Two kinds of paganism, on Evola's "against the Neo-Pagans"
Evola's 'against the neo-pagans' is a short essay but it's so couched in rhetoric and sloppy argumentation that it's hard to find a concise segment of it that is the 'crux' of the argument that doesn't require pages of footnotes of clarification and exceptions. I think he's making the argument for a reason though... there's a kernel of something he believes that impelled him to write the essay.
"There is a general and unmistakable tendency in neo-paganism to create a new, superstitious mysticism, based on the glorification of immanence, of Life and Nature, which is in the sharpest contrast to that Olympian and heroic ideal of the great Aryan cultures of pre-Christian antiquity." is the closest he comes to directly stating his thesis
I'm going to put it out there. What do you guys think of the idea there are two paganisms? A nature embracing "folk" or "neo" paganism, and a transcendent "high" paganism, linked to philosophical moralising, and ideas "spiritual aristocracy".
There isn't really a good vocabulary to discuss it because it's not something widely articulated in most post-gardarian thinking on paganism, but it was a theme in the discussion on the topic in the early 20th century.
Evola probably came the closest to articulating it in "against the neo-pagans". Which, given how despicable Evola is, is worth considering from the perspective of the "neo-pagans" he is attacking, imo, because I think there is a core of a distinction there, behind the rhetoric and propaganda.... Something about the reason wicca looks like it does compared to whatever currents within paganism that spawned Augustus Sol Invictus.
yeats touches on a similar (though less drastic) idea of two paganisms in his essay on "The Philosophy of Shelley’s Poetry"
there's definitely an undercurrent of it in Christian writing on paganism (at least pre-1950) in that christian writers seem to take a strict view of "progress" in pre-christian spirituality... the philosophic schools containing more truth than the mystery religions which contain more truth, or are "higher" than the ancient cults, which are regarded as having no truth value
the same could be said for theosophy (and to a lesser extent rosicrucianism) taking the philosophers as teachers one step under buddha or jesus and the goals of the mystery religions as noble or worthy, but rarely considering the rural cults... beneath their notice
I guess it's paganism, in as much as the deification of emperors is paganism.
and I see currents of it in most reconstructionism, at the very least
It definitely has affinities
I'll stress that I don't know if the vocabulary exists to discuss this easily yet, and if it does I've managed to overlook it.
Sorry I'm going to reread my yeats, since I think he described it best in spiritual (rather than political) terms
or got closer to the heart of the diffrence
... maybe this gets closest to it (in a short paragraph at least)
"In ancient times, it seems to me that Blake, who for all his protest was glad to be alive, and ever spoke of his gladness, would have worshipped in some chapel of the Sun, but that Shelley, who hated life because he sought ‘more in life than any understood,’ would have wandered, lost in ceaseless reverie, in some chapel of the Star of infinite desire."
the difference between acceptance, taking the world on its own terms, and a striving that sees authority invested in individuals who claim a more "advanced" spiritual state
a certain humanism sits well with "neo paganism"
the violent rejection out of hand of 'humanism' certainly serves rightwing interests better than leftwing ones... part of it is attributable to the vector of its insertion recently though (john halstead)
I guess when I say 'a certain humanism' I mean the kind of humanism embraced by shakespeare or pratchett, the ability to take people as they are
the further you go down that sort of gnostic, world denying path, the more acceptable perennialism becomes... as you start to see the object of your strivings as the creation of a "spiritually perfect" being
which would of course fit in equally well at the top of any spiritual hierarchy
i'm a long way from being able to articulate it but... for the rightwing they see in paganism ideas of spiritual aristocracy and divine kingship... but there are elements in paganism they reject, sometimes stringently. i just I'm trying to puzzle out if a paganism comprised of -those- elements is healthier.
