Pagan Imperialism

by Julius Evola, James Kirkpatrick (Editor), Dmitry Moiseev (Editor)

“In the 20th century, now, and in the forever future, we are unlikely to find a better spiritual guide than the immortal Baron of Sicily.” — James Kirkpatrick

In Pagan Imperialism, Julius Evola presents a fiery critique of the modern world, tracing the decay of Western civilization to its abandonment of its primal pagan roots. Evola condemns the rise of materialism, democracy, and equality, seeing them as signs of European man gone astray. He mourns the loss of the ancient spiritual hierarchy, where gods and warriors reigned supreme, and the cosmos pulsed with mystical energy.

Evola views Christianity as a weakening force that has replaced the proud, heroic spirit of paganism with submission and servitude to an alien deity. He envisions a revival of an empire built on the blood and fire of ancient rites, where the ruler embodies divine authority and the sacred order is restored. Pagan Imperialism is a provocative manifesto for those who dream of a return to a world rooted in the fierce, esoteric traditions of the past.

This new edition of Pagan Imperialism is a brand new translation by Heinrich Matterhorn, combining the original 1928 edition with the 1933 German edition. It also includes Evola’s extensive appendix. This edition is significantly longer than previous English translations and is enriched with detailed footnotes that provide definitions as well as commentary on different concepts and ideas mentioned in the text.

284 pages, Kindle Edition

Published August 21, 2024

About the author

Julius Evola, born Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola, was an Italian philosopher and esoteric scholar. Born in Rome to a family of the Sicilian landed gentry, Evola was raised a strict Catholic. Despite this, his life was characterised by 'an anti-bourgeois approach' hostile to both 'the dominant tradition of the West—Christianity and Catholicism—and to contemporary civilization—the 'modern world' of democracy and materialism'.

By turns 'engineering student, artillery officer, Dadaist poet and painter, journalist, alpinist, scholar, linguist, Orientalist, and political commentator', he has been described as a 'rare example of universality in an age of specialization'. Yet behind it all lay a singular emphasis on, and pursuit of, a 'direct relationship to the Absolute'. For Evola, 'the center of all things was not man, but rather the Transcendent.' This metaphysical conviction can be seen to have determined both Evola's stance on socio-political issues, and his antipathetic attitude towards 'all professional, sentimental and family routines'.

The author of many books on esoteric, political and religious topics (including The Hermetic Tradition, The Doctrine of Awakening and Eros and the Mysteries of Love), his best-known work remains Revolt Against the Modern World, a trenchant critique of modern civilisation that has been described as 'the gateway to his thought'. Since his death, also in Rome, his writings have influenced right-wing, reactionary and conservative political thought not only in his native Italy, but throughout continental Europe and, increasingly, the English-speaking world. Nevertheless, he should not be considered primarily as a political thinker, but rather as an exponent of the wider Traditionalist School that encompasses the work of such individuals as René Guénon, Titus Burckhardt and Frithjof Schuon.

Reviews

[Monty Milne · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this rather disappointing. It is not as interesting or as coherent as “Revolt Against the Modern World”, which I think is a better introduction to Evola’s thought. There is the same blend of thought provoking insight alternating with mind boggling lunacy, which (mostly) makes for an entertaining read. The worst and most tedious aspect is the repetitious and boringly reflexive anti Semitism. Of course, prior to the second world war many people – I think of T S Eliot, for example – were casually anti Semitic in their writing in a way which became impossible a few years later. But that isn’t really an excuse.

The insight that really made me think Evola is on to something is when he discusses the divine right of kings, which he sees as an authentic expression of the way things were and ought to be, displaced by the coming of Christianity which separated the sacred from the regal. Disagreement about the Divine Right of Kings was of course at the heart of the English Civil War – less than four hundred years ago – and I believe it is still a live issue today. The coronation of the current King was very much a sacred act, and if England descends again into Civil War – which is a greater possibility now than at any time since the seventeenth century – the outcome will probably be decided by the army, and their choice of sides will ultimately come down to how they interpret their oath to the King. Some may decide the King has broken his own oath, others may decide they are still bound to obey him, but either way, it is no insignificant factor. Thirty years ago, when I was an army officer, I discussed in the Mess -as a mind game – what we would do if a Government arose with a disputed legitimacy which commanded us to perform actions with which we strongly disagreed. We all agreed that whether we obeyed, resigned or rebelled, what would ultimately decide our actions would be the personal nature of the oath we had sworn to the monarch, and how the monarch acted personally in commanding our obedience. Because, as Shakespeare said,

“There is such a divinity that doth hedge a King”

Evola’s point is that in pre Christian times kings always claimed they had divine authority – the “Mandate of Heaven”, as the Chinese Emperors put it. But with Christianity the sacred authority of the king became dependent on and conditional upon the Church (hence the Holy Roman Emperor kneeling to Pope Gregory VII in the snow at Canossa, a ritual humiliation inconceivable for a pagan ruler). Evola, of course, very much deprecates what he sees as the Church being too big for its boots. He doesn’t want Christianity at all, although he would have approved of the Vicar of Bray, who sang – according to legend:

To teach my flock I did insist, Kings are by God appointed
And damned are they that dare resist, or touch the Lord’s Anointed

But there was opposition to that view, and it didn’t end well for that particular King (Charles I, but of course you knew that).

On a different note, Evola is refreshingly rude about Rabindranath Tagore, whom I always thought was over rated. He calls him an “insipid puppet” and says:

“Judging the East by such a figure is like judging Italy not by Dante or Machiavelli, but some Neapolitan songster.”

[Domenico Francesco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Molto interessante in quanto il libro, pubblicato nel 1928, si volle porre come vademecum ideologico e fil0sofico per il fascismo invitandolo e dimostrando perché avrebbe dovuto aspirare ad una rivoluzione pagana (nel senso più ampio del termine) contro il cristianesimo al fine di sopravvivere e di istituire realmente l'impero fascista che il regime si poneva. Non ironicamente il libro venne pubblicato pochissimo tempo prima dei Patti Lateranensi che resero vano e inascoltato l'appello di Evola, il quale in seguito non pubblicherà più libri con lo stesso ottimismo e la stessa fiducia nei partiti e nei movimenti di massa. Non sorprende però che il libro, deriso dalla società fascista mainstream dell'epoca ebbe vasta eco in Germania quando venne pubblicato e tradotto (seppur con significative modifiche) poco dopo la salita al potere di Hitler, società in cui indubbiamente certi propositi erano più fattibili che in Italia.
Per quanto le idee siano di base non condivisibili oltre che anacronistiche l'ho apprezzato nel suo essere stato indubbiamente un libro originale e coraggioso per l'epoca ma in primis in quanto è forse l'unica opera letta di Evola che sia perlomeno un minimo coerente con sé stessa. Rimane un'opera insalvabile ma interessantissima se inserita nel quadro storico, un vero peccato anche in questo caso l'apparato di "curatela" che comprende introduzioni, prefazioni e saggi che risultano più in lunghi tentativi di apologia delle idee dell'autore che materiale utile alla comprensione dell'opera (cosa che purtroppo ho già notato in altre opere di Evola di questa casa editrice).