtunn, Hymir. It should also be noted that this pantheon does not merely include different factions from different realms but also includes mixing amongst their number as Thor is the father of Magni by the jǫtunn Járnsaxa. Interestingly, in the Gylfaginning, Thor is said to be the step-father of the god Ullr, who was born to Thor’s wife, Sif, by an unknown father.

In terms of the temporal, consider the example of Rurik, a Varangian pagan (Norse), who came to rule the Kievan Rus’ in the middle of the 9th century. Sources detailing treaties of the time between the Rus’ and Byzantines show the leadership of the former overwhelmingly consisted of Germanic names, but those sources also show that those same men were already swearing oaths by Slavic gods during the reign of Oleg, a relative of Rurik and the second ruler of the dynasty. Rurik’s grandson, Sviatoslav I, is considered to be the first Rurikid to carry a Slavic name. Sviatoslav’s eldest son, Yaropolk, was said to have married a Greek Christian, while the younger son, Vladimir, married a Norse woman, who bore Yaroslav the Wise, who in turn married his daughters off to Christian royalty in Hungary, France, and possibly England. Thus, we can see that within just the first generation, these Northmen had already adopted Slavic gods, and, within five generations, they were intermingling with other Slavs, Celts, and Greeks including Christians.

Before some pagan dismisses the Rurikids as unique, let us recall the viking Rollo who came to power in Normandy before taking a Frankish Christian as his wife and ultimately agreeing to defend Francia against other vikings in exchange for a title, lands, and becoming a Christian himself. His heir, William Longsword, and descendants would help to shape Western Christendom, especially in France and England, as well as one day taking part in the Crusades. Similarly, the first Norse King of Dublin, Óláfr, was recorded as taking a Gaelic wife or two, and his brother’s descendants, who would play a major role in Irish history, also mingled with the native Celts and ultimately adopted Christianity as their own. Compare this to Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost in Norway, Ásatrúarfélagið in Iceland, and Samfundet Forn Sed in Sweden, all of which today explicitly reject an ethnocentric interpretation of paganism. Folkish pagans would naturally interject here to say that “anti-racist paganism” is not true paganism, but did the Norse gods not themselves intermingle with those from other realms, even their own enemies? Did the Norse people historically not embrace other pagan pantheons and Christianity as they saw fit? How do modern pagans reconcile all of this?

Let’s reiterate the point of this. Paganism is not being attacked, but the effort is rather to hold a mirror up for the pagans who hold Christians to a standard that they themselves cannot meet. Modern Odinism is held up as a folkish religion based on blood and soil, but adherents can be found in Eastern and Southern Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, and South America rather than just in nations that have Germanic majorities and cultures. Do any Odinist groups require prospective members to take DNA tests to prove they are mostly or entirely of Germanic blood? Do they at least require members to have been raised in a Germanic culture? If not, how many whites of other ethnic groups are worshiping Germanic gods as their own? How far can the standard of “blood and soil” be bent before it breaks? How is this not its own form of pseudo-universalism?

Folkish pagans absolutely can hold to the standard that their gods, religion, and culture are theirs alone, but here again is where we must separate the intended from the possible. Which source tells us that Odin expressly forbade multiculturalism and miscegenation? Where is the evidence that the Norse themselves believed peoples were purposely separated by the gods? If there is no evidence for or against a “blood and soil” interpretation, is it not arbitrarily decided based on the ideology of the modern practitioners? Perhaps the Norse had no problem with fluidity of paganism among whites yet drew a strict line between themselves and non-whites, or perhaps they didn’t because it was never a major issue in their time? We cannot know for certain, and that means that we must at least entertain the notion that a strict interpretation may be possible yet may not have been intended. In contrast, we can be certain that the Bible expressly says God’s plan was for Mankind to be divided with peoples given their inheritance within set boundaries. We can also be certain that the liberal interpretation of Christianity is at odds with God and the Bible, not the traditionalist’s.

II. Christianity is entryism for Jews while paganism will destroy the Jew

Some far-right pagans (and atheists) are fond of saying that Christians, including traditionalists, are “basically Jews” who worship a “kike on a stick” with little to no redeeming value. Some go so far as to assert that Christians who helped the religion spread through Europe during the Early Middle Ages were possibly crypto-Jews (Source). In a fascinating twist, these same people, while attacking Jews, will bring up the fact that Jews have been expelled from more than 100 cities, nations, and empires, but they fail to mention that virtually all of those expulsions were carried out by Christians, predominantly in Western Europe before the Reformation (Source). It does seem odd that “basically Jews” would keep doing that over the centuries, no?

In truth, it is not surprising that Christians have continually questioned the need of having Jews in their nations when we consider what the Bible has to say on the subject. In John 8:42-47, Jesus told the Pharisees that they “are of [their] father the devil, and the lusts of [their] father [they] will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” In John 2:15, Jesus whipped those in the Temple, flipped over tables, and chased everyone away. Revelation 3:9 warns Christians of the “synagogue of Satan, which say they are [Judeans] (Ἰουδαίους), and are not, but do lie.” In this context, is it surprising that Christians would expel the children of Satan?

One reason that many cannot understand the relationship between Christians and Jews is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a “Jew” is today versus historically. This misunderstanding is in terms of both the religion and the people themselves. For example, upwards of 80% of Jews in the world today are Ashkenazi, or “German Jews,” who are all the descendants of a population of only 350 people who lived between AD 1200-1400 (Source). According to a new study, the Ashkenazi originate from Jews and Jewish converts coalescing in Turkey under the Turkic Khazars, who themselves largely converted to Judaism (Source). Additionally, genetic studies have shown that the average Askhenazi Jew today has approximately 3-4% West African ancestry with an estimated date of admixture of AD 100-850 (Source). Taken together, these studies show us that modern Jews are the product of race-mixing between Judeans, Turks, Persians, Europeans, and blacks over several centuries, and then a tiny segment of that population provided the basis for the Ashkenazi so that most Jews today are cousins at least on some level. Most importantly, these studies show all of this race-mixing and inbreeding occurred after the time of Jesus.

We find the same thing in terms of the modern Jewish religion. Practically all Jews alive today belong to one form or another of Rabbinic Judaism, which developed from the Pharisees after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. The Babylonian Talmud was not compiled until AD 500. The Masoretic Text—the definitive version of the Hebrew Bible—was compiled and copied between the 7th and 10th centuries, and it was later revealed through the Dead Sea Scrolls that the MT had some modifications from earlier texts. Finally, collections of other rabbinic texts continued to be written until the 12th century. This means that modern Judaism is separated from the Pharisees by a millennium of interpretations, reinterpretations, and even outright modifications of texts. Add to this fact that there were other Judean religious sects in the time of Jesus that did not survive, and it becomes quite clear that Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism.

How far removed does Jesus have to be from modern Jews before anti-Christians will stop trying to claim that Christians are “basically Jews”? The Bible tells us that Jesus attacked the Pharisees in both word and action. If Jesus was on Fox News today whipping Jews in Jerusalem and yelling that they are the children of Satan, the same people attacking Christianity would be praising him. But, again, let us not continue charging up the same, tired hills that pagans have set before us, and let us instead look at the historical record to measure pagans by their own standards. Surely, history must be rife with examples of European pagans attacking Jews wherever they could be found. After all, we are now told that only pagans and atheists can truly stand against Jews subverting the West. They must have an impressive record to back up such assertions.

In fact, the Romans are the only European pagans with a record against the Jews, and even theirs is rather spotty when Judea was not in open revolt. Indeed, when the Romans were not putting down Jewish rebels, they were allowing Jewish merchants to spread throughout the Empire. For example, there is evidence of Jews in Roman settlements in modern Bulgaria as early as the 2nd century BC (Source). Jews also became established in population centers in the West such as Halbturn, Austria, by the 3rd century AD (Source) and Cologne, Germany, some time before the 4th century AD (Source). Jews also benefited from opposing Rome as was the case in Transylvania where Jewish colonists were settled in exchange for serving the Dacian King Decebalus in his own efforts against Rome during the 1st century AD (Source).

Interestingly enough, the Roman Empire officially became Christian in the late 4th century AD, and Jews throughout the empire faced expulsion from cities, synagogues were burned, lands were taken, and so on. The difference between how pagans and Christians dealt with Jews should not really be surprising since paganism inherently assumes that other peoples have their own gods whereas Christianity and Judaism are inherently and irreconcilably exclusive of one another. Jesus said that the Pharisees were lying, murderous children of Satan, and the Jews that had spread throughout Europe were the descendants, albeit somewhat removed, of that same “synagogue of Satan.” Pagans—including Germanic pagans—may not have seen Jewish settlers in population centers as much of a threat at the time, but why would they when they were used to other peoples having their own gods and customs? Why concern yourself with someone else’s druid or rabbi?

Today, anti-Christian pagans and atheists say that Christians are “basically Jews” who worship “a kike on a stick,” and they believe they are the only ones who can stand up for Western civilization. What they overlook, however, is that their entire concept of “the Jew” as a threat to the West does not originate from Adolf Hitler or any neo-pagan dancing in the forest. No, they are just repackaging what the Church warned against and combated for century after century until weakened by the Reformation and subversive nonsense that went hand-in-hand with Protestantism such as “Christian Zionism.” The fact is that pagans and atheists combined only form a small minority in white nations, and the vast majority of whites in the world still consider themselves Catholic or Orthodox. What seems like the more likely path to waking up the masses to the evils of multiculturalism and cultural Marxism—reminding Christians of who they once were and could be again, or telling them to abandon their own faith to worship Odin or become an atheist?
<span style="background-color: #1da1f2; color: white; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-spacing: 0px;">

III. Christianity encourages weakness while pagans encourage strength

This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point as it is said that any and all “good Christians” are weak and cowardly as required by Jesus. After all, Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and love their enemies, and that means the Latin Christians who battled Muslims for centuries were ignoring Jesus’s words for personal reasons. In contrast, the pagans are ax-wielding vikings who stand ready to form a shield wall and march forward to push the enemies of the West into the sea so they can be consumed by the hafgufa. If we concede pagans have the capacity to be warriors, is it fair to say Christians are meant to be weak?

We must first highlight that the critique of Christianity here relies entirely upon the lack of nuanced language in vulgar translations of the New Testament as well as a lack of understanding of the context in which the relevant passages were written. For example, pagans like to say that Christians are required to be “meek” (Matthew 5:5), but Jesus was not commanding his followers to submit to the wicked. He was rather pointing back to Psalm 37, which dealt with submitting to the Lord and not being envious of evil people because they will be broken. Additionally, the word used in Matthew was “πραΰς” rather than “ταπεινός.” The former speaks to being more mild-tempered whereas the latter would carry the negative connotations associated with the word “meek” in English. Similarly, in Matthew 5:44, when Jesus said to “love your enemies,” the word used for “enemies” is “εχθρός” rather than “πολέμιος,” the latter of which would denote an enemy of the state. Jesus is telling his followers to try to be good people in their personal lives. This is why Matthew 5:39 says to “turn the other cheek” when slapped, which was a common insult at the time. He did not say that Christians should expose their throats to rabid dogs, but Jesus was rather saying that we should try to be the bigger person in our personal interactions rather.

Now, consider that Jesus said the Pharisees were murderous satanists, and he whipped people at the Temple. Indeed, when the targets of Jesus’s assault complained, he castigated them for having turned the House of the Lord into a “den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13). Does any of that sound “meek,” or cowardly? It was once common for people to ask, “What would Jesus do?” The answer must always be, “Flipping over tables, whipping people, and calling them the children of Satan is within the realm of possibility.” Add to this the fact that Jesus told the apostles to arm themselves (Luke 22:36) and that Peter was indeed armed in Jesus’s presence (John 18:10), and one must truly question the notion that Christians are meant to be suicidally weak. Pagans can certainly claim that they are willing to fight to preserve the West today, but traditionalist Christians are following in a long and proud tradition of crusaders defending Europe, a tradition that no one else can match.

IV. Christianity encourages Marxist modernity while paganism encourages traditional values

This argument supposes that Christianity promotes “Jewish values” that naturally and inevitably lead to the sort of cultural Marxism that defines so much of modern society. After all, Christians are meant to worship the Pharisees, adopt black babies, never judge anyone, and embrace unrepentant sinners on their own terms, right? The problem here is that these notions stem not from Christendom itself but from modern “Christians” who distort the religion to support their true religion—progressivism. Pagans who make similar arguments are purposely holding up the worst they can find as being representative of the whole, past and present. If it is pointed out, however, that there are also Marxist pagans, they quickly claim that the difference is that Christianity promotes it all while paganism does not. Does that rather convenient argument hold water?

We have already discussed that the Bible repeatedly makes it clear that mankind was divided on purpose, which sets multiculturalism in opposition to God’s will. Leviticus 18:22 tells us that a man lying with a man as he would a woman is an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 makes it clear that homosexual acts by men or women are unnatural, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns both μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται—the homosexual who is penetrated and the one who penetrates, respectively. Deuteronomy 22:5 tells us that a man shall not dress as a woman or vice versa. 1 Timothy 2:12 tells us that women cannot be clergy within the Church as a woman shall not “usurp authority over the man.” If Christians writ large were still abiding by these traditional values, society would still be patriarchal with the “LGBT community” condemned for what it actually represents—degeneracy—and Africans and Arabs would not be flooding into the West. Christianity does not encourage multiculturalism, multiracialism, homosexuality, and the like. In fact, the religion itself condemns all of it, but modern cowards distort the Bible to suit their hedonistic ways.

As before, the seriousness of the allegations and the boldness with which they are leveled by pagans against traditionalist Christians suggests that the historical record must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that paganism is a better basis for the West. Also as before, however, that could not be any further from the truth.

First, despite having many famous kings and warlords, Germanic pagans had a rather democratic and egalitarian society. For example, all free men were entitled to attend local, regional, and national assemblies where they could speak on issues and vote. In Scandinavia, such an assembly was known as a þing whereas it was known as a folkmoot among the Anglo-Saxons. Among the Norse, the þing was under the guidance of the lǫgmaðr, or law-speaker. Unlike fictional depictions, Germanic kingship relied on the people’s acceptance of a claim to rule at such assemblies, often rising to the level of an election (Source). While it is true that women were excluded from voting, one hardly thinks of a broad democracy as a traditionalist system. After all, is it not democracy that has slowly been abused to give us a modern society in opposition to our own survival?

Second, Norse paganism seemingly incorporated women into a variety of roles with seiðr, a form of shamanistic magic, being seen as feminine in nature. While it is not necessarily clear what role a gyðja, or priestess, traditionally played relative to the goði, or priest, even folkish pagans typically allow for priestesses to lead religious services, to teach the religion to others, and so on. There may be folkish female firebrands today that buck the trend, but any honest assessment of religious movements would have to acknowledge that female clergy inevitably lead to the feminization of the religion. This typically manifests itself as a focus on tolerance, inclusiveness, and even acceptance of those who otherwise would be excluded. Folkish pagans may wish to see themselves as entirely separate from the “inclusive pagans,” but the truth is that the reemergence of Germanic paganism is largely a product of the 20th century. In that time, the feminizing influence of women has already produced “inclusive paganism” from the same racialist origins as folkish paganism. It is not a coincidence that the former attracts more women while the latter has remained predominantly male, but the allowance of priestesses does not bode well for traditionalists.

Third, unlike Christianity’s firm condemnations of degenerate behavior, the mythos of Norse paganism can at least be interpreted as more open to the same. For example, as said above, seiðr was seen as feminine magic, but Odin was held to be the preeminent practitioner thereof, having learned it from the goddess Freya (Source). In the Poetic Edda, Loki accuses the goddess Gefjon of having slept with someone in exchange for a necklace (Source), and he also accused the goddess Freya of having been caught in her brother’s bed by the other gods, upon which she farted (Source). For his part, in the Eddas, Loki is said to have taken the form of a mare and had relations with the stallion Svaðilfari, so that he was the mother of the eight-legged horse of Odin, Sleipnir (Source). In Þrymskviða, Thor and Loki had to dress as and act like women to trick the giants and recover Thor’s hammer (Source). Some pagans attempt to dismiss these uncomfortable tales by saying they were written down by Christians after the death of historic paganism, which is true, but does that not raise questions generally about the validity of the basis for modern paganism? If questioning what Christian Scandinavians recorded, who is to say what was or was not authentic paganism?

Finally, let’s consider medieval Christendom’s feudal society, the divine right of kings, the patriarchal Church and society, chivalry and knighthood, crusading against Islam, condemnation of degeneracy, and so on compared to Norse paganism’s suffrage, rule by the consent of the governed, female clergy, and the like. Which of those sounds like what we would consider traditionalist today? Modern pagans can obviously adopt any system they wish today, but history shows us that traditionalist Christians are at least living up to what their ancestors would have recognized as Christendom. If pagans offer something more akin to what we today would consider traditionalist, are they not simply repackaging medieval Christendom with a pagan veneer?

V. Christians are traitors who butchered fellow Europeans

Every modern pagan knows the story of the valiant Widukind and his archenemy, a crypto-Jew known to history as “Charlemagne,” an early medieval Yiddish name meaning “Charles the Nose.” Charles was a tyrant who had weaseled his way into controlling the Franks, a once-proud Germanic people, who he had tricked into embracing Judeo-Christianity. His Franco-Jewish armies had surged through much of Western Europe, forcing everyone to become Judeo-Christians, but there was one people who he could not bring to heel—the Saxons of Saxony under Widukind the Magnificent. The Jews tried time and again, but any territorial gains were temporary at best. That was until AD 782 when Charlemagne had thousands of innocent Saxons, mostly babies, arrested and killed. Charles famously remarked, “I do this for Jesus, King of the Jews.”

At least, that is the sort of revisionist history one is likely to encounter in many pagan circles, but it should be fairly obvious that the truth is far different. First of all, Charlemagne—shortened from Old French Charles le Magne (Charles the Great)—was not a crypto-Jew. Both of his parents were from Frankish noble families, and he was the grandson of Charles Martel, the military leader who defeated the attempted Muslim invasion of France in AD 732. It is true that Charlemagne was Catholic and helped spread the faith while expanding the Frankish Empire, but it must be said that the situation was far more complex and fluid than some will admit. To truly understand that time in history, one has to tackle the religious and political realities of Western Europe spanning centuries rather than taking narrow events entirely out of context as is usually the case.

This journey must begin in England in the 5th century AD with the initial arrival of the people who would become known as the Anglo-Saxons, or English Saxons. These Saxons were pagans at the time just as their continental cousins were, but that began to change with the Gregorian mission, which began in AD 596. Within six decades, Sussex was the only major Anglo-Saxon kingdom that was not Christian for all intents and purposes, and all of the kingdoms were ostensibly Christian by the end of the 7th century. This is important because the Anglo-Saxon mission to the continent started at roughly the same time, first to the Frisians and then to the Franks with the first Anglo-Saxon monastery built in present-day Luxembourg by St. Willibrord, known as the “Apostle to the Frisians.” It must be noted that the Christianization of the Franks had started as early as the 4th century AD hence Charles Martel already being a Catholic in the early 8th century, but it was the Anglo-Saxon mission that would complete the process throughout the Frankish Empire by AD 800.

This is important because it was St. Leofwine, an Anglo-Saxon monk from Yorkshire, England, who carried the mission to the River IJssel to preach to the Frisians, building a church there sometime before 770. He had some success with his efforts, which prompted the construction of a second, larger church on the river, but the Saxons were less receptive to an effort to proselytize in 772 with a raiding party attacking the converts and burning St. Leofwine’s church in that same year (Source). It was this event that prompted Charlemagne to launch a punitive expedition that included the destruction of a sacred tree near Eresburg. Eventually, Saxon noblemen agreed to terms with the Frankish king so as to bring the campaign to an end, but some Saxons such as Widukind continued launching raids against the Franks over the next few years. These raids along with more general rebellions prompted Frankish campaigns from 775-780 with Saxon nobles continually making oaths and offering hostages to make peace while many Saxons converted to Christianity. During that time, Widukind fled to Denmark. In 782, the Saxon arch-rebel returned to begin hostilities yet again, and, while this rebellion was quickly put down, the rebels managed to kill more than 20 Frankish noblemen. Charlemagne returned to Saxony to restore order yet found that Widukind had again fled to Denmark while the majority of the Saxon noblemen submitted to Frankish authority, offering up 4,500 men who were said to have taken part in the latest rebellion (Source). Since the Saxons had previously sworn fealty to Charlemagne, they were executed as traitors, a common practice.

Widukind would again return from Denmark to encourage rebellion among the Saxons and Frisians, but the result would be the same with the Franks defeating the rebels in the winter of 784. Whether Widukind could not escape that time or did not see the point, he chose instead to negotiate his surrender on the condition that he would not be punished as his followers had been in 782. Charlemagne agreed to these terms, and the arch-rebel was baptized along with his remaining pagan allies. For neo-pagans in the 20th century, Widukind became a nationalist hero who fought valiantly to preserve the “old ways,” and the “Massacre of Verden” of 782 was pulled out of context and recast as noble Germanic warriors being martyred by wicked Christians. None seemed to concern themselves with the fact that the Franks were also Germanic or that it was English Saxons who were attempting to bring Christianity to Saxony. Indeed, Anglo-Saxons have somehow avoided any neo-pagan backlash while Widukind’s status as a pagan hero has not been diminished by his fleeing to Denmark as his allies were left to die or even his later conversion to Christianity. Charlemagne stands out as the villain, and Christianity is condemned as well.

If a person is not versed in the complex history of Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, they could be excused for thinking that European pagans were not unlike modern New Age types. That is exactly the image neo-pagans attempt to conjure up when they act as though the actions of Christians like Charlemagne were beyond the pale. The poor, innocent pagans would have continued frolicking naked through the forests if it was not for the violent, subversive Christians. We have seen that events were far from being that simplistic, but we must also go beyond the shallow caricature of pagans as peaceful naturists who could get along with their neighbors when left to their own devices. This should be obvious considering what people know of the Norse vikings, but the obvious dots never seem to be connected within the context of modern pagans pointing fingers at Christians, whether medieval or modern traditionalists.

Consider the fact that the pagan Saxons themselves had invaded England, building their kingdoms on lands taken from the native Britons. Even before that, Frisian and Saxon pagans alike were known for piracy in the North Sea to such an extent that Roman Britannia had an official tasked specifically with defending the coast against their attacks (Source). The pagan Saxons were also known for launching raids against their Frankish neighbors well before the burning of St. Leofwine’s church in 772. Once the Saxons were subdued, it was their cousins from Scandinavia who would make a name for themselves while engaging in such behaviors. The Northmen descended on the British Isles and France alike, and they were famous for the brutality with which they ravaged their fellow Europeans. The Anglo-Saxons and Franks being of Germanic stock did not protect their kingdoms from being sacked, their men from being killed, or their women from being raped. The Norse pagans would meet the same eventual fate of Widukind, but, in their prime, Europe trembled at the thought of the pagans appearing from the mist. In all those centuries of Germanic pagans attacking their neighbors, are we truly supposed to believe that they never committed any act akin to the “Massacre of Verden”? In context, it seems quite silly to somehow classify pagan violence as being more noble, less violent, or less divisive than whatever Christians did.

VI. Conclusion

What is the point of this? Is it to attack paganism, to show that neo-pagans are inherently wicked people? No, the point is simply to show that the attacks that militant pagans within the political far-right constantly launch at traditionalist Christians are misguided at best and utter buffoonery at worst. The notion that Christians are “basically Jews” who worship “a kike on a stick” and have a long history of being “race traitors” is ahistorical on its face, but, worse than that, it seems to be purposely dishonest on at least some level. If a person is familiar with Widukind, surely they know at least some of the less flattering details of the story? If they are familiar with the Saxons and Norse, surely they also know that both were known for their raids and invasions of others? If not, one must wonder how committed they are to studying their own religion and history. If they do know the truth, however, and yet still level laughably biased attacks against traditionalist Christians, the only conclusion that can be reached is that they are dishonest. One can hardly claim nobility while lying to further personal goals.

If Western civilization and the European people are going to survive the next few decades, the political far-right—including Christians, pagans, and whoever else—must stand firm in opposition to those who would see our peoples, cultures, and, yes, religions destroyed and erased from history. Christians may dislike pagans and vice versa, but only a fool would risk losing Europe to Islam because of perceived wrongs from a millennium ago.