When the religion dies, so dies the empire. Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe, and the faith is no more.
Everyone who resents the destructive, self indulgent, and self destructive rule of the ever more left wing Cathedral, regrets the passing of Christianity, everyone including the secular right, perhaps especially the secular right, and some of them imagine it could be revived, though the remnant be small as a mustard seed.
Before Darwinism, intelligent Christians believed in a creator God in the same way they believed in Mongolia. Intelligent Christians thought seriously about the implications of theology for the observable world, and the implications of the observable world for theology.
After Darwinism, they did not.
Consider for example CS Lewis. He was an intelligent Christian, familiar with the works of intelligent Christians who wrote before Darwin. But he primarily wrote fantasy and science fantasy, without troubling to make his theology consistent with the observable world, or even with itself. When he discussed the worldview of past Christians, he made no effort to reconcile them with recently discovered facts, treating their theories and analyses the same way he treated his science fantasies, not the way they treated their theories and analyses
suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; … There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. … Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater
It was a compelling argument, and those that argued against it, for example proposing that visibly complex well designed organisms such as mice were produced by spontaneous generation were just plain stupid. Spontaneous generation was plausible for creatures such as slimes, that when observed by the means available at the time were seemingly simple, but to propose spontaneous generation for mice, ants, earwigs, and suchlike, was stupidity plain and simple, or clever silliness, intelligent people deliberately making themselves stupid.
Religions based on the worship of a creator God, the worship of Paley’s watchmaker, are dead. They just don’t know it yet.
Darwinism did not cause progressivism. The Puritans and their successors were already well on the road to apostasy before Darwin, but Darwinism weakened Christian resistance to progressive apostasy. Darwinism may not have necessarily caused the progressive victory, but now that the progressives are victorious, and Christians have for the most part capitulated to apostasy, Darwinism makes it hopeless to appeal to Christianity as a force capable of defending society from progressives.
There is an effort to go back to neopaganism, but paganism is deader than Christianity. In practice, efforts to revive paganism dissolve into Zoism. Instead of worshiping the old gods, the neopagans worship themselves and their own irrationality and magical thinking.
The Dharmic religions might have a chance, but Dharmic religions require and endorse social inequality, that some people and entire groups are simply born to an inferior low status role, because of past failure of souls and social groups to perform their duty, thus lack appeal in both progressive societies, which are supposedly egalitarian, and in capitalist societies, in which social mobility occurs in this life, and the self made man, rather than the priest, is the hero. As Judaism and Christianity provide an explanation for nature, the Dharmic religions provide an explanation for an unequal society. (Islam and progressivism do not need to provide explanations for anything, since their method of persuasion is that you had better believe or they will make bad things happen to you)
Dharmic religion adjusted to be compatible with either progressivism or capitalism, let alone both, has no life in it.
What do I believe in?
I believe in the economics of “Economics in One Lesson”, and in Darwinism. Darwinism and Economics can serve the functions that religion served, a position explained in detail in “ Good and Evil from self interest”, “Natural Law and Natural Rights”, “A short demonstration that morality is objectively knowable.” It is an austere faith, with implications that many find brutal, but has the great advantage of compelling evidence, which worship of a creator God once had, but has no longer.
Christianity was always a bit left wing, so once people started competing for power by being holier than the next guy, was bound to wind up in far left apostasy. Christianity remained sane by being ruled by Kings. If one wanted power, it was inadvisable to advertise that one was holier than the King, and the King was seldom all that holy. Saints were respected, admired, and hidden somewhere out far from the corridors of power, in some safe far away place where the amount of damage they could do and embarrassment they could cause was minimal. But in recent times, in The War Between The States, the saints decided that they would govern. Similarly with Britain’s crusade to end slavery.
(You did not know that there was a British crusade to end slavery? Each generation of leftists is apt to demonize the previous generation of leftists as incurably right wing, and the only reason why Lincoln is a progressive hero rather than arch reactionary, is that in the US the war between the states is still a live issue.)
Jesus and Paul’s conservative prescription for sex, sex roles, and marriage is of course exactly what civilization needs, what is needed for civilization, since it maximizes male investment in posterity, but you will notice that both Jesus and Paul go gentle on actually enforcing that prescription, “ He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” foreshadowing the Puritans and their successors abandoning Christian sexual morality, at first covertly, then openly, as they headed ever further left, and became ever more hostile to lower status males and male sexuality. Paul’s prescriptions for giving males higher status than females consisted entirely of symbolic status, satisfying the female hypergamic impulse, thus making monogamous marriage possible for everyone, even lower class Christians, without imposing any real disadvantages or disabilities on females. A really conservative prescription to enable and enforce monogamous marriage against female hypergamy and male polygyny would impose real disabilities on females, granting them, like children, substantially less sexual and reproductive freedom than males and substantially greater protection than males.
A woman who sleeps with a bad boy, or who refuses to sleep with her husband, creates large harmful externalities for other people. We regulate the testicles off people who sell eggs or fermented cabbage. Why do not dishonorable activities that are far more likely to cause harm, and cause far more serious harm, get regulated?
Christian morality, is, as Nietzsche argued, slave morality. Slaves turn the other cheek. The morality burned into our souls by natural selection is that we do good to kin and to those that do good for us, that we do our duty to our friends, associates, and allies, and we destroy our enemies. Far away strangers can look after themselves. One should love oneself, love one’s kith and kin, and for the rest of mankind, return good for good, and evil for evil.
There are no utilitarians. Show me a man who would hold a child’s face in the fire to find the cure for malaria, and I will show you a man who would hold a child’s face in the fire, and forget about trying to cure malaria. It is not in our nature to care about far away outsiders, and those who claim that they care, and that therefore it is their duty to bad things to near people that they may do good things to far people, somehow never get around to doing good things to far people.
Christianity has capitulated to its apostatic spawn, progressivism, because the seeds of progressivism were within it, because it is the nature of Christianity to capitulate, and because the Christian priesthood, like the pagan priesthood in the Roman Empire, does not really believe any more. Read Dalrock’s wonderful indictment of actually existent Christianity: Read his reviews of Courageous and Firebomb, then read this. People plausibly blame the Jews for affirmative action, but it was Christians transitioning to progressivism that are responsible for the War between the States, the dismantling of marriage, and women’s suffrage. Jews pushed the affirmative action bandwagon merely to lefter-than-thou the progressives. A Jewish progressive is a coverso, and thus, hates Jews, like Marx and the Trotskyists.
A lot of us are indignant at the progressive complicity in Islamic aggression against infidels, and compare it unfavorably with the heroic battles of Charles the Hammer, the crusaders, and the colonialists. But there is plenty of ancient precedent for turning the other cheek to Islam.
Despite much manufactured guilt about the supposedly horrible crusaders, Christendom has with the utmost regularity met Islamic aggression with a pacific response and extensive concessions. PC history writes up the Barbary wars as US being imperialistic, failing to notice that every Barbary war was started by Muslims taking white Americans as slaves and concluded with a peace in which the US paid Dar al Islam tribute, which peace was promptly broken after the tribute was received, followed by more white Christian Americans being abducted into slavery, and more demands for more tribute from America to Islam.
The Peace of Vasvár resembles the Oslo accords. Christendom won an overwhelming and decisive victory. Christendom sought to make peace on the basis of that victory. Muslims would not make peace. Christendom gave Muslims land for peace, as if Muslims, rather than Christians, had won the war, with entirely predictable results. There has never been an unequal treaty in favor of Christendom and against Dar al Islam except that Christians, after winning a decisive military victory, proceeded to follow up that victory by horribly mistreating Muslims until surviving Muslims agreed to an unequal peace. There has with great regularity been unequal treaties in favor of Dar al Islam and against Christendom, obtained by the stubborn Muslim refusal to make peace despite defeat, treaties that with great regularity Muslims broke. Over the past thousand years Christians have with great regularity turned the other cheek to Muslims, and with great regularity, promptly got slapped on the other cheek. Yes, progressives have been worse than Christians, but Christians were alarmingly and irrationally pacific. Progressives have taken tendencies that were already visible in Christendom to ever greater extremes. While progressives piously complain that Christians were never true to the anti war position of their religion, they were a lot truer to it than was sane or reasonable.
If you win a military victory, and the opposing side declines to make peace, despite defeat, you really should follow up military victory with indiscriminate rape, pillage, arson, and slaughter, until the other side gets the idea that peace might be a good idea. We have had a thousand years where Christians frequently refrained from rape and to some extent refrained from pillage even when rape and pillage would have been militarily advisable. Politically correct history books list those few pages from history when victorious Christians put the boot into defeated Muslims, glibly leaving out all those times, such as the Barbary wars and the Austro-Turkish War when victorious Christians neglected to put the boot in, a restraint never shown by Muslims, and Christians found their restraint rewarded by further attacks.