Refuting anti-Christian Right

Petr

Administrator


This is indeed a little known fact, that even after massive Jewish uprisings, the pagan Roman authorities allowed the Jews of the Diaspora to keep their Roman citizenship and other privileges.

Edward Gibbon wrote:

https://ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap16.htm#tole

Notwithstanding these repeated provocations, the resentment of the Roman princes expired after the victory, nor were their apprehensions continued beyond the period of war and danger. By the general indulgence of Polytheism, and by the mild temper of Antoninus Pius, the Jews were restored to their ancient privileges, and once more obtained the permission of circumcising their children, with the easy restraint that they should never confer on any foreign proselyte that distinguishing mark of the Hebrew race. (4)
While the Jewish historian Cecil Roth observed how the position of Jews changed once Christians took over:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.88362/page/n49/mode/2up?view=theater

From an early date some [Jews], and, since the Edict of Caracalla all, had been full Roman citizens, suffering from no disabilities. But when authority passed into the hands of the zealous and jealous daughter-religion, with its theories of exclusive salvation, the position of Judaism changed. Its adherents, from being in a position almost of privilege, were now reduced to one of inferiority, which ultimately extended not only to the political but also to the economic field. In the end, they were brought down to the level of social outcasts and, in our own day, the attempts made to redress the balance caused the reaction which led to the phenomenon of antisemitism with all its appalling results.
It is true that Constantine, contrary to what is popularly believed, did not himself embrace Christianity at the time of the Edict of Milan; it is true, too, that for some time to come there was no actual legislation against Judaism as such, its position under the pagan emperors being nominally maintained. Nevertheless, the changed atmosphere soon became apparent in the administrative vocabulary, which by now had in mind the Jews of the Diaspora – including Italy – more than those of half-deserted Palestine. The “highly distinguished religion, of indubitable legality” did not become illegal, but it began to be referred to in imperial enactments as a “sacrilegious gathering” or “nefarious sect” – a change of attitude which the executive faithfully maintained. In 315, its adherents were threatened with burning if they dared to persecute those who had deserted their fold for “the faith of the true God.” The old imperial legislation against seduction to the monotheistic faiths was renewed, but against them alone, converts and those who won them over being threatened with the death penalty. Even intermarriage between Jews and Christians, unless of course the former abandoned their faith, became a capital offense.
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
And what the French Revolution, which was to a great extent inspired by "pagan" or neoclassical sentiments, did was basically returning the Jews to that social position they had enjoyed in the time period between Caracalla and Constantine - that is, full citizens in a society that was officially dechristianized.

Conservative Christians back then were outraged by this, and saw it as a manifestation of Antichrist spirit:


Tsar Alexander of Russia, protested violently against the liberation of the Jews and encouraged the Orthodox Church in Moscow to protest aggressively. He called Napoleon the "Anti Christ and the enemy of God" because he liberated the Jews. Austria also protested. In Prussia, the Lutheran Church was extremely hostile towards Napoleon's decision and reaction in Italy was also not favourable but not as aggressive.
A most venomous attack on the Sanhedrin came from the "Holy Synod" of Moscow, which issued an open manifesto against the Sanhedrin. This proclamation dated December 1806 states: "In order to bring about a debasement of the Church, he (Napoleon) has convened to Paris the Jewish Synagogue, restored the dignity of the Rabbis and founded a new Sanhedrin."
 

Petr

Administrator
Yet another example of traditional Christian theology and Fascism co-inciding:



Martin Luther, in his letter to the Duke of Saxony, wrote along a similar theme in 1523. He argues that the Prince must be “wiser than his jurists” and must know “more than is in the law-books.” After all, Luther quotes from Proverbs 28:16, “A prince that wanteth understanding will oppress many with injustice.” He notes that “no matter how good and equitable the laws are, they all make an exception in the case of necessity, in the face of which they cannot insist upon being strictly enforced.” Luther is an Exception Respecter.
...​
Martin Luther therefore understands that when faced with extraordinary circumstance, Protestant Franco isn’t to be categorically rejected: for political affairs are all about determinations between real-world alternatives.
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
The more knowledgeable Nietzscheans, like this "Uberboyo," are very aware that Roman decadence had started already centuries before Constantine:


 

Petr

Administrator
"Fade the Butcher" walks down the memory lane, and tells of his experiences in the 2010s Alt Right movement that came to a more or less inglorious end - and I think we can objectively say that what "Christian Nationalists" (with all their deficiencies) are today accomplishing is already better than what neo-Nietzschean nitwits like Richard Spencer could ever do.

Indeed, it was the lack of stable moral core, which can come only from faith in God, what doomed these guys, as they relied largely just on their own egoistic pride to get by, which eventually was not enough:


Let’s run through the reasons why the original Alt-Right collapsed and why the contrarians who want to bring it back are acting on an impulse in search of an ideology.
1. Attention Seeking – I had a front row seat to the collapse of Alt-Right 1.0. I have also had years to reflect on our mistakes. A big part of the reason why the Alt-Right collapsed in 2017/2018 was the Richard Spencer College Tour which in retrospect was about nothing but self promotion. The big idea here was to fill the void left behind by the implosion of MILO by leapfrogging from campus to campus to stir up a ruckus so that we could play free speech victims in the media and sue universities.
Richard Spencer came to Auburn in 2017, not to persuade anyone here of anything, but to launch into a diatribe about sportsball at an SEC school. It ended with his supporters getting chased off of campus that night. There were several fights with Antifa and students. A friend of mine went to jail that night. The same thing happened at the University of Florida and Michigan State. Spencer responded to the disruption by announcing to the world that “Antifa is winning” and by blaming his supporters.
As a tactic, it was expensive and divisive. It demoralized the movement while strengthening the opposition. It hurt people who supported the movement who were either doxxed and lost their jobs or who were arrested or who came away from it with medical bills. At least two people who attended the University of Florida event went to prison. Cameron Padgett, who booked these events for Spencer, was countersued and committed suicide after sinking into debt and relapsing into drug abuse.
Does anyone even remember anything profound that Spencer said in his speeches at these events? No, the point was simply to get his name in newspapers. He wanted to be famous. That was it. Vanity was the core of this ill conceived project which brought down the movement.
2. Personnel Decisions – There is a reason why I chose to include Evan McLaren in the featured image of this article. In the Alt-Right 1.0 days, McLaren was the executive director of NPI and Richard Spencer’s handpicked right hand man before he became a shitlib turncoat and handed over all the personal information of everyone who had been associated with NPI to his Antifa friends on Twitter. You can find him on there these days groveling to those people and raging against the Right.
Disloyalty reigned at the top level in Alt-Right institutions. Why would anyone be foolish enough to trust those people and go down the same road with them again?
3. Cultivating Liberal Journos – Richard Spencer had a bizarre obsession with cultivating liberal journalists like Elle Reeve and Rosie Gray. This led to fiasco after fiasco that steadily deflated and winnowed the movement: Heilgate, Charlottesville III when Spencer returned to Charlottesville with a CNN camera crew after the Unite the Right rally, the New York Times expose of Eli Mosley’s stolen valor, etc.
The coda to Alt-Right 1.0 was the interview that Spencer gave to Elle Reeve during the Charlottesville trial when even she appeared to be baffled by his lack concern for the well being of the people who came to his events. “It should have just been about Richard Spencer” summed up the whole era.
Literally no one was attracted to the movement because Spencer was reaching converts on CNN or constantly sucking up to liberal reporters from The Atlantic, BuzzFeed or VICE News.
4. Playing the Villain – As the public face of the Alt-Right, Richard Spencer played the role of a Bond villain for the media. The punch in the face at the Trump inauguration gave Antifa a big boost. The video that he released in which he complained that “Antifa is winning” gave them another big boost. He was caught on tape screaming “I rule the world” in a meltdown after Charlottesville. This is the same person who later came to the Sines v. Kessler trial with a stuffed animal for emotional support.
5. Burning Bridges – As Keith Woods once quipped, Richard Spencer has a lost a hundred friends and burned a thousand bridges and none of them are his fault. It would be a cheap shot to point to how his marriage ended or his breakup with Megan Bobonick, but it is all part of the same pattern. He simply had no talent in leadership or management and burned through his relationships. Political success requires doing exactly the opposite. No wonder the Alt-Right fragmented and collapsed.
6. Scorned Women – At the height of Alt-Right 1.0, I was puzzled about why Spencer lived in Alexandria, VA and his wife lived in Whitefish, MT with his kids. I wasn’t surprised to learn that he was screwing around with groupies like Samantha Froelich who testified against him in the Sines v. Kessler trial or running around with Megan Bobonick who was some kind of academic researcher. This is just one of many examples that come to mind of the moral void that brought down the movement.
7. AltRight.com – There was no bigger nerd in the Alt-Right with delusions of grandeur than Jason Jorjani who created AltRight.com with Spencer. It was all part of Jorjani’s master plan in which he would be installed as the leader of the Alt Right and play a central role in the restoration of the Persian Empire and the de-Islamization of Iran. This was supposed to be funded by a mysterious figure known only as “X” through “a multi-billion dollar black budget for a classified project to be implemented by the Trump Administration.” It all fell apart when the promised funds never materialized.
8. Negative Definitions – The Alt-Right defined itself as a big tent space outside the pre-Trump Conservatism, Inc. consensus. It was originally a space where White Nationalists rubbed shoulders with paleoconservatives and libertarians in the George W. Bush era. It was conceived as a means for White Nationalists to reach a larger audience. If there was anything of substance at the core of the original Alt-Right, it was White Nationalism or what Richard Spencer called Identitarianism.
In 2024, the contrarians who want to give “Alt-Right 2.0” a whirl have abandoned White Nationalism and Identitarianism. Paleoconservatism is ascendant. Reactionaries are influential. Libertarians have a voice in Congress. White identity politics is increasingly mainstream meat and potatoes discourse on the Right. National Socialists remain as marginalized as ever. There is no longer any ossified conservative establishment to challenge like the tottering dinosaur that was Reaganism in 2012.
By defining itself in purely negative terms against True Conservatism, the incoherent Alt-Right was always destined to disintegrate once those people were toppled from power. There is no need for an Alt-Right or Dissident Right when White identity politics is simply the Online Right in 2024.
9. Pseudo-Intellectuals, Dandies and Dilettantes – Far from offering “intellectual seriousness,” Alt-Right 1.0 is remarkable for producing virtually nothing of intellectual substance, and particularly Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publishers. The lowbrow popular version of the Alt-Right on 4chan, YouTube, Daily Stormer and TRS was even less intellectual.
Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis did all the heavy lifting in fleshing out a nationalist vision and political agenda. Jared Taylor and the race realists like J. Philippe Rushton were around long before the Alt-Right. Identitarianism was borrowed from the European New Right. Peter Brimelow and VDARE had been pushing for immigration restriction since the 1990s. Even the accelerationist mass shooters were inspired by James Mason’s SIEGE. Spencer gestured at vague Nietzschean platitudes.
10. The Lowbrow Alt-Right – In its heyday, Alt-Right 1.0 was known for Nazi toilet humor, gas chamber memes, trolling journos on Twitter, sonnenrads, Pepe the Frog, anime, Kekistan flags and parody songs, not original groundbreaking ideas. When this culture came offline into the real world, it produced gladiators like Based Stick Man. Ten years later, most people who were amused by that have matured. It looks juvenile and ephemeral to grown men who are now in their late thirties and forties.
Is it all Richard Spencer’s fault?
No, he is simply a rich target. He also isn’t wrong about a lot of things.
11. Incels – In Spencer’s view, he was slumming with losers and ankle biters – low status White men who are incapable of attracting women – who brought him down in Charlottesville and pushed him aside in its wake. He tried to lead those people. He more or less jumped in front of the crowd and tried to ride the wave in an effort to become famous. There is a kernel of truth to this.
While Richard Spencer had created the original Alternative Right website, he quickly lost interest in the project and had a bitter falling out with his colleagues. He ditched the Alternative Right in favor of Radix Journal and hosting NPI conferences. The true social base of the 2015/2016 Alt-Right emerged out of Gamergate and was centered on 4chan and cultivated by Daily Stormer and TRS.
There really was an insurrection against Spencer after Charlottesville that was led by angry manlet types like Weev, Beardson Beardly, Nick Fuentes and Andrew Anglin. Those people also took over the main body of the movement in 2018 and increasingly defined it in terms of their resentments about women. Weev would post psychotic rants about his desire to beat and rape women. Andrew Anglin spent years celebrating Elliot Rodger. Fuentes would come on his show and talk about burning women at the stake.
In retrospect, why would anyone want to go down the same road again in light of how it turned out? This is another reason why we don’t need an Alt-Right 2.0. At a time when White identity politics is increasingly mainstream, why would you want to attract legions of bitter, marginal, sexually frustrated losers? Spencer is correct that to a large degree this is what the movement always was.
12. Censorship – Alt-Right 1.0 rose and fell with the tides of social media censorship on Twitter and YouTube. As with the pre-Trump conservative establishment, the conditions which facilitated the rise of the original movement no longer exist. It is a different world now.
13. Third Reich Nostalgia – I’m tired of rebrands.
White Nationalism was a rebrand. The Alt-Right was a rebrand. Identitarianism was a rebrand. The Dissident Right was a rebrand. As the TRS / NJP saga shows, no list of why Alt-Right 1.0 failed would be complete without bringing up the cycle of how the movement always returns to its origins of George Lincoln Rockwell trolling the normies on a street corner.
The movement is like an alcoholic. After a major failure or collapse, it will sober up, rebrand and promise to be a new me. A new guy will come along who will promise good optics and success in mainstream politics. A few years later, the same guy will be throwing up Roman salutes or praising Hitler. Everyone in the organization will turn on everyone else. See NJP and America First.
14. Antisocial Personality Types – I can already hear it now.
Sure, White identity politics is increasingly mainstream. The taboo on criticizing Israel is beginning to erode. Immigration restriction couldn’t be more mainstream. Nationalism is no longer the preserve of edgelords. Pretty much everything we used to say we wanted has gained traction.
But … CHRISTIANITY IS A JEWISH PLOT.
For lots of people who were involved in Alt-Right 1.0, the marginalization was the point. Being a fringe edgelord was their whole reason for getting involved in the scene in the first place. Political success and normalization is by definition the worst possible outcome for these types. They were in it to shock the normies or for the contrarian hot takes. They enjoyed being outrageous.
Outrageousness has a low ceiling. We need the support of boring, normal people.
15. Contrarians – This brings me to the contrarians who want an Alt-Right 2.0.
These people have an itch to scratch. They are driven by an impulse, not an ideology. When neocons were the conservative establishment, they were for White Nationalism, HBD, populism, anti-globalism, immigration restriction and so on. But today, they have rejected White Nationalism and HBD and want free trade, mass immigration, a neocon foreign policy to weaken Russia, etc.
The same people who were marching through Charlottesville with tiki torches and beating the drum of Identitarianism a few years ago have become accounts like this Twitter:
I don’t know about you.
I’m too old for this though.
My two sons are Generation Alpha.
I want them to grow up in a world where pro-White politics has been normalized. Winning metapolitical battles on the Right also isn’t enough. It is a small consolation prize. The ship is still sinking even if some conservatives are grudgingly coming around to our point of view.
We can’t afford to spend another decade goofing off and shooting ourselves in the foot. Trolling epileptic libs with strobe lights on Twitter is great for giggles, but we have work to do.
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
Nick Fuentes, for his part, is like a transitional figure between this failed Alt-Right 1.0 and Christian Nationalism:


Try to imagine almost any other WN 1.0, Alt-Right / Dissident Right figure being casted in the same role: Alex Linder, Harold Covington, Richard Spencer, NoWhiteGuilt, Kyle Hunt, Matt Heimbach, Mike Enoch, Sven, Eric Striker, Andrew Anglin, Nick Fuentes, BAP. Could any of these figures sit in front a camera and do what Tucker and Matt Walsh have done with a mass audience without coming across as eccentric?
Fuentes has an advantage here. He is one of the very few Alt-Right / Dissident Right figureheads who isn’t hostile to Christianity and over 80% of the potential audience. Baby Hitler has his own limitations though. He identifies as an incel and talks about burning women at the stake.
 

Petr

Administrator
One other area of friction between conservative Christians and "Secular Right" is that these latter ones are readier to contemplate such measures that Christian sense of morality might not easily accept - like, say, using rape as a way of disciplining women. Not so outlandish as it may seem: in many premodern cultures, and still today among Muslims, females who are perceived to have behaved in an immoral manner can be gang-raped as a punishment.

The principle is illustrated here:

GJ6F9wlWkAA3GXp


Non-PC Christians like me cannot help feeling that such Antifa bitches might well deserve what they are asking for. But our moral prejudices still linger...

A historical illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the Spanish Civil War - even though I myself would not want to rape, it still somehow appeals to my sense of justice that such women who tout whoring "free love" principles would not deserve to be protected by the chivalrous sentiments of men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gende...democratic_transition#Gonzalo_Queipo_de_Llano

Queipo de Llano had a radio program, where he said of the mass rape which occurred in Seville, "Our brave legionaries and regulars have taught the cowards of the reds what it means to be a man. And, by the way, also to women. After all, these communists and anarchists deserve it, have not they been playing free love? Now at least they will know what real men are and not sissy militiamen. They will not fight, no matter how hard they struggle and kick."[22][7][24][2]
Después de todo, estas comunistas y anarquistas se lo merecen, ¿no han estado jugando al amor libre?
 

Petr

Administrator
Fade continues settling his scores with the failed fops of Alt Right 1.0:


In the interview, Evan McLaren describes how he able to ascend to the apex of the Alt-Right. He was the leader of the institution. He describes finding a void of vision and leadership at the top of the movement which started and ended with people like Spencer and McLaren. They spent their day in the sun lingering around cigar shops in DC and the bar at the Trump Hotel where Spencer liked to go to scope out young women. Spencer left his Russian wife and children back home at his parents house in Montana. Rumors have circulated for years that he screwed the girlfriends of his top lieutenants.
The interview with Evan McLaren confirms the gut instincts of ordinary conservatives about these guys. These two clowns never had any connection to the Trump administration. They were essentially looking through the glass at people like Stephen Miller and Nigel Farage. They were eager to play useful idiots for the media to get on television. Spencer was willing to play a Bond villain for CNN and The Atlantic. He was the guy who was punched in the face by Antifa. He was the guy crying about how Antifa was winning. He was the go to guy who was invited back on CNN to endorse Joe Biden in 2020.
In Lord Spencer’s view, ordinary conservatives are peasants. They are beneath him. They are dumb because they don’t see the value of babbling in vague platitudes about Nietzsche in Twitter spaces and on college campuses. He went to graduate school at Duke to acquire this skill set. These people have productive jobs and invest their time in their families. Unlike Spencer, they have spent their lives building wealth and nurturing relationships. They aren’t driven by narcissism and a sense of entitlement. They are also Christians and value humility which is the exact opposite of Spencer’s course in life.
As for Evan, he repeatedly describes himself as a weak, insecure man and a natural follower who passively absorbs the views of others in the interview. This difference in temperament, character and background explains his reaction to Charlottesville. Stronger men who fared much worse shrugged it off, bounced back and moved forward with their lives. Effeminate spoiled brats couldn’t handle the pressure, cracked and blamed everyone but themselves.
 

Petr

Administrator
Of course one can find also conservative (or "conservative") Christians who have sold out to the System. But I dare say it would be challenging to find a Christian Dissident Rightist, who had adopted a consciously confrontational attitude towards "the world," who would then go crawling back for the approval of that world.

But I guess it could happen to anyone. Here is an example of a Persian (who converted to Romanism) who first made his name by bashing a cuckservative-wimp Evangelical, and is now on the same path as him:


A high-profile dispute between Ahmari and National Review writer David French broke out over the summer of 2019 as a result of the publication of Ahmari's polemic "Against David French-ism", sparking numerous essays and commentaries in politically conservative publications like National Review and The American Conservative,[26] as well as in moderate and progressive outlets like The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic.[27]
The dispute began on May 26, 2019, when Ahmari expressed on Twitter his frustration with a Facebook advertisement for a children's drag queen reading hour at a library in Sacramento, California, which he described as "transvestic fetishism". In the tweet, Ahmari argued that there is no "polite, David French-ian third way around the cultural civil war".[28]

 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
But there are some historical precedents for "Nietzscheans selling out," and this one was a much bigger fish than the pretentious fop Richard Spencer - Mikhail Tuchachevsky, who was actually born into an aristocratic family, seems to have had pretty aggressively "right-wing heathen" views in his youth, but what he really loved was clearly power (and violence) for its own sake, and that is how he ended up becoming a ruthlessly effective henchman of the Bolshevik regime, probably dreaming of becoming the new Napoleon - but the former seminarian Stalin took him out first.

In other words, here is a fine specimen of the sort of moral vacuum that aristocrats without Christian influence could end up in; such people can become sheer barbarian brutes (if they do not turn into mere decadent hedonists) fighting for the highest bidder, and even profess, for the sake of their career, egalitarian doctrines they do not really believe in, like Tuchachevsky learned to spout Bolshevik dogma:


Tukhachevsky was born at Alexandrovskoye, Safonovsky District (in the present-day Smolensk Oblast of Russia), into a family of impoverished hereditary nobles.[6]
...
At the outset of the First World War he joined the Semyenovsky Guards Regiment (July 1914) as a second lieutenant, declaring:
I am convinced that all that is needed in order to achieve what I want is bravery and self-confidence. I certainly have enough self-confidence.... I told myself that I shall either be a general at thirty, or that I shall not be alive by then.[10]
Taken prisoner by the Imperial German Army in February 1915, Tukhachevsky escaped four times from prisoner-of-war camps and was finally held as an incorrigible escapee in Ingolstadt fortress in Bavaria.[11]
Fluent in French, there he met Le Monde journalist Remy Roure and shared a cell with Captain Charles de Gaulle.[12] Tukhachevsky played his violin, assailed nihilist beliefs and spoke against Christians and Jews, whom he called dogs who "spread their fleas throughout the world".[13] Later in various works he made Russians familiar with De Gaulle's military thinking.[14] Roure, under the pseudonym of Pierre Fervacque, wrote about his encounter with Tukhachevsky. He reported that Tukhachevsky highly praised Napoleon, and also in a certain conversation, Tukhachevsky said he hated Jews for bringing Christianity and the "morality of capital" to Russia.[15] Roure then asked him if he was a socialist, and he replied:
Socialist? Certainly not! What a need for classification you have! Besides, the great socialists are Jews and the socialist doctrine is a branch of universal Christianity. I laugh at money, and whether the land is divided up or not is all one to me. The barbarians, my ancestors, lived in common, but they had chiefs. No, I detest socialists, Jews, and Christians.
According to Roure, Tukhachevsky said that he would only follow Lenin if he "de-europeanised and threw Russia into barbarism", but feared Lenin would not do that. After ranting about how he could use Marxism as a justification to secure the territorial aims of the Tsars and cement Russia's position as a world power, he laughed and said he was only joking. Roure said the laugh had an ironic and despairing tone.[15]
In another, different occasion, following the February Revolution, Roure observed Tukhachevsky carving a "scary idol from colored cardboard", with "burning eyes", a "gaping mouth", and a "bizarre and terrible nose". He inquired about its purpose, to which Tukhachevsky responded:[16]
"This is Perun. A powerful person. This is the god of war and death." And Mikhail knelt down before him with comic seriousness. I burst out laughing. "Don't laugh," he said, getting up from his knees. - I told you that the Slavs need a new religion. They are given Marxism, but there is too much modernism and civilization in this theology. (...) There is Dazhbog - the god of the Sun, Stribog - the god of the Wind, Veles - the god of arts and poetry, and finally, Perun - the god of thunder and lightning. After some deliberation, I settled on Perun, since Marxism, having won in Russia, will unleash merciless wars between people. I will honor Perun every day."
Tukhachevsky's apparent neo-paganism was also corroborated by another prisoner at Ingolstadt, Nikolay Alexandrovich Tsurikov [ru], who recalled that he once saw a "scarecrow" in the corner of Tukhachevsky's cell, and upon asking him as to what it was, Tukhachevsky responded (to what Tsurikov interpreted as heavy sarcasm), that it was an effigy of Yarilo (the Slavic god of vegetation, fertility and springtime), which he had created during Shrovetide.[17]
Tukhachevsky never denied, and later even confirmed, these stories about his imprisonment in Germany, but always said that he was politically immature in 1917 and greatly regretted his early views. In France 1936, when confronted with what Roure wrote about him, he said that he had read his book and stated the following:
I was still very young... a novice at politics, and all I knew about revolutions was the last phase of the citizens' revolution in France: the Bonapartism whose military triumphs filled me with boundless admiration. (...) I never think of my views at Ingolstadt without regretting them, since they could cause doubts about my devotion to the Soviet motherland. I'm taking advantage of our reunion to tell you my true feelings.[15]
Whether or not Tukhachevsky really gave up on his old views, the assertion that he was a fully-fledged Bolshevik by the time he joined them is considered to be most likely not true.[15]
Tukhachevsky's fifth escape met with success, and after crossing the Swiss-German border, carrying with him some small pagan idols,[17] he returned to Russia in September 1917. Following the October Revolution of 1917, Tukhachevsky joined the Bolsheviks and went on to play a key role in the Red Army despite his noble ancestry.
...
According to Tukhachevsky's close confidant Leonid Sabaneyev, in 1918, when he was in the service of the Military Department of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, in his last overt display of neopaganism, Tukhachevsky drew up a project for destruction of Christianity and restoration of Slavic paganism. To this end, Tukhachevsky submitted a memo on declaring paganism as the state religion of the RSFSR, which although mocked, also received some serious discussion in the Small Council of People's Commissars, which commended Tukhachevsky for his "joke" and his commitment to atheism. Sabaneyev observed that Tukhachevsky seemed "as happy as a schoolboy who had just succeeded in a prank."[18]


But isn't that what post-Christian neopagans usually are - mere "unruly schoolboys" who think that heathen rites would be a fine way of thumbing their nose at conservative Christian authorities, and not because they would have any living faith in them?
 
Last edited:
Top