⇐ Previous section Next section ⇒
Keeping all this in mind, we come today to discover a peculiar paradox: to wit, such a paganism never even existed but was constructed by Christian apologetics. Yet some “pagan” and anti-Christian movements of racism and extreme nationalism very frequently accept it, thus threatening to make it become true today for the first time in history. No more and no less than that.
This critique is devastating. Instead of recovering the primordial religion of their ancestors, these neopagans are adopting a caricature of that religion. It is obvious that the primary characteristics of neopaganism (anti-Christian, racism, nationalism) had no analog in ancient times and are purely anachronisms.
What are the principle traits of the pagan outlook on life, as its apologists believe and popularize?
Naturalism
First and foremost: naturalism. All transcendence is totally unknown to the pagan view of life. It would remain in a mixture of spirit and nature, in an ambiguous unity of body and soul. There is nothing to its religion but a superstitious deification of natural phenomena or the energies of the races, elevated as so many idols. From this, in the first place, a particularism, a polytheism conditioned by blood and soil. In the second place, an absence of the spiritual personality and freedom, a state of innocence that is simply characteristic of beings of nature, of those not yet awakened to any truly supernatural aspiration. This “innocence”: license, “sin”, and the delights of the flesh. Even in other domains, either superstition, or a purely “profane”, materialistic, and fatalistic civilization. Apart from certain “anticipations” considered insignificant, it is with Christianity that the world of supernatural would be revealed for the first time, that is, the world of grace and personality, in contrast to “pagan” determinism and naturalism. With it a “catholic” ideal (in the etymological sense of universality) would be affirmed; a healthy dualism, permitting the subordination of nature to a higher law, and the triumph of the law of the spirit beyond the law of flesh, blood, and the false gods.
Here Evola identifies Naturalism as the primary trait of the neopagans. This is true for the most crude attempts at revival such as Wicca or Asatru, as well as the more sophisticated systems. To deny this, and thus to affirm supernaturalism, freedom, and personality, would draw neopaganism closer to Christianity, at least in a common metaphysical perspective. We should point out that Evola opposes Christianity on completely different grounds from those of the neopagans, who simply repeat the slogans of the Pharisees and the Enlightenment, sworn enemies of Tradition.
These are the most typical traits of the predominant conception of paganism, i.e., of everything that is not specifically the Christian worldview. Anyone who possesses any direct acquaintance with cultural and religious history, however elementary, can see how inaccurate and one-sided this attitude is. Besides, some early Church Fathers often demonstrated a greater understanding of the symbols and cults of preceding civilizations. Here we highlight just a few points.
Here Evola’s frustration is showing: even an elementary knowledge of history and religion would suffice to refute the bases of neopaganism, yet we cannot even count on that today. The Church Fathers showed a deeper understanding of the Old Religion than do our own neopagans. Regular readers of Gornahoor will find many references to this.
Pingback: The Misunderstanding of Paganism | Gornahoor
New to this forum. Excellent conversation.
Indeed many of the early Church Fathers did have a superior understanding of the Old Religion in part because they practiced it prior to conversion. The process of integration of the new religious idiom with the old was an important part of the project of the Fathers although the work was not acknowledged as such. In Exoteric religion they generally do not give much attribution to where they have taken their ideas and indeed the official stories may conceal deeper connections outside of historical traditions. For example the Zoroastrian and Hellenistic inputs into Christianity even at the level of the Gospels are obvious but not footnoted. They are acknowledged by allusion– the appearance of the Magi at Bethlehem; references to the Lake of Fire– and the very notion of incarnation already so well recounted for many Greek heroes. And at the core: equation of Christ as Logos.
These are also symbols and markers within the Gospel which betoken the expansion of Christian mission from tribal to universal– by reference to those two traditions that were already beyond tribal particularism at that point in time– Zoroastrianism and Hellenism.
Bravo!
How many times do we have to make myself clear, Eddie? Just one more time. Point 1. Evola was not at all pro-Christian … he could not relate to its theology at all. But neither was he anti-Christian. Rather, he was non-Christian, as though it never existed for him. Point 2. When we use the word “Christian” at Gornahoor are referring specifically to the Church of the Middle Ages, especially when it was undivided. By that standard, there are precious few “Christians” around today. Let’s not be confused about labels; we’re trying to penetrate deeper. Even failure is worth the attempt. That is one reason that we don’t write much about theology proper, which is, as you say, in its contemporary manifestations to a large extent sentimental. I can well understand that it does not appeal to many today. Nevertheless, we need to understand why it did appeal to many a millennium ago, and was the guiding spirit to the last traditional civilization in the West.
A corollary is that we try to transcend the “us vs them” attitude, that is all too common among the neo-pagans. Any careful reader can determine that we are not distorting Evola. However, it seems to us that the neo-pagans distort him while claiming him as one of their own. I’ll summarize what I see are the specific differences. If there are any wise pagans who address these issues, please point them out to us.
The real paganism is that of the Ancient City about which Gornahoor has devoted several posts. It is not the decadent form of the late Empire. The real paganism was theocratic and was led by a priest-king until its subsequent degenerations. All of life was regulated by duties and rites.
The real paganism was not a hedonistic, sensualistic, naturalism.
The Christian kings and emperors of the Middle Ages, such as Arthur, Charlemagne, Frederick II were exercised legitimate authority.
The Church of the Middle Ages (and the civilization that grew up alongside it) was not Jewish creation initiated by “Saul”. It was the creation of the Nordic-Roman spirit.
The end of Tradition in the West did not begin with Constantine. It began 1000 years later with the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, French Revolution.
The Church of the Middle Ages was hierarchical, not in the least democratic and egalitarian.
Those are some points. Evola’s view is the first of each item. Every neo-pagan I’ve read has adopted the second. So, this is not meant to be a “court case” between Christians and pagans, if only for the reason that few Christians today would even recognize themselves in this characterization. The issue is to determine the spiritual forces at work and to understand the flow of history apart from angry and ignorant polemics.
Mr. Vision, is there some specific point you want to address? First of all, the neo-pagan new right, in its criticism, aligns itself with those said forces of revolution; thus it is not traditional, and not even of the right. I translated Evola’s objections to Catholicism (what he and we mean by Christianity) and it is available on this web site. Unlike the crude critiques that are all too available on the www, Evola accepts the possibility of miracles, defends the concept of infallibility, and even the idea of a High Priest (or pope). Furthermore, unlike the neo-pagan new right, Evola defends Charlemagne and regards the Middle Ages as an age of tradition.
I sent out to the mailing list the next installment of the translation of Sintesi, where Evola writes:
Has anyone in the neo-pagan new right mentioned the idea of “transcending” Christianity?
Perhaps he was referring to your claim that Neo-pagan critiques of Christianity parallel those of the Pharisees and the Enlightenment thinkers. Care to extrapolate?
Aeneas, as above, I dispute that racialism and nationalism didn’t occur within the traditional framework in ancient times. Many people also looked down upon foreign gods, religions, and superstitions.
But more importantly, it would be unfair to say that Evola was pro-christian. Far from it, Nasr wrote about his meeting with Evola that Evola “seemed to have little knowledge or interest in esoteric Christianity and refused to acknowledge the presence of a sapiental current in Christianity.”
Now, the fact that there are certain ignorant people involved with neopaganism does not mean that the entire thing be damned. When you say “The Church Fathers showed a deeper understanding of the Old Religion than do our own neo-pagans” you are surely blowing things out of proportion. Many church fathers were ignorant of the basics regarding paganism. Evola wrote some not all had certain knowledge. And where did they get this knowledge? From reading pagan sources! Anyway, things have changed since Evola’s time, and there are many wise and spiritual “pagans” today, much more so than christians. So the entire things should be reversed because most neopagans have more knowledge of christian doctrine which christians reduce to sentimentalist theology than do the christians!
Thanks for the tip, Eddie, I’ll take it under consideration. Perhaps you can help me out by pointing out a specific distortion?
If you are “simply” translating Evola then don’t place commentaries on his work which distort his views.
Exit, aka Eddie, please use a consistent user name and perhaps we’ll take you off moderation. We are not “blaming” anyone for anything; we are simply translating Evola’s essay. If his critique of neo-paganism does not apply to you, then don’t worry about it.
“It is obvious that the primary characteristics of neopaganism (anti-Christian, racism, nationalism) had no analog in ancient times and are purely anachronisms.”
Those aren’t the primary characteristics of neopaganism. Race and nation have always been principles supported by the faithful. But why is race realism, nationalism and anti-christianity bad for neopagans when such a blind racism, nationalism and anti-paganism was good for christians? It seems like you’re blaming everything on pagans just to be provocative.