It is often said that the salvation of “Western Civilisation” can be found in the revival of Christianity and a strong Christian ethics system. Indeed, many people on the right of politics, toward the nationalistic end of the spectrum, advocate such a revival as a remedy for the problems of our age; nihilism; liberalism; Marxism, and so on and so forth. It is of course indisputable that post-modern phenomenons such as nihilism and rampant materialism were greatly less prevalent, if existent at all, when our societies were more orthodox in their religious persuasion. After all, religion gives one a higher purpose, that often renders thoughts of materialism and selfishness very much benign, given the far greater importance of a far greater purpose amongst true believers.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that a return to this Christian foundation will solve the most pertinent problem of our age. We can all probably agree that, more important than materialism and nihilism and general liberalism, is the demographic crisis that our countries face in the West. This has come about through the mass immigration of non-Europeans into primordially European societies, or societies that have traditionally consisted of majority European diaspora. But there is no evidence to link the advocacy or perpetuation of this treachery to atheism, or to the loss of Christian identity.
This is perhaps a topic for an article in itself, but those interested in a nihilistic and materialistic existence, complete with all the trappings of modern liberalism, have a great deal more to lose from the demographic shift than those with a strong Christian faith. Is it not the case that the mass immigration of culturally different migrants with a lesser economic productivity potential than the host population is counter-productive to the material interests of the said host?
But that is a digression and discussion for another time. The question relevant to the topic in focus is whether there is evidence to suggest that a strong Christian conviction correlates to a greater defence of European civilisation in the face of demographic ruin. In this instance, many Christianity advocates quite logically offer Poland as a demonstration that this is indeed the case, given that Poles and their government are famous for their rejection of immigration from non-European countries as well as their strong religious conviction – 86.9% of Poland’s population are subscribers to Roman Catholicism. The Polish government often cite this religious argument in their rejection of EU-imposed migrant quotas, stating that their rejection of Islamic migrants from outside of Europe is a defence of their Christian tradition and heritage.
And of course that’s not an invalid argument. Given the exponential growth of the religion of Islam worldwide and the faith’s tendency to convert by the sword, it’s perfectly logical to reject Islamic immigration on the basis that one seeks to defend their Christian culture. Yet as we look at the rest of Europe, it becomes plainly obvious that this is more an superficial defence to mask a politically uncomfortable truth. That is to say that it’s much more politically acceptable to reject migrants on the grounds of their faith than on the colour of their skin. This is clear by the very different attitudes of other countries in Europe that also subscribe to the same Catholicism that the Poles do.
Italy is perhaps the most contrasting example for this exercise. 88% of Italians subscribe to Roman Catholicism, an even higher percentage of the population than in Poland, yet Italy’s attitude to migration is the polar opposite of Poland’s. As we all know, Italy has been at the forefront of Europe’s efforts to bring the hordes from Africa to the shores of Europe, through various fronts from the state-run coastguard ferrying migrants from the African coasts, to the NGOs’ illegal people smuggling expeditions. At the height of the migrant crisis, thousands of Africans were released upon the Italian population on a daily basis – did they rise up and reject this in the name of their Christian faith?
There’s a similar story evident in Greece, where 90% of the population are followers of Eastern Orthodoxy, the same Christian denomination that holds sway in traditionalist Russia and other strongly conservative countries in Eastern Europe. Yet this did not stop the Greek people electing a radically left-wing government that has been a vocal critic of the EU-Turkey migrant deal and an advocate of what is essentially an open-door policy for all of Europe. Why were they not defiant in the name of their faith, as the Poles have steadfastly been?
There is also the small matter of the Catholic church’s spiritual leader, Pope Francis, very publicly advocating mass immigration of non-European, non-Christian migrants into Europe. An embarrassing spectacle for many Catholics, who claim the current pope isn’t representative of their faith. That said, there are those who claim Venezuela or the USSR aren’t representative of socialism – that is, I suppose, an internal matter for adherents to determine.
Somewhat paradoxically, there are examples in Europe of leftist governments and culturally atheist societies opposing the immigration of non-Europeans just as vigorously, if not more so, than even the Orthodox Poles. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico is the best example of this. Fico is a former member of the Communist Party, once describing himself as ‘strictly atheist’, in conjunction with having a ‘Marxist worldview’. He’s now Prime Minister of Slovakia heading a government of the Direction-Social Democracy party, which is essentially a modernised, repackaged edition born from the remnants of the old Communist Party.
As Slovakia’s leader, Fico has been an outspoken critic of the European Union’s migrant quota policy. “As long as I’m Prime Minister, mandatory quotas will not be implemented on Slovak territory”, was his defiant statement under the pressure of the Brussels elite. Other quotes of his include his assertion that “we monitor every Muslim in Slovakia”, and that Slovakia will not accept “one single Muslim” migrant in the country. These are terms even stronger than those used by the Catholic Poles, and are diametrically opposed to the sentiments of Orthodox Greece’s government.
Then there are the regional divides withing religiously divided nations that offer an alternate hypothesis, or even an antithesis, to the notion that a revival of Christianity will halt the demographic crisis. Germany is perhaps the best example of this, where even at first glace and on a rather superficial level we can see that the open-door policy was instigated by Merkel’s party of government, the Christian Democratic Union, whose platform is based around “Christian conservatism”. Upon a necessarily deeper inspection, we find that rather than Christians opposing Islamic immigration and the irreligious advocating it, the opposite is the case.
The map below (Figure 1) denotes the prevalence of faith in the various regions and states of Germany. The territory that previously constituted East Germany (German Democratic Republic) has the greatest propensity toward atheism, with almost every region reporting the irreligious as accounting for between 70-100% of the population. This is a hangover from the socialist days, in which the government of the day instigated a policy of what was essentially state atheism. The region also has, as one might expect, quite left-wing tendencies, being the most fertile ground for Germany’s primary left-wing party, Die Linke.
Yet somewhat ironically, the greatest opposition to Merkel’s immigration policies comes not from Catholic Bavaria, or the relatively religious North-West, but from the former territory of East Germany. Indeed, the famous PEGIDA organisation that opposes Islamic immigration to Europe was born in Dresden, and at the peak of the migrant crisis in 2015 crowds of over 100,000 demonstrators descended on the atheistic city every weekend to voice their opposition. Eastern Germany is also the region in which the anti-immigration Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) had the greatest success at the recent federal election. The party is now the second largest party in the former GDR, taking over 20% of the vote on a regional level – in comparison to the 7-8% of the vote it garnered from the more Christian western Germany, who instead overwhelmingly re-elected Mrs Angela “Migrant” Merkel.
This Christian advocacy of mass immigration is not just reflected in the electoral politics of many European states. On a local level, there is not a church to be found in England, Scotland, Ireland, the Nordic countries or Germany that opposes mass immigration. On the contrary, they are some of the most vocal advocates of an open-door policy for the world’s stateless, often providing material support that they otherwise withhold from their local parishioners. Their adherence to universal compassion has caused the church in many a European country to become a subversive force in politics and a prominent contributor to the demographic crisis.
Of course, the debate concerning the ethical and moral void more broadly that has been created by the decline in Christianity is still there to be had. This analysis is most definitely not that. Rather, the intention is to demonstrate how a revival of Christianity will not necessarily help to solve a singular but most important problem that we face; the demographic crisis.
In any event, even if this would hypothetically rescue our situation, it would be practically impossible to instigate. The age of enlightenment and the constant advancements in science that are shaping the way in which we view and explain the world around us have ensured Christianity’s decline is terminal. The revolutionary ideas put forward by the enlightenment philosophers, from Voltaire to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, coupled with the counter-creationist theories of Darwin, unleashed an irreligious genie that will not and can not be forced back in its bottle.
We cannot rely on the Christian faith or its revival for our salvation from the demographic crisis. We must look for other narratives with which to counter the prevailing liberal approach to this issue. This might take the form of a new system of ethics and morality, or it might be a rather more dogmatic than philosophical or religious doctrine, or it could be something else entirely, perhaps something hidden in plain sight. Alas, that is a question to which the answer is far beyond my capacity or scope to conjure, but what is clear to me is what the answer most definitely isn’t.
Not only will it not help us to reject the advancement of mass immigration, but moreover, it clearly isn’t contributing to the propagation of the European races in the way in which many claim it will. I didn’t include this issue in the main article, for it is really a non-starter, but note that the fertility rates of Orthodox traditionalist countries such as Russia, Hungary, Poland and so on are well below the required re-population rate of 2.1, just like the more irreligious countries of Europe.
Poland – 1.32, Russia – 1.75, Hungary – 1.44, Greece – 1.3, Spain – 1.32