Right-Wing Paganism is Hardly Fascist: The European Right and the Indo-Europeans

Orientation
Who’s in and who’s out?
One of the major controversies within the Neopagan movement is whether a tradition should draw from the country of its birth or whether Neopagans should be eclectic, drawing from many traditions throughout the pagan world. Those who are purists attempt to practice the ancient traditions of for example, the Egyptians, the Greeks or the Italians. However, in what is called the “Northern tradition” organizations like Folkish Heathens and Asatru Folk Assembly draw from Viking, Nordic and German traditions. Some of these organizations insist that only white people can join them since they call Vikings, Nordic and German traditions who are racially white people.

Some Northern traditional Neopagans claim that insisting only white people can join does not necessarily mean they are fascist or white supremacist. However fascist opportunists can work their way into such organizations and make politically liberal or socialist pagans suspicious. It makes large scale Neopagan gatherings more tension-filled. Meanwhile, conservative pagans of the European right are skeptical of Neopagan movements today as a whole. This includes whether they are of the Northern heathen tradition or Neopagan witches from England or the United States who are politically liberal or socialist. My article, except for a page or two, is based on the book On Being A Pagan, first written in 1983 and then revised in 2018 by Alain de Benoist. De Benoist is a prime leader of European right paganism.

The paganism of the European Right
This article is about a pagan movement in Europe that is anti-monotheist and based on the European roots of the Indo-Europeans. Unlike the other pagan purist traditions, the New Right paganism of Europe does not identify with a single pagan culture like the Egyptians, Greeks or Italians, but the whole of Europe. Their paganism had no racial component yet it draws from authors usually associated with conservatives, such as Fredrich Nietzsche, Julius Evola and Rene Guenon. Historically, polytheists have travelled in good company in the last two centuries. De Benoist reminds us it was in great vogue in France and affected the Symbolists, Romantics and Neo classists. As far back as 1848, Louis Menard regarded polytheism as the foundation of the republican ideal and took a critical attitude towards monarchies. From the reactionary right of Charles Maurras and Stefan George to conservatives Tolkien and James Hillman to liberal DH Lawrence (especially in his Apocalypse), interest in polytheism was alive in politics, psychology and fiction. Polytheism of the 20th century also drew from Carlo Ginzburg who has argued that paganism survived in Europe since ancient times as the heart of peasant religion.

Where are we going?
In the first part of this article, I will contrast the paganism of the European right to Judeo-Christian monotheism in terms of ontology and epistemology across 33 categories. In the second part of the article I move away from de Benoist and present my own reasons why monotheistic religions are a form of psychopathology. I name eleven instances of pathologies. In the last part of my article, I connect these pathologies to monotheistic politics which is filled with despotism, violence and the production of fear in its population. In today’s world an increasing number of people are secular and have no religion. On the other hand, Neopaganism has increased by thousands of people over the past 40 years in England and the United States. Today it is not polytheism that is old-hat but Judeo-Christian monotheism that finds itself out of favor.

Differences Between New Right Pagans and Monotheists
Ontology
For monotheists there is a world beyond this one which is superior. The Bible rejects all ideas of immanence, emanation and all forms of pantheism. So too, monotheists claim the individual is part of this transcendental world beyond society and nature. Pagans deny there is any transcendental world which is superior. New-Right Pagans say there is one world and we are in it. So too, New-Right Pagans say individuals are products of biology and culture and there is no individuality separate from them. Continuing, monotheists dualistically separate the sacred world from the profane. There is the sacred, divine world of the transcendental and the profane world of nature. For pagans there is no separation between the sacred world and the profane, as this world is divine.

How is time imagined? For monotheists time is an irreversible, teleological linear line that connects the Garden of Eden to the messianic age. There is one creation with beginnings and endings. The past is dead and gone and cannot be brought back. For pagans the cosmos has no beginning and no endings, just continuous creations. Unlike for monotheists, for pagans process, or becoming precedes being. Pagan cosmology is like complexity theory – every living form is an open system that is far from equilibrium. General systems theory, chaos theory, recent applications of cybernetics – are all scientific applications of a pagan cosmos. For pagans the past is never really over. It is a dimension that impacts the present and the future. As opposed to a monotheistic linear history pagans follow Nietzsche and claim time eternally returns, but the return is never the same.

How do monotheists and polytheists distinguish space? For the Hebrews time in history is more important than space. After all, space for the Hebrews is the desert. Pastoral life keeps attachment to a minimum. In Christianity space is to be conquered by conversion of other lands. For pagans space is a place to form attachments to nature and culture with the development of agriculture. For them art and images in the form of marvels inspire us in space. For monotheistic Hebrews art and image-making is idolatry. What about the future spaces?  For Christians, because this world is conceived of being a veil of tears, what heaven is conceived of is nothing like the world we know. It is transcendental to this life. For pagans, because our life on earth is relatively joyful, Paradise is not very different from this world except that resources are plentiful and predictable. Paradise is Valhalla, the Elysian Fields or the land of Cockaigne.

What is the place of culture in the relationship between humanity and the divine? For monotheists culture is a separationfrom nature. For pagans, culture is a continuation of nature by humanity creating a supernature as in Goethe’s Faust. Nature should be perceived as depth. De Benoist gives examples such as the mist of a mountain, the song of a bird or the flittering path of an insect. For Indo-Europeans cosmogenic myth constitutes a solemn affirmation found everywhere of humanity being primary. Pagan social life is foundational with both the gods and the ancestors as part of a continuum. For monotheists the primary relationship is between the individual and God. Ancestors and earthly sacred presences are like scenery to be used and discarded as means for the individuals to return to God.

Hebrew monotheists fancy themselves to be “the chosen people” unlike any other culture. Their God admits He has chosen them but spends a good deal of His time chastening them, testing them and punishing them. No pagan cultures imagine themselves as chosen. They simply celebrate and struggle with their gods and goddesses or ancestor spirits. Other cultures have their own sacred presences. Their gods do not compare themselves with other gods. The whole system is live and let live. For pagans there is no universal humanity, there are only Greeks, Romans or Babylonians. It is only Christian monotheism that insists on extracting itself from culture, family and ancestors in a universal missionary quest to convert everyone.

For pagans the gods were visualized as a models for humanity. The gods were not supersensible or otherworldly. De Benoist gives the example that from Ymir’s flesh the earth was born from the blood, the sea; rocks from bone, trees from hair and from his skull the sky. In paganism processes are incessant conversion and consubstantiality between beings and objects, between heaven and earth, between men and gods. There are mixtures everywhere from cloth (woven wool and linen blends) to syncretistic eclecticism of the gods, to cross-dressing. The world is self-sufficient and the great cultures are self-sufficient. In monotheism God is absolutely inaccessible to humanity and the relationship is hierarchical and one-way. Worship means a one-way relationship. Pagans do not worship their gods. They celebrate with them, giving and receiving with them in reciprocity. The Hebrews and Yahweh hated mixtures. Everything needed to be pure from deities, to culture and food prohibitions.

Epistemology
Monotheists claim that there is one truth and it is necessary to devalue any claims to compete with it as either illusions or lies. This kind of stridency leads to heresies, sects and schisms. Monotheists claim there must be faith. Belief in the Supreme God is essential to their creed. As for truths, Pagans are relativists and claim there many truths and these truths are not worth fighting over. Therefore, there are no heresies in paganism. For pagans, experience matters more than belief or faith. The model archetype for the pagan is a hero who lives a tragic life, which means living our best lives in spite of knowing we will die. For monotheists the model archetype is a martyr whose efforts are guaranteed to work because he will be rewarded in the next life.

How do we interpret our shortcomings? Since for pagans the relationship between humanity and the gods is essentially social, shame occurs when we fail to complete our obligations. Our honor has been compromised. Our disappointments aren’t sins, they are internal obstacles that keep us from measuring up to the virtues we possess. For monotheists, whose social lives are relatively inconsequential, our shortcomings create a sense of guilt which is a sin and a violation of a book, The Bible and guilt before God. The tendency to shortcomings for monotheists is global and a result of original sin. What is also the case, thanks to the insight of Nietzsche, is the resentment towards God and the monotheistic community. The believer accepts his own debasement in exchange for the hope that others may also be debased. For  pagans sacrifices are part of joyful exchanges. For Hebrews and Christians sacrifice is joyless, and atonement for sin.

Monotheism is a religion of either/or. Right from the beginning in Christianity there is absolute good and evil between God and the Devil. Other gods are either illusions or false gods created by Satan. Whether it is ethics or meaning all is derived from God. There are secondary dualities of this either-or mentality between the body and the soul, mind and matter, stasis and change and the world of the visible and the invisible. All these are absolute dualities which obey Aristotle’s law of the excluded middle. For pagans de Benoist informs us ethics are derived as a sublimination of our activity and meaning that comes from human history, not from their gods. For pagans opposites are polar and relative. They turn into each other as in the dialectics of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirt. The soul is in the body, not in the stars. Mind is made up of matter and not connected to any of Plato’s eternal forms. In cosmology, becoming and movement precede being. Being comes from movement, movement does not come from being. Like for the early Greeks the invisible world comes from the visible world and is not superior to it.

For Christians sexuality is a major part of sin. For them, sexuality is mindless hedonism, greedy, grasping, as in carnivals and license. De Benoist says there is nothing more Christian than carnival and nothing more Christian than pornography. In reality pagan sexuality is moderate. It is mindful and social. Then what is virtuous for monotheists? There is an opposite over-reaction and self-flagellation of repressive asceticism and extreme self-denial of food and sleep.  Please see Table 1 for a summary of the ontological and epistemological differences between paganism and monotheism.

Pagans vs Monotheists: Ontological and Epistemological Differences

The Psychopathology of Monotheism
It is difficult not to comment on the pathological nature of monotheism when compared to paganism. Under polytheism there is no radical division between the worlds of the gods and the world of humanity. Gods are different from humans in matters of degree and scale. They are not different in kind. Neither do the gods have all the answers. They are neither all powerful nor all knowing. They make mistakes, they betray each other and they die. In fact the gods do not even create the world. The world is governed by the Fates: chance and necessity. Pagan complex horticulturalists and agricultural states became attached to the land, they grow their own food and build cities. It is in the process of building cities that the gods come through. When they die pagans imagine the afterlife as more or less a continuum with this one which means life on earth is perceived as relatively enjoyable.

In the case of monotheism we see an immediate separation between the world of God and the world of humanity. God is perceived as completely transcendental and nothing like this human world which is a vale of tears. Why is life on earth suddenly perceived as miserable? The emergence of social classes cannot explain this. Whether human societies are egalitarian, rank or stratified life for polytheists is still perceived as relatively enjoyable. Monotheism emerges in class societies but unlike with paganism caste societies life on earth becomes a sad place. Furthermore, the characteristics of God are contradictory. On one hand He is supposedly all knowing and all powerful yet he is constantly surprised and pissed off at the Hebrews for one thing or another. He is very insecure and demands worship of himself alone. He is violent and arbitrary in his actions. Yet in spite of this He expects slavish obedience. He sounds like a despot. Why does humanity put up with such an awful condition?

Right off the bat the Hebrews insist that there is something special about them. They are the chosen people. Why can’t they live and let live? Why all the drama of being specially chosen? Pay attention to our group. It’s like a child in a family telling the other siblings that they are the favorite of daddy or mommy. Still, God has warned the Hebrews not to get too excited about our powers lest they commit the sin of pride. For monotheists, humanity must always take our marching orders from God. The Bible treats humanization as a fall. After all, what did the serpent say? He told Eve you will be like gods, knowing both good and evil. De Benoist says the serpent is polytheistic. You will be as gods immediately leading to the conclusion that there could be more than one. For monotheists the city is seen as negative, a source of pride. Rather it is the church or a synagogue which is a mediator between the individual and God.

So humanity is thrown out of the Garden for seeking to have knowledge and become in any way attached to the world. It is better they remain nomadic and leave creation to God. Not only is growing food and building cities a threat to Yahweh, but even making images of the divine is an idolatrous scandal. In fact, trying to improve ourselves is our original sin. For Christians, because life here is a reform school and the next life is perceived as a dream come true, what does it consist of? Pie in the sky when you die, as the IWW song goes. So here we have an insecure, violent schizophrenic God demanding obedience from a weak cowardly humanity filled with Nietzsche’s resentment. Is this sick or what?

For pagans’ the model archetype is a courageous hero who strives to improve himself by taking his chances with Fate, accepting whatever comes and wanting to ride again (eternal return) if he has the chance. For pagans Goethe’s Faustis the ideal, more knowledge, but knowledge grounded in practice, human work. The hero wants experiences more than he cares about the ontological or epistemological status of the gods. He welcomes other gods of his region, the more the merrier. The Roman Empire respected the customs and institutions of all the people conquered.  Paganism is tolerant because it is not dualistic

For monotheists the model archetype is the suffering martyr who doesn’t have the nerve to drop into the process of living one life, come what may. Instead, he becomes an ascetic sacrificing his life knowing he will be guaranteed an admirable place in the next one. The pathology of both God and humanity has political implications as we shall see in the coming sections. Here is a summary of the pathology of monotheism:

• schizophrenic Yahweh supposedly all-loving but temperamental, full of fire and brimstone;
• Yahweh is supposedly transcendental but then is constantly intervening in history showing what a lousy engineer he is;
• a needy, narcissistic Hebrew population claiming they are chosen;
• a guilt-ridden passive obedient population
• a resentful population that makes a virtue out of being envious of others
• sexually repressed asceticism engaging in making themselves miserable with lack of sleep, lack of food and wearing hair-shirts;
• an obsession with purity and
• infantile either/or thinking that development psychologists say is a precursor of mature thinking.

In the next section on political theology we will see that Yahweh

• is a control freak wishing to control space and limit human aspirations,
• is violent beyond any reasonable justification and
• his adversaries are dehumanized.

The Authoritarian Political Theology of Monotheism
The place and misplace of pride
Politics begins with who has power over space. Expelled from the Garden of Eden, de Benoist claims Adam and Eve became the first pagans in history. They became accomplished human beings in the full sense of the word. Yet striking out on our own is the sin of sins – pride. Lucifer, Cain and Prometheus pay the price. For pagans continuous creativity with the gods leads both gods and humans to be proud of our achievements.

The Politics of Yahweh in relation to Cain and Abel
Yahweh’s control over humanity was political. For example, the punishment of pride is illustrated in the story of Cain and Abel. Abel was obedient. He was a nomadic shepherd who took from nature and never cultivated her, just as Yahweh wished. Cain on the other hand was a farmer. He struck out and reproduced his existence without getting Yahweh’s permission. While Abel was not allowed to get attached to the soil, Cain became attached to the land and from this cities eventually arose. For Yahweh space was to be under His control. Humanity was to be preoccupied with time and history, not space. It wasn’t just Abel who obeyed God but Abraha, and Moses as well. Abraham gave a solemn yes to Yahweh and a no to autonomy. Moses redoubled this commitment to be obedient. Judeo-Christian monotheism exacerbates the bond of a sick Father and his sons and daughters. God was seen as an inconsistent father, in and out of the life of humanity, daughters cast as obedient or temptresses and sons striving earnestly but never measuring up.

Though agriculture and cities, Cain conquered space which was forbidden by God and was punished by Him as a result. Cain is a product of the neolithic revolution, which allows humanity to be more assertive in the world, to subjugate the world more fully as our own.  He is rooted and attached to the soil that Yahweh has cursed. While Abel by his sacrifice shows that he keeps his spirit totally open for Yahweh, Cain asks God to sanctify the kind of existence he produced. Like Adam, Cain has demonstrated pride. Cain wants boundaries to materialize his ownership. For this Cain is condemned to wander. He is exiled to a nomadic existence.

Yahweh against civilization and cities
As it turns out, Cain is a civilizing hero. In his book The Meaning of the City Jacques Ellul has found that the Bible lays a veritable curse on the city. What the city stands for is roots, boundaries and power. It allows humanity to make a name for itself. Every city seeks a protective deity and the result is a multiplication of gods. Commerce operates in and out of cities, ships sail across seas and  industry expands within and between  cities. The punishment of cities is revealed in the cities like Sodom and Gomorrah. Yahweh had a kind of hatred of civilization. As Ernest Renan wrote “every step forward on the path of what we call progress is a crime in the eyes of Yahweh to be swiftly followed by a punishment.” The religions of ancient Europe on the other hand, like good pagans, heroized humans  who exceeded its  abilities and therefore shared in the divine.

Pagan-Faustian aspirations
De Benoist claims that European pagans should claim Faust as its hero. Humans should surpass our past creations in the same way sons and daughters should surpass their father, just like Paracelsus says that nature is surpassed  by supernature. Humanity only realizes itself as by being more than itself. In paganism, humanity elevates the gods by elevating themselves. Humanity touches the divine when he surpasses himself. Humanity should not be merely the reproducer of our existing self. We should seek to give ourselves a supernature. What is humanity’s role? There is a dialectic between forces and forms. Our job is to master forces in order to create forms for them, then master forms to create forces. Our very essence is to create a higher being than ourselves. We must create beyond ourselves. Pride and wisdom are symbolized by Nietzsche with those two animals of Zarathustra, the eagle and the serpent.

De Benoist tells us a love of the real is neither the love of life alone, the love of others, self-love or the love of gods. Rather, it is the love of existence entirely as it holds all antagonistic opposites, all potentialities – a love of the real without correctives for subjugating it. This is what Nietzsche meant when he said Amor Fati , love of Fate. De Benoist writes that one can do nothing in the world and in life unless one first declares themselves for them. Humans can only dominate the earth provided they can fully dominate ourselves.

Judeo Christian morality
Judeo-Christianity sees everything through the lens of morality. Human beings have no say in the construction of morality. Everything comes from Yahweh. There is no longer a place for chance or necessity in the results of human actions. Morality functions according to the abstract categories without the slightest fundamental relations to nature or society. Further, as we saw earlier, Christian morality is burdened by resentment. The believer accepts his own debasement in exchange for the hope that others may also be debased.

And what does the Bible have to offer humanity?  Withdrawal and humility, a trembling fear of crossing into the world and making the world and ourselves our own. This is God’s space, not the space of humanity. Attempting to build a supernature is the work of the Devil. Humanity’s best efforts are in the service of obedience and resentment against those who make something of themselves as Hypatia did before being murdered by the Christian mob.

Monotheism as Violent
De Benoist reminds us that Yahweh is more ruthless against those who excite His jealously than against those who deny His existence. Yahweh demands the desecration of pagans in an act of violent censorship. A record of Yahweh’s genocide:

• deluge against humanity;
• David Moses – genocide of the Midianite people;
• Joshua massacred the inhabitants of Hazor and Anakim;
• Christians murdered Julian and Hypatia;
• ban on pagan cults;
• destruction of temples and statues;
• suppression of the Olympic games and
• the pillage of Alexandra library’s 700,000 volumes.

The governor of the universe turns out to be an absolute monarch. For Oswald Spengler, monotheism is the product of a particular psyche that from about 300 BCE led to a specific “Magen concept” of a world that has another world as a double and is ruled by absolute good and evil. De Benoist throws down the gauntlet with Nietzsche and claims that Europe’s  conversion to Christianity was one of most catastrophic events in world history. Mexican author Octavio Paz, a polytheist, describes monotheism similarly. Bernard Oudin claims monotheism is the very source of totalitarianism in his book The Faith That Kills. Gilbert Durand writes that the unique worship of a unidimensional meaning of history is aligned with totalitarian logic.

Table 2 below is a summary of political theology:

Comparative Political Theology

De Benoist Criticism of Neopaganism
The home of Neopaganism is England and the United States beginning with German romanticism in the late 18th century. Benoist starts out by acknowledging that there are some well-respected, serious scholars within Neopaganism who have a genuine knowledge of ancient pagan religions and their publications are sometimes well done.

However, he finds their practice in ritual to be “puerile”. First, he claims that there is no continuity between ancient paganism and what is practiced today. For example, the rituals adopted by most modern Druid groups were fabricated out of whole cloth in the 18th century by the Welch scholar Iolo Morganwg (Edward Williams) . Secondly, he criticizes Neopaganism for its eclecticism. For example, he wrote that people in northern path mix runic astrology, Sufism, Eastern spirituality, spiritualism (channeling), theosophy and astral travel. Some groups even try to incorporate Christianity. Thirdly, he criticizes solitary paganism as individualistic and having no roots in the community. In historical paganism the gods do not arise from within the individual. Rather, the individual encounters the gods through earthly nature, its processes and objectifications. In paganism the gods themselves formed a sort of society. You’ll never find yourself alone again. After the work of Eliade and Dumezil ancient pagan religions could no longer be reduced to simple nature cults, nor could they be reduced to pantheism. Lastly, the survival of paganism owes much more to the common people, the peasants and women than to the elites, city dwellers and men.

Summary of De Benoist’s criticisms of neopaganism:

• no continuity between ancient and modern Neopaganism;
• ancient European pagans stuck with local traditions of Indo-Europeans. Neopagans were eclectics mixing West with the near and far East;
• ancient paganism included group rituals, not individual and solitary rituals and
• the survival of paganism was rooted in peasant women – not the paganism of the cities or elite men.

Neopagan Marxian Defense of Neopaganism

As a Marxian Neopagan I disagree with some of this. First, most Neopagans I’ve encountered as are, like many socialists, self-educated rather than academics. People like Margot Aldler, John Michael Greer, Ronald Hutton, Mark Green and Max Dasau are first-rate scholars. They are the rule, not the exception. Secondly, de Benoist ignores the power of the ritualistic element of Neopaganism. He acts as if paganism were only about ideas. There is a powerful social psychology in these rituals and they have transformational power whether you believe in gods and goddesses or not. Third, he lumps together Neopagans with the New Age. Neopagans actively distinguish ourselves from New Agers. My article on the subject identifies as many as 27 differences. Yes, there are gullible Neopagans who confuse wishes with reality and do not understand chance. But gullibility is a normal part of a spectrum in other religions and it is certainly present in politics.

Why Right Wing Pagans Were Not Fascists
When we look at my comparison of pagans to monotheists in Tables 1 and 2, pagans would be  one of the last groups to be accused of fascism. We are imaginative, creative, enthusiastic, self-motivated and anti-authoritarian to a fault. Even if we take into account that there are pagans in the Northern tradition who are racists, being a racist alone doesn’t make a group fascist unless you are part of the US left who uses the term fascist to mean almost anything. Historically there has never been any instance of fascism connected to any pagan society. De Benoist does a good job of putting to rest the connection between the Nazi’s and paganism.

The fable of “Nazi paganism” has been kept perpetually alive for obvious propaganda purposes. Nazi occultism has attracted the attention of weaker minds since The Morning of the Magicians. Naziism is first, the product of modernity. As far back as 1920 Nazi party they were a party of positive Christianity. However, it was as  de-Judaized as possible. Hitler was thinking in terms of what was politically expedient. He knew that his supporters were Catholic or Protestant and greatly mistrusted the volkish or neopagan groups. Paganism was tolerated in the 3rd Reich only to the extent that it remained confined to the private domain and did not conflict with official policy. In private, Hitler reveal himself as much more radical towards the Churches. But the critique of them had nothing pagan about it. It had much to do with straight-out rationalism and scientism. (257)

As it turns out Hitler felt he could work with Christians more than he could with pagans.

What about Monotheism and Fascism?
On the other hand, if you peruse my eleven pathologies earlier in this article there is plenty of material for claiming monotheism is authoritarian at best and fascist at worst. For example:

• monotheism has an authoritarian despot, Yahweh (equivalent to Hitler);
• chosen people, the Jews (equivalent to the Germans);
• a scapegoat, pagan people (equivalent to Jews);
• extreme violence towards other people, genocide, massacres, pillaging (equivalent to murder of Jews by Nazis);
• a combination of masochism in relationship to god and sadism to those beneath them and
• Nietzsche’s resentment, equivalent to Wilhelm Reich’s description of the German working class during Hitler’s time.

In the 20th century the three most famous cases of fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany all had either Catholic or Protestant religions. As for Judaism, what the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians for decades but especially in the past 18 months more than qualifies for fascism. Am I saying monotheism is a necessary or sufficient condition for fascism?  I am saying neither. Monotheism has existed for roughly 2000 years without fascism. In addition, fascism arises under conditions of capitalist crises that is not directly connected to monotheism. However, monotheism is an important ingredient in the emergence and consolidation of fascism. As for the Catholic Church it not only supported fascism in the 20th century but a case could be made that the Catholic Church was a model of organization on which fascism could be built.

If we examine its historical attacks on heretics and witches we clearly have scapegoats. When we peer into its sick pedophilic system of priests molesting little boys; when we examine its theological terror visited upon grammar school children telling them they will burn in hell for masturbating; when we probe into the torturing techniques of the Inquisition, is this not a foundation for building fascism? The CIA learned its torturing technics from the Catholic Church. In terms of scope, all three fascist social movements of the 20th century lasted between one and three decades and was limited to very specific countries. The Catholic Church has refined its techniques for well over 1,000 years and is present not only in Europe but around the world. Monotheism is both a supporter of fascism when fascism came around and, in the case of Catholicism, provided fascism with a model.

This article was posted on Saturday, April 25th, 2026 at 8:00am and is filed under Authoritarianism, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, Judaism, Monarchy, Neo-Paganism, Politics, Psychopathy, Sex/Sexuality, Torture, Violence.