Such a good piece. Feel like I just got a full credit in Classics. Def. feel this--raised Presbyterian, and Quaker for a period. Felt at home in both traditions. Now, I walk past all these churches in downtown Toronto with their Progressive Pride flags and feel grief--and I'm fucking gay. But when I read the Odyssey I found myself thinking, "yes! YES!"
I’m grateful you took the time to write this thorough and well thought-out essay. I should say though that this caught my attention.
“Roman Hellenism was never a universalist religion. It arose from the religious and metaphysical grammar of the Indo-European world. This includes the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Celtic and Germanic peoples. Their traditions share a deep structural kinship by origin.”
True as far as it goes, but from early to late, Greek and Roman religion were heavily influenced by the Semitic East and the traditions of the indigenous people there when the IE peoples arrived. Classical Greek religion was by far the least characteristically IE of the lot; Roman religious practice derived greatly from the non-IE Etruscans, etc. in its later stages, Greco-Roman religious practice had been absorbing eastern ideas for centuries, everything from Nabatean Solar Monotheism to Zoroastrian-derived Mithraism to the Cult of Isis, and so on. To the degree it can be called a distinct religion, it’s that of a polyglot, multiracial, multiethnic empire.
Thank you for taking the time to engage seriously with the essay. I am a big fan of your writing.
Your observations about eastern influences on Roman and Greek religion are historically accurate, but I find they miss the central point I was making. There is a difference between the political reality of a diverse empire and the metaphysical structure of its religious worldview. Roman Hellenism did indeed incorporate and acknowledge many deities from other traditions, but it did so without undermining its own inherited order.
When I speak of Roman Hellenism as Indo-European in structure, I am referring to the deep theological and philosophical grammar that shaped its cosmology. This includes the tiered structure of the world, the presence of sacred law, the role of ancestral piety, the symbolic centrality of fire and sky, and the elevation of reason and virtue in shaping the soul. These elements are present in Vedic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Roman, and Persian traditions, and they are not accidental. They emerge from a common civilizational and linguistic heritage. Roman Hellenism maintained this structure even while absorbing local or foreign deities.
The incorporation of Isis, Mithras, or other foreign cults did not imply that Rome surrendered its metaphysical framework. These cults were adapted and placed within Roman religious categories. They were not positioned as exclusive revelations that claimed to overturn the Roman order. Even the most exotic cults that found a home in the empire were subject to Roman law and ritual norms. They were cults of place and occasion, not demands for total conversion.
Etruscan influence is acknowledged, but even this aligns with the Roman concern for auspices, priestly hierarchy, and public rite. These features do not contradict the Indo-European core.
Roman Hellenism, as I argue for it, does not claim to be the only valid path for every culture on earth. It is not a system that denies the spiritual experiences of others. It is instead a religion that makes sense for the descendants of the civilizations that lived within that Indo-European grammar. It is a claim of metaphysical correspondence. Shinto speaks to the Japanese soul. Hinduism speaks to the Indian soul. Roman Hellenism speaks to those European ancestors who were formed by the Greco-Roman world and its cognates. The empire may have been polyglot and multiethnic. The religion, at its core, remained structured by an older and deeper pattern.
But that’s the thing; the religious metaphysics of the Greeks and Romans were heavily altered by their contact with indigenous people and the East. Typically in IE religions, for example, one sees at least the remains of the various cults evidence of a tripartite structure- gods of Sovereignty, War, and Agriculture. The first is a divine pair: Mitra-Varuna for the Indo-Aryans, Odin-Tyr for the Germanics, Jupiter- Dius Fidius for the Ancient Romans. Zeus is not this, but rather is a sole supreme god associated with thunder, which everywhere else belongs to the war god in the second function (Thor, Indra). Zeus is basically Marduk (from Babylonia) in the Theogony, a work that takes its story and its metaphysics from ancient Semitic polytheism. Hades is more analogous to the Hebrew Sheol than the metempsychosis envisioned by the more purely IE Celts. The Capitoline Triad was once Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus, reflecting the original IE ideology, but it was replaced very early by an Etruscanized Jupiter-Juno-Minerva. Even in the later stages, ideas like Stoicism (Zeno, Semite) and thaumaturgy (Iamblichus, Semite) challenged remaining traditional conceptions of the gods. It’s only late and under all of this foreign influence that the gods of the Greeks and Romans were rationalized into abstract cosmic and moral forces.
Brother, the claim that Greco-Roman religion lost its Indo-European character through Eastern or indigenous influence is historically weak. The original Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus follows the Indo-European tripartite structure. Jupiter retains his place as sky-father and sovereign, and the Greco-Roman tradition simply combines roles that Northern Indo-European cultures split apart. This is a variation in expression, not evidence of outside influence.
The comparison of Zeus to Marduk is philologically and mythologically baseless. Zeus stems from the PIE *Dyeus, with cognates in Vedic and Italic religion. The succession myth in Hesiod is not uniquely Semitic. It is a common Indo-European motif. Likewise, Hades cannot be equated to Sheol. The Greco-Roman underworld is complex and moral, with Elysium, Tartarus, and reincarnation present in Orphic and Platonic sources.
The later triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva reflected political and civic change, not religious corruption. Roman religion adapted but did not lose its metaphysical foundation. Foreign cults were acknowledged but never displaced the Olympians.
Stoicism and Neoplatonism were not foreign grafts. Neoplatonism is the theological development of Roman Hellenism. Figures like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were religious men working within the tradition. They defended ritual, upheld the reality of the gods, and interpreted myth with philosophical depth. They did not reduce the gods to abstractions. They gave expression to truths already present.
These points are all addressed in the essay. Your critique misrepresents both the historical facts and the argument itself.
“Brother, the claim that Greco-Roman religion lost its Indo-European character through Eastern or indigenous influence is historically weak. The original Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus follows the Indo-European tripartite structure. Jupiter retains his place as sky-father and sovereign, and the Greco-Roman tradition simply combines roles that Northern Indo-European cultures split apart. This is a variation in expression, not evidence of outside influence.
[Saying it “lost” its character is a bit much; its character evolved as it made contact with non-IE peoples, as happened everywhere else.
“Yes, archaic Roman religion originally reflected IE structures. Then it change, under foreign influence. If the original triad is a manifest reflection of one theology, a replacement triad would at least suggest a new one. The Roman historians themselves (Livy, extensively) writes of the debt the Romans had to the Etruscans- priestly colleges, methods of divination, the way the gods were depicted and conceptualized, etc.)]
“The comparison of Zeus to Marduk is philologically and mythologically baseless. Zeus stems from the PIE *Dyeus, with cognates in Vedic and Italic religion. The succession myth in Hesiod is not uniquely Semitic. It is a common Indo-European motif. Likewise, Hades cannot be equated to Sheol. The Greco-Roman underworld is complex and moral, with Elysium, Tartarus, and reincarnation present in Orphic and Platonic sources.
[Yes, the NAME (not yelling; it won’t let me italicize) is IE and cognate with a mostly defunct deity with little in the way of extant myth. But the content of the cult of Zeus, by way Hesiod at least, owes a direct debt to the Enuma Elish, probably by way of the Hittites and Luwians. The primordial castration, the dynastic succession of the gods, Zeus’ fight with Typhon- they’re all non-IE and draw directly, sometimes in inescapably obvious ways, from stories that go back even beyond the Babylonians. And I should say cults of Zeus rather than cult, as there were variant practices around Zeus that derived from very different sources- Cretan Zeus, with his cthonic elements, the bizarre Zeus Lukaios of Arcadia, of Pelasgian origin- there are a lot of Zeuses.
The Hades with all the layers and ironic punishments is late. The Homeric heroes were grey shades in a place Saul would have recognized]
“The later triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva reflected political and civic change, not religious corruption. Roman religion adapted but did not lose its metaphysical foundation. Foreign cults were acknowledged but never displaced the Olympians.
[There was no one single metaphysical foundation. The unity you see, to the degree it could ever have said to be there, was late and the product of a conscious effort on the part of intellectuals to define themselves against more comprehensive competitors (Manichaeanism, Christianity, even Judaism to a degree). “Corruption” is a loaded term; it changed]
“Stoicism and Neoplatonism were not foreign grafts. Neoplatonism is the theological development of Roman Hellenism. Figures like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were religious men working within the tradition. They defended ritual, upheld the reality of the gods, and interpreted myth with philosophical depth. They did not reduce the gods to abstractions. They gave expression to truths already present.
[The Neoplatonists obviously drew heavily on Plato, but the influences upon them were diverse (Buddhism, Gnosticism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.) and their beliefs reflected an intellectual world rooted in a very small circle of educated elites. Claiming them as representative of a single continuous tradition going back to IE roots is tenuous historically, especially given that they tended to be easterners themselves (Ammonius Saccas was an Egyptian dockworker who knew Origen).]
“These points are all addressed in the essay. Your critique misrepresents both the historical facts and the argument itself.
It seems that, according to the theories of the late Gmirkin and the Copenhagen school, the Pentateuch originally come about as national literary epic (like the Aeneid or Shahnameh) for the Judean and Samaritan subjects of the Ptolemies. The corpus was first written down by scribes during the early Hellenistic era, in Alexandria, likely under the patronage of Ptolemy II Philadelpus; though obviously many of the source materials that went into its composition were much older. It was only later (probably during the Hasmonean period) that the Torah was re-imagined as a "holy scripture" that came down from above. What we know today as "Judaism" started out as the nationalistic ideology of the rebel faction that led the Yahwist revolt against Greek rule.
In addition to this are the Elephantine documents that clearly show that the Judean and Samaritan communities of the Persian period engaged in practices that the (later) Torah clearly condemns, including eating pork and practicing Polytheism. The documents show that as late as the 400s BCE, it will still kosher to venerate deities like Anat alongside Yahweh. These facts clearly show that the Pentateuch / Mosaic ideology either (a) did not yet exist, or (b) was limited to some small fringe sect or intellectual circle that had very little influence over the average Yahwist. The Israeli historian Dr. Gad Barnea has done some amazing work unearthing the historical facts of pre-Hasmonean Yahwish.
These facts simply can't be unseen. We know now that the Hebrew Bible is NOT a history book, certainly not according to any of today's scholarly standards. Biblicist historiography does not come anywhere close to meeting the scientific standards that are applied to pretty much all other historical narratives and histories. The Archaeological evidence of today and the historical accounts from other cultures do not at all support most the pseudo-historical claims the Hebrew Bible males.
Most Christians today (at least in the West) are nearly as materialistic as their secularist counterparts, thus their faith mostly rests on the material claims found in their religion's texts and dogmatic interpretations of those texts. On the contrary, those who understand their religion through mystical, allegorical, and esoteric lenses are a lot less troubled by the fact that the material evidence poorly supports their faith's material narratives.
When a deity and their powers are a spiritual reality first and foremost, then the material trivialities become just that, trivialities. As that old Zen saying goes, If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
We don't have this problem in paganism and pagan philosophy. We don't need to rely on material historical claims to know that our deities are real.
The Pentateuch (i.e. the Torah) predates the Roman Aeneid.
I think what Aeneas and Abraham share is a common Hellenic literary trope regarding mythical founder/colonists of new city states. There are plenty of examples of such Greek legends that the Abraham character was likely modeled after.
They’re not “crank” theories. They just challenge the established orthodoxies of a lot of people. Abrahamic religion is parasitical upon other civilizations. Jan Assmann has shown how Judaism has ZERO original thought but rather steals everything from adjacent civilizations (Persia and Egypt being the most relevant). Then, Jewish people argued the reverse: that Plato stole from Moses (a fictional character). The audacity. We need to zero out the reliance on Semitic thought.
Within the pagan sphere, I am of the mind that we should be following our ethnic faith, and you seem to be Anglo. I can tell you are firm in your resolve, but why didn’t you land on the Germanic faith, which more closely aligns with your ethnic origins?
I am Anglo-Québécois. Our people come from both colonial British and French roots, and are native to southern Quebec. Roman Hellenism was present in Britannia and Gaul. It was practiced and adapted by the local populations. The cults were not foreign impositions. They became part of the land. We wouldn’t ask Anglos or Dutch why they are Catholic even though their ancestors were not originally Latin. It stayed because it offered structure. Roman Hellenism was the most sophisticated and coherent form of European paganism. Christians absorbed its metaphysics and occasionally pretend otherwise.
Many Northern pagans make the mistake of defining their gods only through tribal boundaries. That is a political instinct, not a theological one. The same thing happens in what some now call the Based Church of Trad, which filters scripture through nationalist instincts while ignoring its universalist foundation. The focus shifts from metaphysical truth to ethnic exclusivity. That inevitably breaks down in the spiritual.
Interpretatio Graeca, Interpretatio Romana, and Interpretatio Germanica all existed because Indo-European peoples saw their gods in each other’s myths. These were not separate and rival deities. There are not ten sea gods dividing the oceans. Where does Manannán mac Lir’s power stop and Poseidon’s begin? If a Greek and an Irishman have a child, which sea god rules him? The ancient answer was that these gods were the same divine intelligences. They had different names across kin cultures.
I have been on the dissident right for over a decade. I have seen many lean on Jungian archetypes, invent neopagan mythologies, or treat the Eddas like scripture. Too many have no theology and no metaphysics. That opens the door to Christian conquest within a few generations. While bloodlines are a core component to the practice of faith, and demographics can change them, faith needs more. It must rest on a coherent structure. Roman Hellenism has that. That is why I follow it.
I don't think you are fairly outlining the views of people who think you should follow a more northerly tradition. Especially if you've been in these spheres long enough, then you've heard more than trad bros and archetypists
Thank you for such a great and comprehensive article. The White ancestral religious traditions developed out of the old PIE religion and for me contain an expansionist soul akin to the nature of that nomadic people. Most don't want to introspect and spend a life learning deep and complex metaphysical truths, they want a final revelation and a system of reassurance. These two things are completely opposite, in that one makes life an open question and asking it the responsibility of the soul, the other delivers an unquestionable dogma and demands faith. I feel the latter is alien to me, racially and spiritually.
This was very insightful Forti, I have a better understanding of you now and this was a very interesting read. I also understand this was a very personal and deep essay you wrote, so out of respect for such an honest reveal into your beliefs I will refrain from being a smartass (even though I contend you enjoy my trollish nature)
Canadian Right needs more intellectual discourse like this and less rambling about Indians. I grew up reading mythology and reading Russian/Ukrainian articles like yours and I believe that without them I wouldn’t be a man I am today.
If you truly understood Christianity, you would understand you are a son of Jacob, a descendant of one of the 12 tribes. Its all about legitimacy of ancestral tradition, but its been hidden from you by masonic revised history. Your soul is everything. You were made in God's image. None of those gods in the Hellenistic pantheon are willing to die for you. Jesus Christ is the most documented event in history. His presence was so profound that people preferred to be tortured to death and eaten by wild beasts then continue to worship the gods you now have yoked yourself to. It's been about 2000 years since Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son, came to this earth and died for you. All he asked in return is that you examine your conscience and repent for your sins, because he paid the tab for you, that you may one day be with God too.
Because if you believe in the Roman gods, you need to be afraid.
Check that, despairing.
The important thing to remember is that the Roman gods judge you by their personal standards, which contradict those of all of the other Roman gods.
The classic trinity of despair:
Venus: requires rampant sexaulity
Juno: requires faithfulness in marriage
Diana: requires perpetual virginity
No matter what you are doing, two of these goddesses *hate* you.
There is a reason - well, a reason per Roman god - that the Romans abandoned their gods for Jesus, and preferred to be martyred than to continue this worship.
Time that you joined the greatest pagan tradition of all: converting to Christianity
You're definitely LARPing but at the very least you prayed to some of the gods and claimed to have some kind of supernatural experience, so that's a lot further than what most modern "pagans" do
We have extensive knowledge on Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon religion. It's a meme that we don't. And besides, I'm not suggesting we reconstruct those religions. I'm suggesting, and I'm by far not the first, that we utilize the framework of our fathers. Besides, why does your patrilineal line get split into four groups, do you not know exactly?
We are a paternalistic and patrilinealist people. It behooves us to respect those lines, especially if we are going to make appeals to pagan religions like Fortisaxx does. But I guess the memes win out for most people.
Thank you for this. As someone who feels inclined to a form of paganism similar to your concept of Roman Hellenism, this was quite refreshing to read and I agree with many of the things you say here.
This COULD be a great religion today but unfortunately Neopaganism (which is dying anyway) is staunchly opposed to many of the things you highlight here, like piety, virtues, the philosophical concept of God, ect. And of course, there is no Roman Hellenist church to go to in anyone's local town or city. Though there are some other people I know of who are attempting to get the word out about our amazing (not lost) Western Tradition.
Such a good piece. Feel like I just got a full credit in Classics. Def. feel this--raised Presbyterian, and Quaker for a period. Felt at home in both traditions. Now, I walk past all these churches in downtown Toronto with their Progressive Pride flags and feel grief--and I'm fucking gay. But when I read the Odyssey I found myself thinking, "yes! YES!"
I’m grateful you took the time to write this thorough and well thought-out essay. I should say though that this caught my attention.
“Roman Hellenism was never a universalist religion. It arose from the religious and metaphysical grammar of the Indo-European world. This includes the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Celtic and Germanic peoples. Their traditions share a deep structural kinship by origin.”
True as far as it goes, but from early to late, Greek and Roman religion were heavily influenced by the Semitic East and the traditions of the indigenous people there when the IE peoples arrived. Classical Greek religion was by far the least characteristically IE of the lot; Roman religious practice derived greatly from the non-IE Etruscans, etc. in its later stages, Greco-Roman religious practice had been absorbing eastern ideas for centuries, everything from Nabatean Solar Monotheism to Zoroastrian-derived Mithraism to the Cult of Isis, and so on. To the degree it can be called a distinct religion, it’s that of a polyglot, multiracial, multiethnic empire.
Thank you for taking the time to engage seriously with the essay. I am a big fan of your writing.
Your observations about eastern influences on Roman and Greek religion are historically accurate, but I find they miss the central point I was making. There is a difference between the political reality of a diverse empire and the metaphysical structure of its religious worldview. Roman Hellenism did indeed incorporate and acknowledge many deities from other traditions, but it did so without undermining its own inherited order.
When I speak of Roman Hellenism as Indo-European in structure, I am referring to the deep theological and philosophical grammar that shaped its cosmology. This includes the tiered structure of the world, the presence of sacred law, the role of ancestral piety, the symbolic centrality of fire and sky, and the elevation of reason and virtue in shaping the soul. These elements are present in Vedic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Roman, and Persian traditions, and they are not accidental. They emerge from a common civilizational and linguistic heritage. Roman Hellenism maintained this structure even while absorbing local or foreign deities.
The incorporation of Isis, Mithras, or other foreign cults did not imply that Rome surrendered its metaphysical framework. These cults were adapted and placed within Roman religious categories. They were not positioned as exclusive revelations that claimed to overturn the Roman order. Even the most exotic cults that found a home in the empire were subject to Roman law and ritual norms. They were cults of place and occasion, not demands for total conversion.
Etruscan influence is acknowledged, but even this aligns with the Roman concern for auspices, priestly hierarchy, and public rite. These features do not contradict the Indo-European core.
Roman Hellenism, as I argue for it, does not claim to be the only valid path for every culture on earth. It is not a system that denies the spiritual experiences of others. It is instead a religion that makes sense for the descendants of the civilizations that lived within that Indo-European grammar. It is a claim of metaphysical correspondence. Shinto speaks to the Japanese soul. Hinduism speaks to the Indian soul. Roman Hellenism speaks to those European ancestors who were formed by the Greco-Roman world and its cognates. The empire may have been polyglot and multiethnic. The religion, at its core, remained structured by an older and deeper pattern.
But that’s the thing; the religious metaphysics of the Greeks and Romans were heavily altered by their contact with indigenous people and the East. Typically in IE religions, for example, one sees at least the remains of the various cults evidence of a tripartite structure- gods of Sovereignty, War, and Agriculture. The first is a divine pair: Mitra-Varuna for the Indo-Aryans, Odin-Tyr for the Germanics, Jupiter- Dius Fidius for the Ancient Romans. Zeus is not this, but rather is a sole supreme god associated with thunder, which everywhere else belongs to the war god in the second function (Thor, Indra). Zeus is basically Marduk (from Babylonia) in the Theogony, a work that takes its story and its metaphysics from ancient Semitic polytheism. Hades is more analogous to the Hebrew Sheol than the metempsychosis envisioned by the more purely IE Celts. The Capitoline Triad was once Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus, reflecting the original IE ideology, but it was replaced very early by an Etruscanized Jupiter-Juno-Minerva. Even in the later stages, ideas like Stoicism (Zeno, Semite) and thaumaturgy (Iamblichus, Semite) challenged remaining traditional conceptions of the gods. It’s only late and under all of this foreign influence that the gods of the Greeks and Romans were rationalized into abstract cosmic and moral forces.
Brother, the claim that Greco-Roman religion lost its Indo-European character through Eastern or indigenous influence is historically weak. The original Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus follows the Indo-European tripartite structure. Jupiter retains his place as sky-father and sovereign, and the Greco-Roman tradition simply combines roles that Northern Indo-European cultures split apart. This is a variation in expression, not evidence of outside influence.
The comparison of Zeus to Marduk is philologically and mythologically baseless. Zeus stems from the PIE *Dyeus, with cognates in Vedic and Italic religion. The succession myth in Hesiod is not uniquely Semitic. It is a common Indo-European motif. Likewise, Hades cannot be equated to Sheol. The Greco-Roman underworld is complex and moral, with Elysium, Tartarus, and reincarnation present in Orphic and Platonic sources.
The later triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva reflected political and civic change, not religious corruption. Roman religion adapted but did not lose its metaphysical foundation. Foreign cults were acknowledged but never displaced the Olympians.
Stoicism and Neoplatonism were not foreign grafts. Neoplatonism is the theological development of Roman Hellenism. Figures like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were religious men working within the tradition. They defended ritual, upheld the reality of the gods, and interpreted myth with philosophical depth. They did not reduce the gods to abstractions. They gave expression to truths already present.
These points are all addressed in the essay. Your critique misrepresents both the historical facts and the argument itself.
“Brother, the claim that Greco-Roman religion lost its Indo-European character through Eastern or indigenous influence is historically weak. The original Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus follows the Indo-European tripartite structure. Jupiter retains his place as sky-father and sovereign, and the Greco-Roman tradition simply combines roles that Northern Indo-European cultures split apart. This is a variation in expression, not evidence of outside influence.
[Saying it “lost” its character is a bit much; its character evolved as it made contact with non-IE peoples, as happened everywhere else.
“Yes, archaic Roman religion originally reflected IE structures. Then it change, under foreign influence. If the original triad is a manifest reflection of one theology, a replacement triad would at least suggest a new one. The Roman historians themselves (Livy, extensively) writes of the debt the Romans had to the Etruscans- priestly colleges, methods of divination, the way the gods were depicted and conceptualized, etc.)]
“The comparison of Zeus to Marduk is philologically and mythologically baseless. Zeus stems from the PIE *Dyeus, with cognates in Vedic and Italic religion. The succession myth in Hesiod is not uniquely Semitic. It is a common Indo-European motif. Likewise, Hades cannot be equated to Sheol. The Greco-Roman underworld is complex and moral, with Elysium, Tartarus, and reincarnation present in Orphic and Platonic sources.
[Yes, the NAME (not yelling; it won’t let me italicize) is IE and cognate with a mostly defunct deity with little in the way of extant myth. But the content of the cult of Zeus, by way Hesiod at least, owes a direct debt to the Enuma Elish, probably by way of the Hittites and Luwians. The primordial castration, the dynastic succession of the gods, Zeus’ fight with Typhon- they’re all non-IE and draw directly, sometimes in inescapably obvious ways, from stories that go back even beyond the Babylonians. And I should say cults of Zeus rather than cult, as there were variant practices around Zeus that derived from very different sources- Cretan Zeus, with his cthonic elements, the bizarre Zeus Lukaios of Arcadia, of Pelasgian origin- there are a lot of Zeuses.
The Hades with all the layers and ironic punishments is late. The Homeric heroes were grey shades in a place Saul would have recognized]
“The later triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva reflected political and civic change, not religious corruption. Roman religion adapted but did not lose its metaphysical foundation. Foreign cults were acknowledged but never displaced the Olympians.
[There was no one single metaphysical foundation. The unity you see, to the degree it could ever have said to be there, was late and the product of a conscious effort on the part of intellectuals to define themselves against more comprehensive competitors (Manichaeanism, Christianity, even Judaism to a degree). “Corruption” is a loaded term; it changed]
“Stoicism and Neoplatonism were not foreign grafts. Neoplatonism is the theological development of Roman Hellenism. Figures like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were religious men working within the tradition. They defended ritual, upheld the reality of the gods, and interpreted myth with philosophical depth. They did not reduce the gods to abstractions. They gave expression to truths already present.
[The Neoplatonists obviously drew heavily on Plato, but the influences upon them were diverse (Buddhism, Gnosticism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.) and their beliefs reflected an intellectual world rooted in a very small circle of educated elites. Claiming them as representative of a single continuous tradition going back to IE roots is tenuous historically, especially given that they tended to be easterners themselves (Ammonius Saccas was an Egyptian dockworker who knew Origen).]
“These points are all addressed in the essay. Your critique misrepresents both the historical facts and the argument itself.
How the Greek culture influenced the development of the Hebrew religion. Especially Plato.
https://vridar.org/series-index/russell-gmirkin-plato-and-the-hebrew-bible/
Yes, the cat's out of the bag now!
It seems that, according to the theories of the late Gmirkin and the Copenhagen school, the Pentateuch originally come about as national literary epic (like the Aeneid or Shahnameh) for the Judean and Samaritan subjects of the Ptolemies. The corpus was first written down by scribes during the early Hellenistic era, in Alexandria, likely under the patronage of Ptolemy II Philadelpus; though obviously many of the source materials that went into its composition were much older. It was only later (probably during the Hasmonean period) that the Torah was re-imagined as a "holy scripture" that came down from above. What we know today as "Judaism" started out as the nationalistic ideology of the rebel faction that led the Yahwist revolt against Greek rule.
In addition to this are the Elephantine documents that clearly show that the Judean and Samaritan communities of the Persian period engaged in practices that the (later) Torah clearly condemns, including eating pork and practicing Polytheism. The documents show that as late as the 400s BCE, it will still kosher to venerate deities like Anat alongside Yahweh. These facts clearly show that the Pentateuch / Mosaic ideology either (a) did not yet exist, or (b) was limited to some small fringe sect or intellectual circle that had very little influence over the average Yahwist. The Israeli historian Dr. Gad Barnea has done some amazing work unearthing the historical facts of pre-Hasmonean Yahwish.
These facts simply can't be unseen. We know now that the Hebrew Bible is NOT a history book, certainly not according to any of today's scholarly standards. Biblicist historiography does not come anywhere close to meeting the scientific standards that are applied to pretty much all other historical narratives and histories. The Archaeological evidence of today and the historical accounts from other cultures do not at all support most the pseudo-historical claims the Hebrew Bible males.
Most Christians today (at least in the West) are nearly as materialistic as their secularist counterparts, thus their faith mostly rests on the material claims found in their religion's texts and dogmatic interpretations of those texts. On the contrary, those who understand their religion through mystical, allegorical, and esoteric lenses are a lot less troubled by the fact that the material evidence poorly supports their faith's material narratives.
When a deity and their powers are a spiritual reality first and foremost, then the material trivialities become just that, trivialities. As that old Zen saying goes, If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
We don't have this problem in paganism and pagan philosophy. We don't need to rely on material historical claims to know that our deities are real.
There are other influences like the Roman epics. Was Aeneas the model for Abraham?
https://vridar.org/2018/10/26/romes-and-israels-ancestor-traditions-how-do-we-explain-the-similarities/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4OAsnOoHoQuDz8RNFWUj65PR_coGw2dmWS93EWFnjXkh0HjxwmLOOhhzy3Pw_aem_fMg4MffFeoQ-Fe5CVvFP-A
The Pentateuch (i.e. the Torah) predates the Roman Aeneid.
I think what Aeneas and Abraham share is a common Hellenic literary trope regarding mythical founder/colonists of new city states. There are plenty of examples of such Greek legends that the Abraham character was likely modeled after.
A book is not a one-time happening. It can be changed and “updated” over time as well.
I’m familiar with his crank theories, yes.
They’re not “crank” theories. They just challenge the established orthodoxies of a lot of people. Abrahamic religion is parasitical upon other civilizations. Jan Assmann has shown how Judaism has ZERO original thought but rather steals everything from adjacent civilizations (Persia and Egypt being the most relevant). Then, Jewish people argued the reverse: that Plato stole from Moses (a fictional character). The audacity. We need to zero out the reliance on Semitic thought.
Within the pagan sphere, I am of the mind that we should be following our ethnic faith, and you seem to be Anglo. I can tell you are firm in your resolve, but why didn’t you land on the Germanic faith, which more closely aligns with your ethnic origins?
Hello, and thank you for the question.
I am Anglo-Québécois. Our people come from both colonial British and French roots, and are native to southern Quebec. Roman Hellenism was present in Britannia and Gaul. It was practiced and adapted by the local populations. The cults were not foreign impositions. They became part of the land. We wouldn’t ask Anglos or Dutch why they are Catholic even though their ancestors were not originally Latin. It stayed because it offered structure. Roman Hellenism was the most sophisticated and coherent form of European paganism. Christians absorbed its metaphysics and occasionally pretend otherwise.
Many Northern pagans make the mistake of defining their gods only through tribal boundaries. That is a political instinct, not a theological one. The same thing happens in what some now call the Based Church of Trad, which filters scripture through nationalist instincts while ignoring its universalist foundation. The focus shifts from metaphysical truth to ethnic exclusivity. That inevitably breaks down in the spiritual.
Interpretatio Graeca, Interpretatio Romana, and Interpretatio Germanica all existed because Indo-European peoples saw their gods in each other’s myths. These were not separate and rival deities. There are not ten sea gods dividing the oceans. Where does Manannán mac Lir’s power stop and Poseidon’s begin? If a Greek and an Irishman have a child, which sea god rules him? The ancient answer was that these gods were the same divine intelligences. They had different names across kin cultures.
I have been on the dissident right for over a decade. I have seen many lean on Jungian archetypes, invent neopagan mythologies, or treat the Eddas like scripture. Too many have no theology and no metaphysics. That opens the door to Christian conquest within a few generations. While bloodlines are a core component to the practice of faith, and demographics can change them, faith needs more. It must rest on a coherent structure. Roman Hellenism has that. That is why I follow it.
I don't think you are fairly outlining the views of people who think you should follow a more northerly tradition. Especially if you've been in these spheres long enough, then you've heard more than trad bros and archetypists
What do you think he's wrong about specifically?
That people follow their male ancestors religion for politics would be the main one.
If you are referring to Germanic and Celtic Neopagan reconstructions, then those certainly are not the religions of their male ancestors.
No, I do not mean "neo pagan reconstructionists" but I am going to assume that you share his sentiments on this issue.
Thank you.
This is a beautifully put together, well-researched, thoughtful essay. If I were a betting woman, I would bet the gods are honored by this synopsis.
I can’t thank you enough for this. Your confession is mine. I got emotional reading it. I’ve shared it on my X page. Peace and love, brother.
Thank you for such a great and comprehensive article. The White ancestral religious traditions developed out of the old PIE religion and for me contain an expansionist soul akin to the nature of that nomadic people. Most don't want to introspect and spend a life learning deep and complex metaphysical truths, they want a final revelation and a system of reassurance. These two things are completely opposite, in that one makes life an open question and asking it the responsibility of the soul, the other delivers an unquestionable dogma and demands faith. I feel the latter is alien to me, racially and spiritually.
I can see why monotheism is popular - less confusing.
As long as you repeat your fathers’ rites, no confusion.
This was very insightful Forti, I have a better understanding of you now and this was a very interesting read. I also understand this was a very personal and deep essay you wrote, so out of respect for such an honest reveal into your beliefs I will refrain from being a smartass (even though I contend you enjoy my trollish nature)
Canadian Right needs more intellectual discourse like this and less rambling about Indians. I grew up reading mythology and reading Russian/Ukrainian articles like yours and I believe that without them I wouldn’t be a man I am today.
Thank you!
No, thank you for your interest!
Catholicism has taken everything good in Hellenism and perfected and integrated it with even better things.
Damn, that's crazy. I'm good though man, you keep doing your thing.
If you truly understood Christianity, you would understand you are a son of Jacob, a descendant of one of the 12 tribes. Its all about legitimacy of ancestral tradition, but its been hidden from you by masonic revised history. Your soul is everything. You were made in God's image. None of those gods in the Hellenistic pantheon are willing to die for you. Jesus Christ is the most documented event in history. His presence was so profound that people preferred to be tortured to death and eaten by wild beasts then continue to worship the gods you now have yoked yourself to. It's been about 2000 years since Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son, came to this earth and died for you. All he asked in return is that you examine your conscience and repent for your sins, because he paid the tab for you, that you may one day be with God too.
Are you afraid?
Because if you believe in the Roman gods, you need to be afraid.
Check that, despairing.
The important thing to remember is that the Roman gods judge you by their personal standards, which contradict those of all of the other Roman gods.
The classic trinity of despair:
Venus: requires rampant sexaulity
Juno: requires faithfulness in marriage
Diana: requires perpetual virginity
No matter what you are doing, two of these goddesses *hate* you.
There is a reason - well, a reason per Roman god - that the Romans abandoned their gods for Jesus, and preferred to be martyred than to continue this worship.
Time that you joined the greatest pagan tradition of all: converting to Christianity
You should try the greatest Christian tradition of all; converting to secular liberalism.
You're definitely LARPing but at the very least you prayed to some of the gods and claimed to have some kind of supernatural experience, so that's a lot further than what most modern "pagans" do
We have extensive knowledge on Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon religion. It's a meme that we don't. And besides, I'm not suggesting we reconstruct those religions. I'm suggesting, and I'm by far not the first, that we utilize the framework of our fathers. Besides, why does your patrilineal line get split into four groups, do you not know exactly?
We are a paternalistic and patrilinealist people. It behooves us to respect those lines, especially if we are going to make appeals to pagan religions like Fortisaxx does. But I guess the memes win out for most people.
Thank you for this. As someone who feels inclined to a form of paganism similar to your concept of Roman Hellenism, this was quite refreshing to read and I agree with many of the things you say here.
This COULD be a great religion today but unfortunately Neopaganism (which is dying anyway) is staunchly opposed to many of the things you highlight here, like piety, virtues, the philosophical concept of God, ect. And of course, there is no Roman Hellenist church to go to in anyone's local town or city. Though there are some other people I know of who are attempting to get the word out about our amazing (not lost) Western Tradition.
I truly enjoyed this. I'd buy the book if it included some of original source material for contemplation.