This is a continuation of our interview with John Morgan, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos. This innovative firm publishes books about alternatives to modernity, including traditionalist, new right and ecofuturist literature. John was kind enough to take the time answer a lengthy interview, of which part III of IV is presented here.
With The Path of Cinnabar, you’ve begun publishing Julius Evola titles. As the dominant voice of radical traditionalism, he merges the Nietzschean critique of herd morality with the upright values of the old Völkisch Right. Are you going to publish more Evola? Do you think my assessment of his ideology was accurate?
Actually, our first Evola translation was Metaphysics of War, which is a collection of essays he originally published in various journals and newspapers during the 1930s and ‘40s. ITP first published it in 2007, and Arktos brought out a new and much-improved edition earlier this year.
I would have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of Evola, however. While Nietzsche was very important to Evola in his youth, and he continually referred to Nietzsche in his work, I don’t think he could accurately be called a Nietzschean. In The Path of Cinnabar, which was written near the end of his life, Evola lauds Nietzsche for his critique of modernity and its problems, but says that the solutions proposed by him were “hazy and dangerous.” Evola believed that a true Übermensch could only achieve genuine transcendence through a study and practice of the techniques advocated in the ancient sacred texts, most especially the Vedic and Buddhist traditions, which Nietzsche was unfamiliar with and uninterested in except in a superficial way. As for the Völkisch Right, while it is true that Evola associated with some representatives of that tradition, such as at the Herrenklub in 1930s Berlin, his own philosophy is very much at odds with it. Again, referring to Cinnabar, Evola criticizes Hitler for having embraced a Völkisch concept of the Reich rather than a more traditional notion of empire as had existed in Europe previously. The examples Evola advocated as ideals go much further back. He wasn’t very interested in anything from modern times. The Holy Roman Empire of the Medieval era, and the Roman Empire of Antiquity, were deemed far superior in Evola’s eyes to any modern ideology or political system.
I don’t really see how one can classify Evola any more specifically than by saying that he was a traditionalist. It wouldn’t even be accurate to say that he had an ideology, since he rejected such modern notions. The only thing that Evola tried to convey in his work was the transcendental perspective and knowledge as conveyed in the world’s sacred texts, and how this knowledge had been put into practice in earlier, healthier eras. He is frequently associated with Fascism and National Socialism by both supporters and detractors, but if one actually reads what he wrote about them, it’s clear that he only saw in those ideologies a hope for them to act as a bridge to something more traditional, rather than systems that were good as an end in themselves. In the last period of his life, he rejected the idea of politics altogether, as he thought that civilization was too far along in the degeneration of Kali-Yuga for any meaningful political redress to be possible.
You’ve published some really provocative books. Tomislav Sunic’s Against Democracy and Equality speaks a dangerous message, which is that the path that Western civilization has taken for the past 200 years is fundamentally wrong. Do you think the average reader of political books is going to be able to accept such a radical concept, even though it’s well-supported by argument and facts?
I’m not certain who the average reader of political books is. If you’re talking about mainstream readers who still believe in American and European sociopolitical structures as they are currently constituted, then yes, I am sure some of our books might be a bit shocking. However, when we make decisions regarding potential new publications, we don’t necessarily look for the most radical or strange ideas and theories, but rather those that we actually think are needed or which we believe people want to read. And speaking of Sunic’s book specifically, I don’t really think that the ideas of the European New Right are all that shocking. I believe that many sensible people respond favorably to them when they are clearly explained, since these ideas emerge from very natural observations about reality. And it seems that more people from all points of the spectrum are beginning to question the assumptions underlying our societies, so I don’t believe that the idea that we are on a wrong course is all that shocking anymore, even if people might disagree about the necessary solutions.
I suppose that one idea that American readers might have trouble grasping at first is the fact that, according to the European political tradition, there is no real Left/Right dichotomy in America. What we have are merely two branches of the liberal tradition with somewhat different priorities – both adhering to the belief that economics is the most crucial aspect of society and trumps all other concerns. In essence, the United States is really as much a single-party system as the Soviet Union was. There is no genuinely Right-wing tradition in America, except for a few tiny groups lurking in the undergrowth.
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism caught my eye as it is both conservative and forward-looking; most people think of conservatives as backward looking, but his point is that conservatism is based on eternal principles that can be carried forward as well. Do you think that’s accurate?
Yes, I think that is a good description of the theme of the book. In it, Faye describes, accurately I think, the true Right as being divided between traditionalists, who want a return to the ways of life and ideas of the past, and futurists, who want to embrace the latest science and technology to create something entirely new. Faye argues that the way forward is to develop a synthesis of the two – to embrace the new, without turning our backs on the principles which made Western civilization great in the first place. I don’t know that I, personally, agree completely with this idea, as it seems a bit overly idealistic. He proposes that 90% of Europeans will live a traditional life akin to ancient times, while 10% will live a technocratic existence among the fruits of high technology, which seems unworkable to me (although rather like India today!). Still, the book provides much food for thought, and can serve as a good myth to drive us toward a different future, as Faye himself asserts in it.
What is this “New Right” concept, anyway? Right-wing concepts are always nebulous.
That’s a difficult concept to summarize in just a few sentences, but I’ll try. It’s first necessary to explain that the label “New Right” is not a name which its theorists have ever applied to themselves, but is rather one that was given by their detractors. Still, for convenience’s sake, it’s a term that has grudgingly been accepted. There’s not even a unified New Right movement, since it consists of a number of sub-groups and authors with very different philosophies. One of the things they all agree on, however, is that they are attempting to transcend the traditional categories of Left and Right, although I think it’s clear that they draw more from the European Rightist tradition – the “true Right” that Evola spoke of, which existed everywhere prior to the American and French revolutions – than from the Left. These days, the school can be said to be polarized around two individuals, primarily – Alain de Benoist, who founded GRECE, the first New Right group, in France in 1968, and Guillaume Faye, who is an independent author. De Benoist advocates a communitarian solution to Europe’s ills, with small, local communities based on traditional social values and customs with no more than a loose confederation, rather than a central authority, to bind them. Faye, on the other hand, advocates what he terms “Eurosiberia,” which he says will come about after all non-European immigrant populations have been expelled from European soil. It would be an empire stretching from Ireland to Siberia which would respect local communities within its borders, and yet preserve European culture and autonomy from outside influences. This is a very brief summary, but it’s the best I can do here. Interested readers should read Tom Sunic’s Against Democracy and Equality and Michael O’Meara’s New Culture, New Right, which are so far the best – and only! – introductions to the European New Right in English.
Do you draw a distinction between the nation and the nation-state? What is it? Does this mean there’s a difference between nationalism and patriotism?
The nation-state is a modern concept that emerged from the French Revolution, which understands itself as wielding sovereignty over a specific geographical area. The nation traditionally refers to a community that shares a common language, culture and ancestry. The idea, which is prevalent in America and France today, that someone is a part of the nation simply by virtue of having been born within the nation’s borders, or because one passed a civics exam, is an entirely modern occurrence which would have puzzled our ancestors. It’s common now for some on the Right to refer to themselves as “White nationalists,” meaning that they regard all other Whites as part of their community. It’s a step in the right direction, but does a disservice to the many unique nationalities and communities which comprise the White world. I don’t think the answer to the melting pot of America is to set up a melting pot of White peoples. As for patriotism and nationalism, it’s only natural that people from the same cultural and linguistic background should feel a closer affinity with each other than with others, unlike the situation we have in America today. At the same time, however, we can’t deny the role that the nation-states we live in have played in our lives. Even though they are flawed, they are not entirely negative, and we do owe them a certain debt. So, while I feel a kinship with others of European descent, I don’t feel that I can just reject my homeland, the United States, out of hand because it is comprised of people from many different communities. We can call for change, of course, but that doesn’t free us from our obligation to remain good citizens and neighbors.
Do you think the world is on the verge of admitting the past century, and possibly the past two centuries, were an error, and re-tracing its steps to start off in a different direction that is more compatible with our past?
The world is a big place! Are we to speak of the United States, France, Germany, Russia, India, China, Iran, etc., as one? I think it’s impossible to say anything in such broad terms with any meaning. Speaking strictly about America, there does seem to be an increasing sub-culture that questions the assumptions of modernity, but it’s still a very tiny minority. Most Americans, it seems to me, are still convinced that we can save ourselves by “voting the bastards out of Washington” and replacing them with others. That doesn’t suggest to me that a large number of people believe that America was flawed from its conception.
Great work in clearing things up in regard to Evola.
It is most unfortunate that certain “neo-pagan” and “volkish” groups claimed inspiration from Evola, usually using “Imperialismo pagano” as a primary source, a book which he himself rejected in the later years, as “youthful”.
Also, certain groups of neo-nazis and neo-fascists do no service to his name, either.
Thanks! Yes, Evola tends to be more misunderstood than read, unfortunately. I think most people just think of him as some sort of occult/pagan fascist.
Traditionalism is hard to summarize for outsiders because it is esoteric. This means it does not lend itself to a one-paragraph summary or even description. That problem occurs before you try to explain it in a modern political context which it explicitly rejects. I hope someone produces a roadmap guide to beliefs like Traditionalism, the New Right, paleoconservatism and the old right. Otherwise these concepts might as well be in ancient Greek to most people.
Traditionalism =/= Tradition
Tradition is about timeless principles that can be modeled and applied to the various historical circumstances, according to necessity.
Traditionalism is usually associated with a “freezing in time”, where certain applications of said principles, from the past, are confused with the principles themselves, which causes its followers to call for a return to various forms that are impossible to apply in the present context.
As for the esoteric side of Tradition, that is, indeed, its peak. However, it manifests in other, more exoteric levels of existence, from government to other more basic organizing of society. Once again, the principles are the same, they act on all levels of existence, but they reveal themselves differently, according to each level.
Of course, given our historical context, it is close to impossible to get a large number of people to understand these ideas. However, we must remember that the masses need only be directed by the right leaders, towards the right principles- it isn’t necessary for them to consciously realize it.
All true. The following are additions to what you have said.
For me, Tradition is a simple idea — that an order exists and we fit into it. This order has several attributes: (1) it is consequentialist, meaning based on sensible adaptation strategies to a reality it sees as logically optimized; (2) it is based on a unity of the parts of society, not internal division; (3) it is a process, not a tangible idea; (4) — most importantly — it is esotericist, meaning that it recognizes a difference in ability between people and therefore that truth reveals itself in small doses according to the persistence of its interrogator.
I can’t claim to be super-knowledgeable about Traditionalism, because in my learning it overlaps the paleoconservative notions of continuity & reverence. However, it was a good place to go after Nietzsche, and brings the cycle of evolution to its completion, with modernity being a detour into death before sanity is achieved.
Brett, again, as I said to Mihai, if we are talking about traditionalism as taught by its primary exponents, there is no question of adapting it to circumstances. WE must adapt ourselves to IT – otherwise we are just secularists. And there are very definite ideas that are part of it, apart from it being a process, which it is as well. As for truth revealing itself gradually, I think that’s taught in all spiritual traditions, although it’s not just about persistence (that sounds like a very American approach to it) but about one’s gifts and abilities.
I probably approach this from too much of a Platonist direction, but I essentially agree. The point for me is not to let formalism obscure meaning, which is not inherent but is derived from the world itself and thus is discoverable at all times through “persistence.” I use this semi-euphemistic term because it seems to me talents/abilities determine followthrough. I do not believe that one can simply “work harder” (as in an office, which seems to me spending more time doing nothing effective) but must already have the mental powers to do so. As seen in the epics, this is like all abilities hereditary.
Mihai (or anyone else who is interested in answering),
Thanks for you comments about distinguishing Traditionalism from Tradition. Can you provide a short list of these “timeless principles?” Are they universal and applicable to all races and ethnic groups?
It seems to me that many people talk about Tradition but I get the impression that they are taking about different things.
John Drake, there is no short list of “timeless principles.” The closest thing would be to go and read the Bible, the Qur’an or the Bhagavad-gita (or, failing that, a book by Guenon or Evola). I think a mistake a lot of people make, including here, is that they think traditionalism is an ideology, philosophy or religion of its own. That is not at all what Guenon, Schuon or Evola saw themselves as doing. They were just taking the truths revealed in the world’s sacred traditions – Christianity, Islam, Vedic, Buddhist, etc. – and presenting them in a pure form for a modern audience. Guenon and Schuon, in particular, just wanted to lead people back to the old traditions, not develop some new way of life or belief.
Since Tradition is defined as the metaphysical embodiment of reality, it is definitely universal and not limited by ethnicity, although of course the various racial forms are part of Tradition and were manifested in different ways for different purposes. Guenon believed that one should practice Tradition in the way in which it was revealed to one’s people, but he believed that the Church had been so corrupted by modernity that he himself ended up moving to Egypt and becoming a Muslim (although it’s pretty clear from his writings that he regarded Hinduism as a good choice as another Aryan tradition). Although he never advocated that Westerners should become Muslims, even though many of his followers ended up doing it themselves.
John Morgan is a better source for knowledge on this topic than I am, but it seems to me that a good introduction to Tradition would be an understanding of The Perennial Philosophy of Aldous Huxley, which is a short introduction to the concept of esoteric, timeless and Platonic truth.
I find Advaita Vedanta to be encouraging along these lines.
You will have to ask John Morgan for more elaboration, but I think both of these schools of thought would provide a good entry point to the type of thinking required to understand Traditionalism.
Very hard to summarize and present clearly in a few paragraphs on the Internet. I fear that if I present here a fragmentary explanation, it will lead to more confusion than edification.
When speaking of timeless principles I am speaking about the underlying Truths contained in all spiritual texts and symbols across, which are the same, regardless of religion or culture. Ex- the principle of a Supreme Unity from which all manifestation proceeds (aka God). These truths are applicable to all levels of existence, both microcosmic (man) and macrocosmic (universe)
What is timely and historical is the form, the “dressing” into which these ideas and truths are put, which are dependent upon the particularities of culture or race (see the different religions of the world- they are differentiated in how they speak, but not in what they speak of).
I really hope I managed to make sense.
Mihai, I think you’ve captured the essence.
Mihai, I’d have to disagree with your assertion about traditionalism being a “freezing in time.” According to traditionalism as expounded by Guenon, Schuon and Evola, Tradition is unchanging because it emerges from a transcendental reality that is not subject to time or change. Therefore, it can never be adapted. The only thing that sometimes changes are the practices, and even that is something that cannot be decided by humans, but only through revelation.
@ John Morgan:
I like to distinguish between Tradition and traditionalism, because the latter term implies a system, an ideology like any other, because of its suffix “ism”. Guenon himself pointed the danger of such a term, and distinguished between traditional and traditionalist. Tradition is a much more preferable term, and, when describing one’s stance, traditional
istor “man of tradition”, if you like, is much more accurate. We have to remember that many people call their ideologies traditionalist, and call themselves by such a name, even though they have nothing to do with real Tradition, only with certain historical forms.What you said about Tradition being unchangeable is correct, and so is your observation about we having to adapt to it.
However, I wish to clarify my statement. Tradition itself is not changeable and, indeed, is independent of how and where it is applied. What I consider to be a traditional society is a society that can be compared to a mirror- its purpose being to reflect, as much as it is possible, that transcendental point of reference. The shape or style of the “mirror” is dependent upon factors concerning geographical and cultural particularities, but the thing that it reflects is everywhere the same. This is what I meant when I said to “adapt” and to “model”. Of course, the deterioration or even destruction of the mirror, means that the Principle can no longer be properly reflected, if at all, however the Principle itself is not in the least dependent upon the reflection or means of reflection.
I hope I managed to make myself understood with this example. This is the best that I can describe it, and it’s my understanding of Tradition at the present moment.
correction to my post above:
“Tradition is a much more preferable term, and, when describing one’s stance, ****traditionalist**** or “man of tradition”, if you like, is much more accurate.
***I meant to say “traditional”, not traditionalist. Traditional as a better and more accurate term
Yes, Mihai, I agree with everything you wrote. I think that’s a fair characterization.
Esotericist, you’re absolutely right. As for your “roadmap” idea, that’s an excellent idea and something that I think Arktos should do in the near future. A basic introductory guide which outlines all of the concepts, history and schools of thought which comprise the “Right,” specifically for English-language readers.
Looking forward to this!
I just realized that I never answered part of Brett’s question about Arktos’ future plans for Evola. We having nothing specific lined up at the moment, primarily due to lack of resources, but hopefully that will change in the next year. I’d like to see at least one more Evola title brought out in 2012. But we’ll have to see.
This could be very exciting. It’s good to see Evola in the hands of people who will interpret his work with integrity.
The future is so massively uncertain that people are turning to alternatives to try to figure out where we are headed. The kind of society suggested by people such as Evola is a more cerebral, serious and gentle place than any of these cynical and embittered people can imagine right now. However it seems like a more interesting place to live, just like The Lord of the Rings is more interesting than another modern novel about neurotic drug-addled miserable people finding “uplifting” visions in poverty or apathy.
Reality.
It existed before we did.
It will continue to exist when we don’t.
Therefore, reality does not exist to serve us.
Do we exist to serve reality?
We may.
Does reality require us to serve it?
Probably not.
Why do we exist?
To become part of reality.
To be reality.
Is Reality is what we call God?
As stated above, I am an unreconstructed Platonist. Plato’s primary study was of cause/effect logic. In his view, the visible world was an effect which had a cause invisible to us within the same reality. We and reality are both manifestations of that cause, and the underlying cause is either called “Godhead” or “God” depending on the school of thought. The important notion, it seems to me, is that there is no escaping the order of the cosmos as it is within us.
I don’t know. However, I believe that all worship starts with a reverence for both reality and its underlying patterns, structure and possibly — just possibly — intent. Something out there had to be overburdened with love to create such a beautiful, functional, elegant, efficient and enduring world.
I wonder about the contrast between a nation and a nation-state. Could you really operate effectively as a nation absent a nation-state? Also, could you expect a nation-state to remain viable long if it sis not represent an actual nation?
I think “no” on both counts. The old Soviet Union comes to mind as an example of one such failure.
The world operated without nation-states for many centuries, before the latter came along. I wouldn’t say that the world has been improved by their introduction.
I’m not so sure. Corinth, Athens, Sparta and the other Classical Greek City-States seem to me to be nation-states in miniature.
Excellent, thanks for this.
Any plans to bring out some English translations of Gabriele Adinolfi’s works?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_Adinolfi
William, thanks for the suggestion. I wasn’t familiar with Adinolfi. He sounds like a possibility. We have no shortage of potential projects, however – we already have hundreds of titles and authors we want to publish. The problem, especially with texts that require translation, is finding the resources, in terms of money, time and manpower.
[...] 2012in LinkageFrom here.ANUS – “Hope and Bitterness”Brett Stevens – “Interview with John Morgan of Arktos“, “Vortex“, “Fatalism“, “The End of Liberalism”Forest [...]
[...] I II III [...]