Heathen Imperialism and 'barbarism'.
"We may call the Germanic peoples which invaded Rome 'barbarians',
but not with respect to the degenerate Roman civilisation in which
those peoples appeared, but with respect to a higher state, from
which they had fallen".
Those words we quoted in message 293 are taken from 'Sintesi di
dottrina della razza', and we would think that they answer quite well
your question. Each time Evola uses in that context that term loaded
with derogatory connotations it has a relatively positive meaning ;
the same thing goes for 'berserkers' ; the frenzy those warriors
worked themselves in before the battle is identified, for instance
in 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', with Roman 'furor'. Those terms are
so fraught with bad connotations that they can hardly be used in any
discussion and that, when using them in a relatively positive sense,
one cannot but sound slightly ironical : "The one who enters the
temple, however much of a barbarian he may be, has the unquestionable
duty to drive out [the] corrupters..."
In 'The Destiny of the Warrior' (Chicago, U. of Chicago P., 1969),
Dumézil points out that the name 'Odhinn' derives from the Old
Norse 'odur', related to the German 'wut', meaning 'rage', 'fury',
and to the Gothic 'wods', 'possessed'. The berserker is closely
associated in many respects with the god Odhinn. Adam of Bremen
describes the Allfather as "Wodan - id est furor". Basically, it is
likely that the berserker was actually a member of the cult of
Odhinn. However this may be, cases of possession by forces from above
should not be mistaken for cases of possession from forces from
below, as has been done by the Church, which, as has been shown by
various studies, managed to replace the warrior type of
the 'berserker' with its 'Chivalry'.
Leaving aside, perhaps, Farinacci, do you see many 'uncouth and
ferocious' elements in the Fascist movement?
Regarding the context of publication of 'Heidnischer Imperialismus',
let's be quite clear about it : if this book needs to be
contextualised to a certain extent, it cannot be brought back to the
mere context of that time : whether one likes it or not, many of the
problems which have been raised in 'Heidnischer Imperialismus' are
age-old problems which, for most of them, are still most pregnant.
Have a fixation on the 'context', and you'll miss what is essential
in it.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "darklittleflame"
<ads694@h...> wrote:
>
> "The power of a new Middle Ages is needed - a revolt, interior as
> well as exterior, of a barbaric purity."
>
> Is there any ambiguity regarding the word Evola originally uses
> for 'barbaric'?
>
> I am just wondering how Evola saw this 'barbarism' as differing
from
> the "uncouth and ferocious" attitude of the semites. Also, given
> such views, can anyone elaborate on how Evola viewed such
> things as 'bersekrs'? Were these perhaps ferocious but not uncouth?
>
> Following the above quote Evola then seems to suggest that
> this 'barbarism' is a precursor necessary to clear the way for a
> true restoration of the primordial nordic tradition.
>
> "The one who enters the temple, however much of a barbarian he may
> be (is this a tone of disparagement?), has the unquestionable duty
> to drive out [the] corrupters...
>
> To all this [corruption] must be said: "Enough!", so that some men
> at least can recover the long roads, the long danger, the long
gaze,
> and the long silence ; so that the wind of the open sea can blow
> again - the wind of the Nordic primordial tradition - to reawaken
> the sleepers of the West."
>
> Given the possible tone of disparagement towards these barbarians,
> was 'barbarism' here perhaps used as an appeal and attempt to give
> an impetus to the more 'uncouth and ferocious' elements of
> the 'popular' Right wing movements of the time that would be more
> in line with Evola's attempt to restore Tradition? I do not know
> enough regarding the context of publication so would be interested
> in what others have to say.
>
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
> <evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Given the regrettable indiscretion which was committed three
weeks
> > ago on another e-list and of which we got to hear, it would be
> > useless to keep it secret for a longer period of time.
> >
> > 'Heathen Imperialism' is based on 'Heidnischer Imperialismus',
and
> > not on 'Imperialismo pagano', be it only because the former is
far
> > more accomplished.
> >
> > Basically, 'Heidnischer Imperialismus' is so different
> > from 'Imperialismo pagano' that the former cannot be considered
as
> a
> > mere revised and expanded edition of the latter. Differences
> between
> > them are far too numerous and important to be identified and
given
> > via footnotes, not to mention that footnoting a book like this
> poses
> > serious problems of lay-out, which would make its reading rather
> > acrobatic, especially since both books contain their own
> footnotes.
> > All those who have published 'Imperialismo pagano', whether the
> > original or its French translation, renounced to do it.
> >
> > Speaking of footnotes, we are thinking of an original and most
> > convenient way of giving them without inserting them in the
actual
> > book.
> >
> > One more word about
http://evola.frih.net : when that picture we
> > mentioned yesterday is taken and downloaded on it, the site will
> > change name and be called, as it is now,
> >
http://evola_as_he_is.frih.net .
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "darklittleflame"
> > <ads694@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given discussion in past posts are we to assume that an English
> > > translation of Heathen Imperialism will be made available at
> some
> > time?
> > > If so, will it be based on the original Italian or the German
> > version,
> > > which I understand had a number of changes made? And would such
> > > differences and their significance be identified via footnotes
> or
> > an
> > > introduction?
> > >
> >
>