Monumental biography of Julius Evola now available in English

Now available in English: Andrea Scarabelli’s monumental biography of Julius Evola, Julius Evola: An Adventurous Life. Co-published by Prav Publishing and Arktos, $9.99 ebook, $64.50 hardcover, available here.

The biography, released in Italian in 2024, is 768 pages long in the English translation. It is not an objective scholarly study: Scarabelli works with the Fondazione J. Evola, and the French translation carried an introduction by Alain de Benoist, now translated into English. It follows academic convention, however, citing its (many) sources, even if it occasionally departs from academic sobriety, for example using the term “ravings” to describe the contents of the Revue internationale des sociétés secrètes.

Scarabelli divides Evola’s life into ten phases, giving rise to an equal number of chapters. They are

1. Julius Evola’s First Life (1898–1922)
2. Philosophy, Esotericism, and Politics (1923–1926)
3. Mornings of the Magicians (1927–1929)
4. Interregnum (1930–1934)
5. A European Secret Order (1935–1939)
6. The End of a World (1940–1943)
7. From One Italy to Another (1943–1948)
8. Forced Holidays (1949–1958)
9. Julius Evola’s Second Life (1959–1968)
10. Finis Coronat Opus (1969–1974)

The biography provides a complete account of Evola’s life. It goes into great detail about who he met, when and where, and gives background information at length, one reason why it is so long. We learn what Evola was working on at each moment. It is written very much from Evola’s own perspective, but does not attempt to conceal what Evola himself conceded. His involvement with Fascism and Nazism is covered in detail, as is the fact that, although he later stressed that he had never joined the Fascist Party, he did actually apply to join it.

What Julius Evola: An Adventurous Life arguably lacks is analysis. This is what sets it apart from recent articles published in Aries (see here), for example. It will, however, provide valuable support for those who are themselves interested in doing critical analysis.

See also review at compactmag.com/article/julius-evolas-many-lives/.

Evola's Samurai in context

A new article places Julius Evola’s understanding of the figure of the Samurai in its Italian context. It is Michele Monserrati, “The Transnational Samurai: Nation-Building and Community for the Italian Far-Right,” Japan Review 41 (2026): 255–280, available (open access) here.

Italian interest in the Samurai started after the Japanese victory against Russia in 1905, and was initially guided by the English-language Bushido: The Soul of Japan by the Japanese nationalist Inazō Nitobe (1862–1933), which understood the Samurai ethic in terms of medieval European chivalry. Bushido was translated into Italian in 1917 but many Italians had by then reimagined the Samurai in terms of the classical Roman hero, popular among Italian nationalists. There then emerged two models of the Samurai in Italy, according to Monserrati, a Shinto-inflected model that emphasized patriotism and a Zen-oriented model that that emphasized individual spirituality. The Shinto-inflected model, which the article examines in detail, was dominant until the end of Fascism, which killed Italian militarism, leaving the field to the Zen-oriented model, of which the most important proponent (though not the first) was Evola. For Evola, “the samurai’s warrior ethos represented a potential archetype for rediscovering a lost Western tradition of heroic spiritual transformation.” He “emphasized the spiritual reawakening of the individual as a condition for the heroic gesture.” This view, writes Monserrati, subsequently became popular among the Far Right, but he spends less than a page on this.

Monserrati says he is not investigating Orientalism but what he calls “the process of cultural translation.” In this case reception was positive, though inevitably molded by the circumstances and interests of the period.

Continuing disagreement about Evola, Hakl, and Hanegraaff

The special issue of Aries that dealt with Julius Evola (see post here) included an article by Julian Strube on “Esotericism, the New Right, and Academic Scholarship” that occasioned a partly critical review by Mark Sedgwick (henceforth, “me”) in this blog (here), as did the introduction to that special issue, jointly written by Egil Asprem, editor-in-chief of Aries, and Strube. The article and introduction also occasioned a formal response (available here) in the current issue of Aries (volume 26, issue 1) by myself and Francesco Piraino, writing as responsible editors of Religiographies, a journal that had been criticized by Strube and Asprem for articles about Thomas Hakl, for many years the leading promoter of Evola in the German-speaking world, that it had published. For that special issue, see a post here. Aries also published, as is normal in such cases, rejoinders by Asprem and Strube, available here and here.

Our response defended Religiographies and took issue with two claims in Strube’s article, “that ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role [in the translation and dissemination of Evola]’, and that ‘this affected not only political ideologies, but also parts of the academic field of “Western esotericism”, which remains a major obstacle to critical engagement with politics to this day.’”

We argued that in fact only two scholars of esotericism, Hakl and Joscelyn Godwin, both now retired, had played a key role in the translation and dissemination of Evola, and that “while two persons is indeed plural, the phrase ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role’ implies rather more than two persons, and this is not the case.” Neither Strube nor Asprem contested this in their rejoinders, though Asprem did describe our argument as “advanced exegesis of how many persons are required for a plural ending.”

We also argued that this had not had any significant impact on the academic study of Western esotericism, though Traditionalism in general has indeed had a significant impact on other fields. This point was important because Strube had named two scholars of esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff and Marco Pasi, neither retired, in a way that associated them with the Far Right, and we felt it important to defend them against guilt by association.

In his rejoinder, “Distractions, a Contested Legacy, and Hidden Intentions: A Rejoinder to Sedgwick & Piraino,” Asprem dealt mostly with Hakl, repeating his criticism of the way that Religiographies handled him, and noting that his activities had “contributed to a politicized perception of the field [of esotericism scholarship], especially in the German-speaking world.” Whether one prefers the more forgiving view of Hakl’s activities of Piraino, Pasi, and myself or the harsher view of Strube and Asprem, it may well be true that his activities indeed contributed to a politicized perception of the field in the German-speaking world. This is unfortunate, but perception is not the same as reality. 

In the end, I think, the two sides are actually not so far apart. We all agree that Hakl, for example, published with politically engaged publishers like Hohenrain Verlag, which Pasi described in Religiographies as “well known for its right-wing political stance,” while Asprem objects that it is in fact “known… for disseminating extremist content, including antisemitism and Holocaust denial.” There is disagreement about exacctly how to label Hohenrain, then, but not about what it stands for.

Strube’s short note on “On the Vilification of Critics and Quality of Scholarship: A Critical Juncture in the Study of Esotericism and Far-Right Politics” deals primarily with Hanegraaff, who is criticized for having defended Hakl. Strube mentions our objection to a methodology that assigns guilt by association but does not really respond to it, instead contrasting our criticism of his methodology with our defense of Hanegraaff.

Those with access to Aries can read the original articles, the response, and the rejoinders and make up their own minds. In the end it seems to me not so much a critical juncture in the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics as a question of what one thinks of one scholar, Hanegraaff. I continue to see his work as fundamental to the whole field, and his views of Hakl as relatively unimportant. Perhaps we scholars would get further with the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics if we avoided making accusations against each other.

Anarchist Podcasts on Traditionalism and Against the Modern World

“The Empire Never Ended Podcast” has been getting into Traditionalism. Episodes are listed below. The Empire Never Ended describes itself as “a weekly podcast about fascist freaks and Balkan (anti)nationalist history” and is hosted by Boris Mamlëz and Rey Katula. Nothing is known of Mamlëz, which may be a pseudonym, but Katula is an editor of Antipolitika, an anarchist magazine (see here) published in English and “Shtokavian,” a supradialect that functions as a substitute for what used to be called Serbo-Croatian. The podcast is serious but humorous, and membership levels proceed from “Regular OK person” ($5) through “Salaried Antifascist” ($10) and “Western Liberal” (§25) to “German” ($50). But some episodes are free.

The first podcasts were part of the “Kali Yuga Reading Room” series in 2023, starting with René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World (#217, here) and proceeding to Julius Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World (#221 and #224, here and here), then Men Among the Ruins (#231, here) and Ride the Tiger (#234, here).

In 2025 came three new podcasts, based on Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: #217 on Guénon (here), #340 on Schuon (here), and #341 (here), returning to Evola.

Enjoy. 

(and thanks to  DV for drawing my attention to these podcasts)

Traditionalism, the myth of Hyperborea, and Masculinity

A new article by Christopher E. Forth traces the development of the myth of Hyperborea and its entanglement with Julius Evola’s views on gender. It is “From the far north to the far right: white masculinity and the myth of Hyperborea,” Journal of Gender Studies online first, https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2025.2576814.

Forth finds the origins of the Hyperborean myth in Pinder, and proceeds from there to Helena Blavatsky and the Traditionalists, particularly Evola, who added a north-south axis to the more standard east-west axis, associating the northern (and thus Hyperborean) with the male and the southern with the female. This pair is then adopted by Alexander Dugin and the far right in general, joining concern at what Guillaume Faye called “devirilization.”

Forth argues that myths such as this are important for understanding the appeal of the far right to many men, and that standard arguments referencing patriarchy and the loss of male white (material) privilege do not fully explain what is going on. He sides with the “growing number of gender scholars who acknowledge that… many males… seek existential or ‘ontological security’… in the semblance of a meaningful and inhabitable future.” Concerns about “the erosion of traditional structures of identity, community, and meaning – structures that necessarily include gender roles and expectations” may be legitimate, even if the responses offered by the far right are not.

The remainder of the article discusses Hyperborean memes and the issue of whether Hyperborea is real or mythical. Here Forth cites Greg Johnson, who welcomes myths because they offer “a concrete vision, a story of who we are and who we wish to become... Myths can inspire collective action to change the world.”

An interesting article. It raises questions about the relationship between Evola’s understanding of gender as primarily spiritual and contemporary understandings that might be described as “biological determinism.” In Revolt Against the Modern World, Evola wrote:

It is not a coincidence for a being to “awaken” to itself in the body of a man or a woman... The physical difference should be viewed as the equivalent of a spiritual difference; hence a being is a man or a woman in a physical way only because a being is either masculine or feminine in a transcendental way; sexual differentiation, far from being an irrelevant factor in relation to the spirit, is the sign that points to a particular vocation and to a distinctive dharma.

Evola’s “particular vocation” and “distinctive dharma” are spiritual, not really what is usually meant today by “gender roles.”

Evola in the Italian Ministry of Culture

Alessandro Giuli (born 1975, pictured right), Italian Minister of Culture since September 2024, is a Traditionalist.

As a young man he belonged to a far-right group called Meridiano Zero, where Evola was read. In 1998 he published an article on Evola and esotericism in Studi Evoliani, the journal of the Fondazione J. Evola, edited by Gianfranco de Turris. In 2001 he helped the publication of a new edition of Evola’s Gli uomini e le rovine (Men Among the Ruins) by translating the introductory essay contributed by Alain de Benoist, the leading figure in the French New Right. In 2006 he again collaborated with de Turris, contributing a short interview with the political scientist and historian Giorgio Galli for a volume on Esoterismo e Fascismo (Esotericism and Fascism) that de Turris edited. In 2008 he gave a lecture on Evola at an anniversary conference in Genoa, and in 2022 contributed an appendix to an edition of the correspondence between Evola and the philosophers Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile.

Also in 2022, shortly after a new right-wing government was formed under Giorgia Meloni, Giuli was appointed director of MAXXI, the National Museum of 21st Century [XXI] Art, by Gennaro Sangiuliano, the new minister of culture. Some objected that he had no experience in art. Then, after Sangiuliano had to resign because of a scandal involving an ex-girlfriend and possible misuse of official funds, Meloni appointed Giuli to succeed Sangiuliano as minister of culture, and to “continue the effort to revive national culture, consolidating the break with the past that Italians have asked for and that we have initiated since we took office.”

The question thus arises of to what extent Evola may help to "revive national culture." An argument that Evola matters (available here) was made shortly after Giuli's appointment as minister by Roberto de Mattei, a Catholic historian and blogger, on the basis of Giuli's Gramsci è vivo. Sillabario per un'egemonia contemporanea (2024, Gramsci lives: Syllabus for a contemporary hegemony). What worried de Mattei most was the anti-Catholicism that he found in this book, and which he traced, probably correctly, to Evola. Instead of the Catholic tradition, it is clear that Giuli wants to restore what he sees as the basis of the Italian genius loci (spirit of the place): Roman paganism. In Gramsci è vivo, Giuli calls on the Right to abandon “the irrational rhetoric of the barbarian at the gates” and to remember that ancient Rome was based on “culturally homogeneous but ethnically diverse populations.” The culture in question was Roman, not Christian. In this call one may also see an echo of Evola’s criticism of crudely biological racism.

Giuli's enthusiasm for Roman paganism is clear in his other publications. In 2011 he published a book entitled Venne la Magna Madre. I riti, il culto e l’azione di Cibele romana (Come the Great Mother. The rites, worship, and actions of the Roman Cybele). “Venne la Magna Madre” was a quotation from a poem by the Italian poet and hero of the First World War Gabriele D'Annunzio, referring to the Cybele, an Anatolian mother goddess known as Magna Mater (Great mother) in Rome. The book was primarily a historical study. In 2025 he published a collection of his earlier articles published as Antico presente. Viaggio nel sacro vivente (The ancient present: A journey into the living sacred), described in its blurb as “a journey through the stories of a past that is always present.” 

Evola may also have been present in a speech that Giuli gave at the Frankfurt Book Fair, in which he described the roots of Italian culture as “what can be called solar thought: the meeting point between the rigidity of ideologies that dissolves in the noonday light of the Mediterranean spirit, the light so dear to the finest German aesthetic tradition.” The term “solar thought” was ascribed to Albert Camus in the official transcript of the speech released by the ministry, but for some journalists, Evola was the more likely source, and also for “Mediterranean spirit.”

Intention and effect are of course different things, especially in politics. To what extent Giuli will succeed in reviving pagan solar Mediterranean spirit in Italy remains to be seen.

Evola in the BJP

A contributor to Swarajya, a somewhat disreputable English-language Indian magazine closely aligned with India’s ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), recently published an article supportive of the tough approach of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to the long-running (Maoist) Naxalite insurgency in central and east India. It was Kishan Kumar, “Hammer of the State: End of Naxalite Nightmare Under Modi-Shah Doctrine,” available here. 

So far, so unremarkable. What was remarkable was the article made frequent use of references to Julius Evola to drive its message home, without any explanation of who Evola was, other than that “Julius Evola taught that decadence must be met with the sword, that the regression of the modern world is not to be negotiated with but to be crushed.”

Evola, we are told, “reminds us that true authority requires the destruction of that which defies hierarchy. That is precisely what the home ministry has done.” “Evola, the article concludes, “taught us that modernity must be resisted with transcendence. India is now fighting not merely for land or law but for Dharma. The forest has been cleansed with fire. The citadels of ideology have been breached. The Kali Yuga still lingers, but the hammer has struck.”

Kishan Kumar, the author of the article, evidently knows his Evola and appreciates Evola's message. Whether he refers to him without introduction because he thinks his readers will all know who he was, or whether he is the only BJP supporter who has ever heard of Evola, is unclear. There are no other references to him in Swarajya, so perhaps the latter.

Maybe a BJP expert will read this post and help out with a  comment

Evola in the philosophical mainstream

Grant Havers, a professor of philosophy at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, has brought Julius Evola into the mainstream of political philosophy with a chapter on “Evola’s Critique of Machiavellianism” in a 2025 volume in the American series “Political Theory for Today.” 

Havers draws mostly on Men Among the Ruins, briefly presenting Evola’s perspectives on “the meaning of the aristocratic mindset” before proceeding to his critiques of Machiavelli and of Machiavellian Bonapartism, the core of the article, and ending with a short section on the possibility of “a return to aristocratic politics amid the ruins of modernity.” Regarding Machiavelli he brings Evola into conversation with the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973), regarding Bonapartism with the American philosopher James Burnham (1905-1987), and regarding a return to aristocratic politics, briefly, with the English politician Winston Churchill (1874-1965). Strauss, Burnham, and Churchill are all mainstream figures, though certainly on the political right. Evola is not normally found in such company.

Havers introduces Evola as an “Italian neo-pagan mystic” and notes that there was a “sympathy with certain features of Italian Fascism and German National Socialism.” Despite this, he proposes, Evola “articulates important and original insights into the self-destructive nature of modern democracy.” As he goes on to demonstrate, avoiding any reference to the esoteric, though he does use the terms “spirituality” and even “metaphysically.”

The chapter appears in a volume on Aristocratic Voices: Forgotten Arguments about Virtue, Authority, and Inequality (Lexington Books, 2025) edited by Richard Avramenko (University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Ethan Alexander-Davey (Campbell University, NC), a follow-up on their earlier volume on Aristocratic Souls in Democratic Times (Lexington Books, 2018). As they write, “In the 21st century, political debates appear to center on fundamental conflicts between ‘the people’ and ‘elites.’ Most of these discussions emphasize strategies to protect and empower the oppressed masses against a predatory ruling class. Much of classical political thought, however, was written from an aristocratic point of view: that is, it ascribed paramount importance to the question of elite formation.” Hence their two volumes, which look at figures from Tacitus, Hobbes, Burke, and Tocqueville, to Konstantin Leontiev, José Ortega y Gasset, Henry Adams, and Oswald Spengler. And now also Evola. A wider focus than his critique of Machiavellian Bonapartism might have been in order.

More research on Evola

2025 is a great year for those interested in Julius Evola. First, an exhaustive biography (actually published in 2024) has become available: Andrea Scarabelli’s Vita avventurosa di Julius Evola. Una biografia (The Adventurous Life of Julius Evola: A Biography), 816 pages, in Italian. Secondly, the journal Aries has published a special edition on Evola with four excellent articles.

I have not yet read Scarabelli’s book, but hope to, and to review it in this blog. I expect it to be well-informed, as Scarabelli is deputy secretary of the J. Evola Foundation, which houses Evola’s archive, and I also expect it not to be entirely objective, for the same reason—Scarabelli’s role in the Evola Foundation. This was established by Evola himself “to reaffirm the traditional values of culture… [and] enhance and disseminate the thought and work of Julius Evola.” It is not a neutral body.

Now to the Aries special issue, available here. It is edited by Julian Strube and entitled “Far-Right Politics and the Study of Esotericism,” but it is mostly about Evola, though it includes one article (on “The German Jewish Occult: Frankfurt School Critical Theory and the Philosophy of the ‘Irrational’” by Ansgar Martins) that does not mention Evola, and which this post will ignore. The articles that deal with Evola are discussed in turn. It is therefore a very long post, but it makes sense to discuss these articles together.

✸ The first article is by Peter Staudenmaier, “Evola’s Afterlives: Esotericism and Politics in the Posthumous Reception of Julius Evola,” Aries 25 (2025): 163–193. It shows that Evola was closer to the Italian Fascist Party and to the German National Socialists than he later admitted.

After the end of the Second World War, Evola airbrushed his record. Distancing himself from the Fascist Party, he emphasized that he had never been a member. What he did not mention was that this was because his application to join the party was rejected, twice. The Fascists found him too abrasive, and were nervous about his strange connections. This did not stop him playing a larger role in Fascist racism and antisemitism than he later admitted, however.

The story is much the same when it comes to the Nazis. Not everyone in the SS approved of him, as has often been emphasized. Overall, however, the SS worked happily enough with him, and he was at one point on the payroll of the SD (Sicherheitsdienst, Security Service, by then a branch of the SS).

This certainly modifies the general view of Evola's life, but does not require any major reassessment of his work. There was already evidence pointing in this direction, and Evola never claimed to have been an active anti-fascist or anti-Nazi, nor could anyone sensible take him as such.

Staudenmaier notes that “The persistence of profoundly distorted images of Evola for decades, including scholarly venues, should be occasion for reflection.” One explanation, he suggests, is partly that the evola Foundation has never allowed much access to its archive. Another is that many people have followed Evola’s own later accounts too uncritically. And then “difficult questions arise with Hans Thomas Hakl, whose work has molded so much of Evola’s international reputation.” Hakl (born 1947) is discussed in more detail below.

✸ Then comes Davide Marino and Milan Reith, “Pagan Imperialisms: Julius Evola’s ‘Esoteric Collaborationism,’” Aries 25 (2025): 194–225. It shows that Evola’s reading of esotericism sometimes followed political imperatives. The “collaborationism” of the title is political, demonstrated through a comparison of two different versions of Evola’s Pagan Imperialism, the Italian original of 1928 and the German version of 1933. Each is placed in its political context, and differences between them are highlighted.

The conclusion is that “Evola seamlessly shifted from one political position to another, continually finding new ‘esoteric’ justifications for his ideological stances,” and this is argued convincingly. As the authors say, “The cult of Mithra could be the herald of the ‘Mediterranean tradition’ in 1928 yet become ‘the avatâra of the ancient Aryan god of the luminous sky’ in 1933. Italians could alternatively be ‘Mediterranean and thus essentially Western,’ distinct from ‘the race of blond Germanic barbarians,’ or ‘Aryans, heirs of the sacred Caesars and the royal sons of Thor and Odin.’” Certainly, on these occasions, political logic was guiding the esotericism, not the other way round. In future, we will need to look more carefully for the political logic, and take the esotericism less at face value.

✸ Next comes Moritz Maurer, “Reading Evola in Germany,” Aries 25 (2025): 226–257. This shows that Evola’s works in German served as occasion for internal Nazi discussions. As Maurer puts it, Evola “could serve as an inspiring intellectual but more often acted as a defining foil against which differing concepts and notions of National Socialism and Germanness were negotiated.” This article is especially interesting since so little is known of the reception of any variety of Traditionalism in Germany. It is based on reviews of Evola’s works in the German press from 1933 to 1943, sources used by neither Scarabelli or Hakl

Maurer explains that “that National Socialism lacked a unified ideological doctrine” and that its success was in part due to its ability to be inclusive—within certain very clear limits. The most important of these were the rejection of anything Jewish, democratic, or Bolshevik. Evola transgressed none of these limits. His criticism of modernity could be read as criticism of the Weimar Republic and all that it had stood for. Reviews of his work could therefore, as Maurer argues, allow debates internal to National Socialist thought, notably over the relationship with the Catholic Church and with Neopaganism. This was one reason for the initial Nazi interest in Evola. Another was that his status within Italian Fascism seems to have been generally overestimated. Although sometimes welcome, his ideas were more often rejected as un-German. Despite the alliance between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, there was little desire to incorporate Italian Fascism into Nazism. The Italians were Italians, not Germans.

The two works that led to most discussion were Heidnischer Imperialismus (Pagan Imperialism) and Erhebung wider die moderne Welt (Revolt against the Modern World), both published in the relatively peaceful years before 1940. The situation after 1940 was different, as Maurer explains, with stricter censorship and, beyond that, paper shortages and economic challenges for publishers. Given this, the 1943 publication of Grundrisse der faschistischen Rassenlehre (Fundamentals of Fascist Racial Science) indicates very definite approval within the Nazi state, and also the Italian state—Mussolini himself approved the translation, according to Scarabelli, who gives no source for this information. On this occasion, Evola’s status as a representative of Italian Fascism was perhaps not over-estimated. The book, however, did not give rise to much discussion, presumably given the circumstances of the times.

The Nazi reception of Evola tells us more about Nazism than it does about Evola, even though Evola did manage his reception in Germany, adjusting his views to the German market in his German translations, as Marino and Reith showed. Criticism of Evola’s conception of aristocracy by Bernhard Kummer, a prominent Nazi theorist and Nordicist, is particularly interesting. Kummer “counter[ed] Evola’s aristocratic-pagan ideas,” writes Maurer, “with a völkisch-Protestant conception of Germanness, contrasting aristocracy with the idea of Volksgemeinschaft.” The same position was taken in a journal controlled by a more senior Nazi ideologist, Walther Darré. Volksgemeinschaft, the community of the nationally and racially defined people irrespective of class, was not exactly a Nazi dogma, but was very close to one, and in this respect Evola’s views contradicted Nazism, being more individualist and thus, in some sense, more liberal. More on this below.

As Maurer notes, the picture of Evola in the Third Reich that emerges from his work differs from the postwar attempt by Evola to distance himself from Nazism, and from the pictures painted by his more partisan chroniclers (Hakl, Scarabelli).

✸ Finally comes Julian Strube, “Esotericism, the New Right, and Academic Scholarship,” Aries 25 (2025): 304–353. This long article (50 pages) falls into two parts, one of which complements Maurer by dealing with reading Evola in postwar Germany, and one of which looks mostly at the reception not of Evola, but of Hakl. I will deal with these two parts separately.

✩ In the first part of his article, Strube covers the relatively well-known topic of the international reception of Evola by the New Right. More importantly, he covers the postwar German-language reception of Evola, about which far less is known.

Strube clearly demonstrates the importance of Hakl in the German-language reception of Evola, both as translator and as commentator. Armin Mohler (1920–2003), the secretary of Ernst Jünger, popularized (from 1949) the idea of an interwar “Conservative Revolution” group that was distinct from Nazism and so, by implication, innocent of Nazism’s crimes. The association between Evola’s activities and the Conservative Revolution was later encouraged by Evola himself, and followed by others, including Hakl, who systematically presented Evola is the most favorable possible light. 

Strube does not inquire into Hakl’s motivations, but notes how a sanitized Evola serves the objectives of the New Right, and the number of New Right journals in which Hakl published: Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Junge Freiheit, Sezession, Neue Ordnung, Deutsche Stimme, and Criticón. Strube does not mention Hakl's explanation, that he chose these journals because they were interested in Evola when nobody else was (see interview here), nor does he mention the alternative explanation of Hakl’s favorable presentation of Evola: that he wanted to save the good esoteric content from being drowned out by the bad political elements (see Francesco Baroni, here). But whatever Hakl’s motivations, his role in the popularization of Evola in German New Right circles is clear.

Strube also covers the later reception of Evola by Martin Sellner (born 1989), the Austrian leader of the Identitarian movement and one of the leading figures in today’s German as well as the Austrian Radical Right, and by Martin Lichtmesz (born 1976, legally Martin Semlitsch), another Identitarian, and at the Institut für Staatspolitik and in its journal Sezession.

Interestingly, Strube notes in passing that the concept of ethnopluralism, central to today’s Identitarians and thus to the Radical Right as a whole, was developed not by GRECE in France as is generally thought (and as I thought myself), but by Henning Eichberg (1942–2017), a German-Danish sociologist, in 1973. Ethnopluralism, as Strube writes, “calls for separated ‘ethnic communities’ (Volksgemeinschaften).” It is unclear whether Eichberg used the term Volksgemeinschaft or whether this is Strube’s own gloss, but in either case it raises the interesting question of the relationship between today’s Identitarianism and the Nazi quasi-dogma that Evola rejected.An obvious difference is what was and is seen as the opposite to the Volksgemeinschaft: class struggle for the Nazis, and bland cosmopolitanism for the New Right.

✩ In the second part of his article, Strube turns to the reception of Evola in European academia, notably that part associated with the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism (ESSWE). Here I must declare an interest: I was one of the founder members of ESSWE, and served on its board for many years, and I am also friends with several of the scholars who will be mentioned below. Despite this, I write as neutrally as possible.

Strube demonstrates—though he would not put it this way—that many scholars took Hakl too much at face value as a reliable source on Evola. He does not mention my own work, but he might well have done so: I drew on Hakl’s work in my Against the Modern World (2004), and asked him to write the chapter on Evola in my collection on Key Thinkers of the Radical Right (2019). In retrospect, having read the first part of Strube’s article, I was perhaps at times too uncritical, though I followed normal scholarly practice in using other, mostly primary, sources, and as a result I think that the overall picture I have painted of Evola over the years has not been too far wrong—though I admit that I was surprised, and also amused, to learn that the reason he never joined the Fascist Party was that they would not accept his multiple applications. One of the reasons that I relied on Hakl’s work twenty years ago was that there was then almost nothing else available, and even today it would be hard to identify an expert other than Paul Furlong, author of Social and Political Thought of Julius Evola (2011), who has now retired and whose former colleagues have all lost contact with him. Scarabelli of the Evola Foundation, whose book was mentioned at the start of this post, is too obviously partisan. Hakl was never that obviously partisan. This was another reason that I relied on his work: it is not actually that bad. The presentation of Evola is certainly favorable, but Hakl’s scholarship is otherwise generally good.

Strube, however, takes a different view of the academic reception of Hakl’s work. He looks at the work of Joscelyn Godwin (b. 1945), Marco Pasi (b. 1968), and Wouter Hanegraaff (b. 1961), and identifies “a hermeneutic... that actively prevents the rigorous research and possibly uncomfortable self-reflection needed. The motivations for these tendencies are most likely diverse and not necessarily ideologically driven, but they constitute a failure, if not active resistance, to reflect on the history of the field of ‘Western esotericism’ that continues to shape its scholarly debates.” He also writes of “collaborations with far-right milieus.” “It is particularly problematic” he concludes, “when such collaboration leads to the adoption of narratives and polemical rhetoric... Even when the reasons for such reactions are not ideologically motivated, they at least distort an understanding of not only the historical but also the contemporary dynamics between far-right politics and esotericism.”

This, I think, is going too far, even if he concedes that “motivations… are… not necessarily ideologically driven.” The only real collaboration with far-right milieus was Hakl’s, although Godwin did indeed collaborate with Hakl who organized the second of a series of meetings known as the Palladian Academy that had been started by Godwin, and Pasi and Hanegraaff have defended Hakl (see Pasi in Religiographies, here). Strube notes that “there is nothing to suggest that these Palladian Academy meetings were political in nature or guided by any particular ideology,” so does that collaboration really matter? 

So far as I know, the reason that Pasi and Hanegraaff defended Hakl was that they respected his pioneering work on esotericism as a whole, including his fine study of Eranos (Eranos: An Alternative Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, Routledge 2013), and that they did not see him as an activist for the Radical Right. In which they may well have been right, despite his choice of journals for his articles on Evola. 

The only “adoption of narratives” that Strube seems to demonstrate is that Hanegraaff adopted Hakl’s narrative that “The chief source of attacks against esotericism and New Age movements was and still remains the Frankfurt School” (Hakl, quoted approvingly by Hanegraaff, quoted by Strube). This might indeed slightly “distort [the] understanding of… the contemporary dynamics between far-right politics and esotericism,” but Hanegraaff himself insists that he arrived at this conclusion independently and quoted Hakl not because he was his source, but simply because he agreed with his assessment (personal communication). Strube, then, really demonstrates no collaboration, impact, or lack of scholarly rigor.

✸ The special issue opens with an introduction jointly written by Egil Asprem, editor-in-chief of Aries, and Strube. This takes some of the positions from the second part of Strube’s article even further, suggesting that “the field of ‘Western esotericism’ has proved a hospitable environment for various misconceptions and tendentious narratives about Evola, his politics, and its relation to esotericism. This is all the more problematic because some of the esotericism scholarship on Evola that emerged in the 1990s resulted from collaboration with leading far-right stakeholders.” Certainly, Hakl collaborated with leading far-right stakeholders, and promoted some tendentious narratives. That is not, in my view, enough to condemn an entire field. The introduction also states that Evola’s status as a key thinker of the radical right is “the result of concerted efforts by far-right actors.” This is true. And the actors concerned are not part of the field of Western esotericism, a field that produced the four, or perhaps three and a half, excellent articles contained in this special edition.

Evola’s two translations of the Dàodéjīng

In a new article, Davide Marino has traced the development of Julius Evola’s thought by comparing his two translations of the Dàodéjīng, one published in 1923 and the other in 1959. It is “The Tao of Julius Evola,” Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies (2024), available here (open access).

According to the abstract,

Evola had no knowledge of the Chinese language, and his works were retranslations of materials available at his time to which he added his own personal ideas…. [He moved] from an interpretation of the Dàodéjīng characterised by a mix of Dadaism, Hegelian Idealism, and occultism to a version in line with Traditionalism… [but] despite changing his vocabulary and sources, Evola continued to seek confirmation of his solipsistic theory of the ‘Absolute Individual’ in the ancient Chinese text.

Evola and José Ortega y Gasset

A new article looks at the influence of the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) on Julius Evola, Ayn Rand, and Pierre Bourdieu. It is Björn Boman, “Left, right or something else? José Ortega y Gasset’s intellectual influence in the ideological realm,” SN Social Sciences 4, 204 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-01008-2 (open access). 

Conclusion with regard to Evola: Ortega’s influence was not great, but it is there. Wider significance: the article is one more step in tying the Traditionalists into the wider tapestry of the intellectual history of the Twentieth century.

A Traditionalist Initiatic Novel

In his new book on Serbian literature and esotericism 1957–2000 (Српска књижевност и езотеризам 1957–2000, vol. 2 in the series Подземни Ток, Belgrade: Službeni Glasnik, 2020), Professor Nemanja Radulovic of the University of Belgrade devotes a chapter entitled “Portrait of a Traditionalist” to the Serbian painter, essayist, novelist and political commentator Dragoš Kalajić (1943-2005), already discussed in a previous post here, based on a 2020 article by Branislav Jakovljević. 

Radulovic adds a lot of detail to Jakovljević’s article, covers the whole of Kalajić's career, and helps answer the question I asked at the end of my last post: what Kalajić’s distinctive contribution to Traditionalist thought was. 

Radulovic argues convincing that whenever René Guénon and Julius Evola differed, Kalajić followed Evola, and also that where de differed from both Guénon and Evola was in his emphasis on the Slavs as the bearers of tradition. Here and in his views on international relations he comes close to Alexander Dugin who, according to Radulovic, he knew, and whose politics he echoed during the 1990s and 2000s, though it is unclear to what extent he was influenced by Dugin and to what extent he came to similar conclusions independently. 

What appears as Kalajić’s distinctive contribution to Traditionalism, however, was his “initiatic” novel Kosmotvorac (Cosmocreator; Belgrade: Beletra, 1989), cover pictured above. This, as Radulovic shows, is very much built on an Evolian view of things. It is set in the future and deals with the trial of members of the defeated Ordo explorarum (Order of Explorers), which is based on the actual Order of Templars, and led by an Elder Yalomed, a reverse anagram of the name of the actual Templar Grand Master (Jacques) de Molay. One of the monks of the Order is even called Alovej, J. Evola in reverse. 

The Ordo explorarum teaches that there is a divine spark in man, and seeks to replace the diversity of manifestation with original unity. Its members “preserve the doctrine of the restoration of the primordial state, the seeds of which they are to carry into the next cycle.” They also represent the male principle of order against the gynecocratic government, which defeats them, and is then itself defeated in a terrorist attack aided by alchemy. Kosmotvorac is, in Radulovic’s view, an initiatic novel not just because it tells of an initiatic journey, but also because it seeks to alter the reader.

New book on Shi’i Traditionalists in Italy

A new book has just been published on Shi’i Traditionalists in Italy. It is Crises and Conversions: The Unlikely Avenues of “Italian Shiism”, by Minoo Mirshahvalad, available here.

The book has three sections, though they are not explicitly identified as such. The first section introduces Evolian Traditionalism, paying especial attention to Evola’s views on Islam. The second tells the almost unknown story of the rise and flourishing of Shi’i Traditionalism, and the third looks at various issues and contradictions arising from this.

The book is based on careful readings of relevant texts and on high-quality ethnographic fieldwork, and is beautifully written, with an excellent eye for revealing detail.

The rise of Shi’i Traditionalism in Italy starts with Pio Filippani-Ronconi (1920-2010), an Italian Orientalist who integrated Julius Evola and the very pro-Iranian views of the great French Orientalist Henry Corbin. Having first read Evola in 1934, Filippani-Ronconi remained true to his principals throughout his life, including a period serving in the Waffen-SS, where he reached the rank of Obersturmführer (second lieutenant). But it as a pro-Shi’i Orientalist, not as an SS officer, that he matters. Mirshahvalad also discusses the early roles of Adriano Romualdi (1940-1973), the son of Pino Romualdi (1913-1988), the leader of the MSI, Italy’s largest and most important Neo-Fascist movement, and of Claudio Mutti (born 1946), who is already known to students of Italian Traditionalism.

For the flourishing of Shi’i Traditionalism, Mirshahvalad introduces us to three Italian organizations, the Ahl al-Bayt Association in Naples, the Dimore della Sapienza (houses of wisdom, DDS) in Rome, and the lower-profile Tarsis in Trieste. The Ahl al-Bayt Association was founded by Luigi Ammar de Martino (1964-2019), who as a young man belonged to the Evolian activist (and terrorist) group Ordine Nuovo, converted to Sunni Islam in 1982, and then to Shi’i Islam in 1983, one of many in Italy to follow this pattern, which can be seen as representing a shift from the more standard Guénonian position to a less standard position based on a specifically Italian reading of Evola.

Beyond these three organizations there is also a more general sympathy with Iranian Shi’ism on the Italian Right represented, for example, by the production by members of CasaPound, perhaps Italy’s highest profile Far Right group, of posters commemorating the death of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, part of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, assassinated by an American drone in 2020.

The third part of the book, as has been said, looks at various issues and contradictions arising from the sometimes uncomfortable alliance of Evola, Shi’ism, and the Iranian state. Mirshahvalad starts with culture, which she describes as “the Achilles’ heel” of the Shi’i Traditionalists, and Traditionalists in general. This issue has been dealt with by other scholars before, but never quite as directly and as clearly as by Mirshahvalad. Esra Özyürek, for example, wrote in 2014 of the ambivalent relations between German converts to Islam and immigrant Muslims in Germany. The point that Mirshahvalad makes is that for both Guénon and Evola, what mattered was the tradition, and culture was a human creation, not part of the tradition. But of course whatever Guénon and Evola thought, scholars of religion know that religion and culture are interwoven. the Shi’i Traditionalists generally try to keep religion and culture separate: “Converts’ Shiism is not a family heritage but an attempt for crafting a shield against modernity. This shield is fabricated independently from Shi’ism in its original contexts.” But it is not always so easy. “My wife is Iranian … but we are not Iranians, we are Italians,” one informant told Mirshahvalad. One wonders.

A number of other issues are considered, including the way that Shi’i Traditionalists often ignore central features of Iranian Shi’ism, from gender segregation to the all-important institutions of the marjiʿ  and the hawza, the foundations of Iranian Islamic authority and among the most important things that make Shi’i Islam different from Sunni Islam in the first place. An equally important question that is discussed is the way in which the view that Shi’i Traditionalists have of Iran differs in many ways from the view that most Iranians now have, a view which binds them tightly to the ever more discredited conservative leadership. There is also a brief but convincing discussion of what the Iranian state and leadership gain from their relationship with Italy’s Shi’i Traditionalists

All in all, a fascinating book, strongly recommended.

Traditionalism in Brazil today

Guest post by Felipe Souza

Recent trends indicate a continuation of the dissemination of Traditionalist ideology in Brazil. There is a growing interest in René Guénon among certain Catholic groups, especially those influenced by the late Brazilian Traditionalist and controversial public intellectual Olavo de Carvalho, as well as in some Islamic groups with connections to both Olavo and Western Sufism. There are other groups that have an interest in Guénon, but they are few.

In the right-wing political arena, the Movimento Brasil Livre (Free Brazil Movement) stands out, with one of its coordinators, Ricardo Almeida, publicly endorsing Guénon and Olavo, and maintaining ties with a local branch of a Sufi tariqa. The Nova Resistência (New Resistance) movement, a proponent of Duginism, flirts with Guénonism but primarily aligns itself with Julius Evola, possibly due to the author's and the movement's association with philofascism. Surprisingly, Nova Resistência has even infiltrated a traditional party, the PDT (Partido Democrático Trabalhista - Democratic Labor Party). A dissenting group from Nova Resistência, known as Sol da Pátria (Sun of the Homeland), also promotes ideas aligned with Guénonism, contributing to the recent spread of Traditionalism in Brazil and aiming to adopt historical symbols of national labor.

The leader of Nova Resistência, Raphael Machado, has delivered speeches at the Imam Hussein Cultural Center, a Shiite entity located in Rio de Janeiro. This Cultural Center not only hosted members of Nova Resistência, but also published a statement of solidarity regarding the recent assassination of Dugin’s daughter, Darya Dugina. Texts by Dugin and members of Nova Resistência have been published in Revista Minarete, issued by the Imam Hussein Center, although these publications are no longer available online.

Despite these scattered presences in the public space, it is the publishing houses that play the most significant role in disseminating Traditionalist works in Brazil. Noteworthy among these is the IRGET, the René Guénon Institute for Traditional Studies, which has existed for decades, holding a vast collection of translations of Guénon and authors such as Ananda Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Works produced by IRGET find some diffusion even in academic circles, with academic papers citing publications from this institute. The late Luiz Pontual de Oliveira was in charge of IRGET. The quality of translations promoted by IRGET is a subject of controversy. Some critics argue that the fidelity and accuracy of these translations are points of contention. In addition to books, IRGET used to organize courses, which became increasingly infrequent until the cessation of its educational activities with the passing of Pontual.

Additionally, within the sphere of influence of IRGET, it is interesting to observe the presence of Freemasons and members of the Eubiose movement who consider the works of Guénon as influential references. For the Brazilian Society of Eubiose, Guénon’s The King of the World remains a referenced work, despite the controversies concerning it. A translation of this book was published by the Society of Eubiose, but has not been reissued.

A greater focus on Guénon's work emerged recently when a publisher started releasing his complete works. In 2022, Editora Bismillah (Bismillah Publishing) released the “Essential René Guénon Box” (with another box on the way, “René Guénon Metaphysical Explorations Box”) in collaboration with Editorial Estrela da Manhã (Morning Star Publishing), and published books by authors such as Titus Burckhardt, Sheikh Nazim al-Haqqani, Ibn Arabi, al-Ghazali, aligning them with Traditionalist rhetoric. With close relations with this publisher, the História Islâmica (Islamic History) portal recently dedicated a video to Guénon, while its sister portal, Iqara Islam, uses Guénon to conceptualize tradition.

In addition to Guénon's books, Estrela da Manhã has been organizing courses, available online, on Guénonian thought. Two representatives of this movement are frequently present in the classes, which are available on the YouTube video platform: Luiz Gonzaga de Carvalho, the son of Olavo, and Marcelo Cipolla, a professional translator and editor. Both had been working together for years at ICLS (Cultural Institute Lux et Sapientia), collaborating with another son of Olavo, Tales de Carvalho. The owner of História Islâmica, Mansur Peixoto, conducted an event with Marcelo Cipolla on Ibn Arabi, in collaboration with Bismillah Publisher, as well as participated in a live on YouTube about the Islamic presence in Brazil on Sol da Pátria’s channel

Bismillah Publisher / Editorial Estrela da Manhã meet the demand of readers eager for the works of Guénon, a demand that IRGET addressed for some time, not only by offering books but also courses. However, unlike IRGET, these courses are now available on online platforms.

In the realm of Schuonian Traditionalism, Mateus Soares de Azevedo stands out as a prolific author with an extensive body of work. Particularly noteworthy is Azevedo's collaboration with Schuon’s follower William Stoddart, with whom he published O Poder do Esquerdismo e o Politicamente Correto (The Power of Leftism and Political Correctness). Azevedo's writings delve into a spectrum of themes, including perennialism, Christianity, Sufism, and various related subjects explored across multiple articles. Beyond his noteworthy editorial contributions, Azevedo actively engages in Evolian Gatherings—dedicated study cycles focused on Julius Evola's work—and enjoys an international presence through publications with Traditionalist publishers such as World Wisdom and Sophia Perennis.

In contemporary times, César Ranquetat Jr. emerges as another author aligned with Traditionalism. Renowned for works like A Realeza de Cristo e a ideia de uma sociedade tradicional (The Kingdom of Christ and the Idea of a Traditional Society) and Da direita moderna à direita tradicional (From Modern Right to Traditional Right), Ranquetat champions the concept of the "traditional man" within the context of his Christian-oriented writings. In 2012, he wrote an article on Julius Evola's contributions in Brazil, expressing regret over the insufficient dissemination of the Traditionalist's oeuvre. This text was published on the Legio Victrix blog, dedicated to Dugin's Fourth Political Theory and with a neo-fascist outlook.

Publishing is one of the crucial foundations for the consolidation of a movement, especially one of an elitist nature resistant to becoming a mass ideology, as is the case with Traditionalism. Various Traditionalist groups, may, then have been expanding, more or less organized, their rhetorical and formative arsenal using the books of the aforementioned editorial groups.

In conclusion, Guénonism emerges as an intellectual force that permeates the knowledge systems and practices of a significant group of Brazilian Muslim and other Traditionalists. Olavo's main legacy seems to have been the creation of an environment that normalizes Guénon and his elitist ideas. Evola and Schuon end up being relegated to the background in this scene, despite having their own niches and followers. For advocates of spiritual elitism aspiring to propagate their convictions in Brazil, there is undoubtedly room for growth.

Special issue on Hans Thomas Hakl and Julius Evola

The journal Religiographies has just published a special issue (available here) on “Hans Thomas Hakl and his Library” (library pictured to the left). Much of the special issues is in fact about Hans Thomas Hakl and Julius Evola, as it is for his work on Evola that Hakl is best known, at least among those who have not visited his library.

One article is devoted to Hakl and Evola: “The Philosophical Gold of Perennialism. Hans Thomas Hakl, Julius Evola and the Italian Esoteric Milieus,” by Francesco Baroni. Evola is also discussed in most of the other articles. In “Hans Thomas Hakl: Reminiscences and Reflections on the Challenges of Studying Esotericism in Problematic Contexts,” Marco Pasi addresses “the perceived connection between modern and contemporary esotericism and far-right politics.” In “Hans Thomas Hakl: Three lives in One,” Bernd-Christian Otto explains how Hakl encountered Evola and covers the work he did on him. Evola is also discussed in Joscelyn Godwin’s short “Hans Thomas Hakl: Personal Reminiscences.” 

Most interesting for those interested in Evola, however, is Baroni’s article. Here is the abstract: 

This article examines the relationship between the Austrian entrepreneur and scholar Hans Thomas Hakl (born 1947) and the esotericist Julius Evola (1898–1974), the most influential Italian representative of the so-called “Traditionalist School.” Best known as a far-right ideologue, Evola was frequently blacklisted from academia, and received scarce scholarly attention until the 1980s. After translating Evola's main books into German, Hakl has established himself as one of the most reliable specialists of Evola, thus contributing to his international resonance, as well as to his recognition as a legitimate object of academic research. As Hakl has shown in his publications, Evola has been a significant personality in 20th-century cultural history. His groundbreaking contributions on Eastern spiritualities and hermeticism, for instance, have interacted with mainstream culture more than many were willing to admit, which is confirmed by Evola’s lasting relationships with famous scholars of religion such as Mircea Eliade and Giuseppe Tucci. Later on, in the context of globalization, Evola’s idea of Tradition was seen as a tool for negotiating alternative worldviews, as well as for a radical reshaping of cultural identities. Our research took place mainly in Graz, where Hakl’s archives are located. Access to these facilities proved invaluable, enabling the identification and study of unpublished documents. 

The occasion for the special issue is that Hakl has donated his magnificent library to the Giorgio Cini Foundation in Venice, the institution that sponsors the journal Religiographies.

The influence of Traditionalism on contemporary Dutch politics

Guest post by Milan Reith

In recent years Traditionalist ideas have surfaced on the fringes of Dutch politics, yet another instance of their ongoing revival. The most notable examples of this phenomenon coalesce around a network of individuals connected to the far-right political party Forum voor Democratie (FVD). Originally founded as a conservative think tank, this organization later evolved into a political party which did very well in the 2019 provincial elections, and has since undergone a significant process of radicalization. While its political agenda initially centered around Euroscepticism, it has increasingly begun to put forward conspiratorial, antimodern and racist ideas, leading to a considerable loss of electoral support.

In 2022, the affiliated youth wing of FVD published a special issue of their periodical De Dissident dedicated to the topic of “Tradition” (see image). Some pieces of note within this special issue include an interview with Alexander Dugin and a new Dutch translation of an article by Julius Evola. This translation was completed by Massimo Etalle, who is the editor-in-chief of the magazine in question, as well as the interviewer of Dugin. As it happens, this marks the second time Evola has been translated into Dutch, with the first instance being a translation of Evola’s book Orientations which was completed by the Flemish nationalist Peter Logghe in 1982.

In the interview titled “Western Europe has chosen Satan,” Dugin repeats his familiar talking points, portraying traditional religion and extremist politics as indispensable instruments in the fight against modernity. In the course of the discussion, he particularly emphasizes active resistance against the forces of modernization, reminiscent of Evola’s distinctive brand of Nietzschean esotericism. This hostile dimension is confirmed in the conclusion of the piece, where Dugin stresses the need for young people in the Netherlands to read authors such as Guénon and, especially, Evola, as he emphasized the need for practical action.

Owing to this renewed appreciation for Traditionalism within the FVD, it is perhaps unsurprising that the party leader Thierry Baudet has routinely put forward ideas which mirror the sentiments of Dugin’s political thought. For example, Baudet’s framework for viewing the geopolitical sphere as a clash between Russian and American civilization owes much to Dugin’s theories. Whereas Baudet perceives America to be guided by a globalist conspiracy, he praises Russia as the only country offering a conservative resistance against the progressive agenda.

The special issue of De Dissident marks an attempt to introduce Traditionalism to a broader range of readers in the Netherlands. Although the target audience is already somewhat embedded in a subculture of conspiracy, nationalism, and a deep sense of nostalgia, they are likely not overly familiar with the thought of either Evola or Dugin. In that regard, it is certainly significant to see FVD make the decision to go in this particular direction. This development once again highlights the significance of Traditionalism as a source of inspiration for the contemporary far-right.

Milan Reith is pursuing both a research master's in philosophy at Radboud University, and a master's in religious studies at the University of Amsterdam. He is primarily interested the relationship between esotericism and politics in the twentieth century.

New article on Traditionalism in Hungary

A new article examines the past and present of Traditionalism in Hungary. It is Magdalena Marsovszky, “’Gegen die moderne Welt’. Julius Evola in Ungarn” [Against the Modern World: Julius Evola in Hungary], Zeitschrift für Rechtsextremismusforschung 3, no. 1 (2023), pp. 19-34, available here (try here if the download does not work).

The first half of the article introduces Julius Evola and his thought. It then traces his influence though the Hungarian writers and philosophers Béla Hamvas (1897-1968), András László (born 1941), and Tibor I. Baranyi (born 1967). This, argues Marsovszky, matters much more than Evola’s own visits to Hungary between 1936 and 1942. Although he was invited by Countess Eduardine Zichy (1877-1964), the president of the Hungarian Literary Society who was supported by the minister of culture and education, Evola’s last Hungarian lecture, on “The Mystery of the Grail and Reich Thought" in March 1942, attracted only a small audience of 25.

The Hungarian Traditionalism of Hamvas, in contrast, grew in popularity after the 1960s and especially after the fall of Communism in 1989. Hamvas drew on Evola, René Guénon, and Guénon’s main German collaborator, the philosopher Leopold Ziegler (1881-1958), author of Überlieferung (Tradition, 1936). It was then further spread by Hamvas's follower László, and László’s follower Baranyi, both of whom taught at the King Atilla Academy established by the political party Jobbik, which she says has continued operating underground since its official closure in 2016.

Marsovszky considers Scientia Sacra (Sacred Science, i.e. Tradition, 1942-43) as Hamvas’s main work, and sees it following Evola in its conviction that decline from the Golden Age could be arrested through cyclical reincarnations of ‘initiatic communities’ following an ancient traditional Boreal higher order. He also followed Evola’s understanding of race as metaphysical and spiritual rather than biological (thus rejecting Nazi racism). She considers his most important departure from Evola and Guénon to have been his inclusion of Christianity in the perennial philosophy, which she believes Hamvas took from Ziegler.

“Today,” writes Marsovszky, “Hamvas's theses are often regarded in Hungary as a democratic alternative to the biologistic descent-oriented direction of the ethnic nationalists and are also classified by anti-fascists as anti-fascist, while Hamvas's and Evola's neo-Right ideology is not reflected upon analytically.” She continues “The fact that democracy in Hungary has not been able to become stable since the fall of communism in 1989 and that society has been infiltrated by anti-modern, anti-democratic attitudes is partly due to the dissemination of Evola's theses.” Although Jobbik and the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán are politically opposed, she believes, they in fact share much the same basic ideology.

As noted in an earlier blog post (here), the only book by Hamvas available in English remains his remarkable The Philosophy of Wine. Readers who want to get a feel for the dimensions of Hungarian Traditionalism can visit the Traditionalist publisher Kvintesszencia Kiadó at https://tradicio.org, and may consult Metaphysicum et politicum - A magyar tradicionális iskola bibliográfiája [Metaphysicum et politicum - Bibliography of the Hungarian Traditionalist School] by the Hungarian Traditionalist Ferenc Buji (Debrecen: A Metafizikai Hagyomány Centruma, 2008). In 334 pages, this lists and comments on Hungarian Traditionalists authors, publishers, and periodicals prior to its publication. It is available here.

Evola merch

Evola T-shirts have been available for some time from several suppliers, including the online marketplace Redbubble in the US, who also sell mugs against the modern world, and Motpol in Sweden. Now Evola busts are also on sale. There are currently two suppliers. ProperCrafts in Romania will sell you a bust (see photo) made in a special eco-friendly plastic, in varying heights and colors. Heretic Camp in Ukraine will sell you an enameled plaster bust. ProperCrafts seems to be a commercial venture, and can also sell you busts of Mussolini, Julius Caesar, Boris Johnson, and Joe Biden. Heretic Camp specializes in Black Metal Music tracks, and busts are a sideline. It seems to be connected to the Azov Brigade.

My thanks to AK for pointing me to ProperCrafts.

New book on Traditionalist thought published (coming soon in US)

Mark Sedgwick, Traditionalism: The Radical Project for Restoring Sacred Order is now available in Europe and Canada. Readers in the US will have to wait until July 6. 

Official UK price is £25, but Amazon.co.uk is selling for £22 and £12.99 on Kindle. In Canada, $53.95 and $17.99 Kindle, and in Europe €22.19 and £18.75 Kindle. 

One of the first reviews is in The Scotsman, and says (in part) "This very fine book is a forensic look at the movement and its influence, and has several points where you both realise something and ponder 'why did I never realise that?'” That is rather what I had hoped for.

The book looks at the intellectual foundations of Traditionalism, its application both to various projects, and "post-Traditionalism." Each chapter looks first at the general intellectual background to the issue it discusses, and then at Traditionalist understandings, starting in most cases with René Guénon and ending as much as possible with living Traditionalists.

Evola on Italian public TV

Guest post by Davide Marino

Rai 3, a state-owned Italian TV channel (traditionally considered the most left-leaning channel of Italian public television) broadcast a 35-minute program on Julius Evola on 30 March 2022. The episode, which can be seen here (in Italian), belonged to a series entitled “Passato e Presente” (Past and Present), a daily show in which the host, the political journalist Paolo Mieli, discusses with a guest historian (and three history students) a historical event or figure. The guest on the show was Alessandra Tarquini, Associate Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Rome Sapienza and author of a good Storia della cultura fascista (History of Fascist Culture).

The episode was divided into three parts, mainly following the periodization used by Evola himself in his autobiography Il cammino del cinabro (The Path of Cinnabar). Part 1 described Evola’s artistic period, his juvenile enthusiasm for Futurism and Dadaism, and his relationship with important exponents of the Italian culture of his time. Part 2 discussed his relationship with the Fascist and Nazi regimes and his Sintesi di dottrina della razza (Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race), presented as different from Rosenberg’s “biological racism.” Part 3 followed Evola in post-war Italy where, after being accused (and later acquitted) of being the inspiration for a neofascist bombing attempt, he became an influential figure for the extra-parliamentary Right.

None of the participants is a sympathizer of Evola’s ideas, and Mieli introduced him as “ultra-fascist, more than fascist, anti-Semitic without a doubt, [...] and appreciated by Mussolini.” However the discussion remained calm and factual, and Evola was described as “an original philosopher, useful for understanding the twentieth century”. Even when discussing Evola’s racism, Mieli argued that Sintesi di dottrina della razza contains “horrible theories but formulated in an original manner,” more sophisticated than other contemporary racist authors.

Not everyone in Italy appreciated this approach, which was considered by some as an attempt to whitewash Evola. In Italy, the public discourse remains extremely polarized and Evola is normally either celebrated as a master by Far-Right circles or, in the famous formulation of Furio Jesi, considered “a racist so dirty that it is repugnant to touch him with one’s own fingers.”

The scope of the episode was, however, limited. With the exception of the Romanian Dadaist Tristan Tzara, Hegel and Nietzsche, there is no mention of the European culture that really influenced Evola. Bachofen is never mentioned and, most importantly, nobody explained that Evola’s “Traditionalism” was influenced by Guénon, not even when discussing Evola’s Rivolta contro il mondo moderno (Revolt Against the Modern World). Also, Mieli correctly noted that Evola’s “tradition” was “invented”, but not that his “Orient” (today quite influential in Italy) was constructed among similar lines (as recently demonstrated by Filippo Pedretti, see article here). Similarly, there was no mention of the enormous influence that Evola had, and still has, outside Italy, and the presenters ended the program by stating that “there are no Evolians,” which is hardly the case.

At the end of each episode, the guest historian normally recommends three books about the topic discussed, normally one primary source and two books of critical literature. However, in this case, Alessandra Tarquini simply pointed to three of Evola’s own books (Imperialismo pagano, Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, and Il cammino del cinabro), saying that “given the complexity of this author, the best thing to do is to start reading him”. This is hardly true. Complex and controversial authors need more critical literature, not less. The truth is that, to date, not much serious academic work on Evola has been published in Italian, and those who study Evola prefer to publish in English, a language inaccessible to a large part of Rai 3’s audience.