After the passage of a sufficient interval of time, I have taken it upon myself to address some issues that brought unwanted attention to this blog. Specifically, it involves the unexamined assumption that there is a sort of natural affinity between the tenets of Tradition and various identitarian movements, which go under the label of \u201cNew Right\u201d. Although there are some points in common, there are nevertheless significant differences in the understanding of the world and the task at hand. First of all, taking a cue from Rene Guenon, let us be clear about the basics of Tradition.<\/p>\n
The first tenet<\/b> is that a mutual understanding between the world\u2019s religious traditions is possible because in their depth they are expressions of certain metaphysical principles. This is not at all the same as syncretism or indifferentism, since each religious tradition has its place and it, rather than any corporeal or bio-physical considerations, is the source of the identity of a people. Nor is it a call to replace an exoteric tradition with something more abstract, higher, or \u201csophisticated\u201d; faith is virtual gnosis, or else it is mere opinion, so it cannot be casually discarded.<\/p>\n
The second tenet<\/b> is that there is a cyclic process of decadence and that the West is, unfortunately, at the vanguard of that decadence. The immediate cause is the rejection or forgetting of its spiritual Tradition. The consequences of this forgetfulness are legion and have been recounted ad nauseum<\/i> by this point. However, the cure proposed by Tradition is quite different from that of the new right. According to the former, the West requires a healing through spiritual regeneration. This will begin with an awakening of a few to the full scope of the problem; they will inaugurate the recovery of tradition which will eventually gather influence.<\/p>\n
The new right, on the other hand, is either irreligious or, at best, rejects outright its most recent Tradition. For them, the problem is \u201cbio-cultural\u201d, that is, limited to the race of the body and the race of the soul. That is an impossible gulf to cross, since it leaves transcendence out of consideration. It sees the threat on the horizontal plane, particularly the alleged population replacement by alien peoples, among other grievances; it can only see symptoms and misses the true cause. To the extent it claims to be \u201cmetapolitical\u201d, it can only hope to persuade through \u201cinfinite discussion\u201d, first, the current culture makers and then, by extension, the larger public. Thus it relies materially on the democratic methods it opposes formally.<\/p>\n
Hence, Gornahoor, with a worldwide audience, cannot be limited to Euro-centrism. Of course, our primary aim is the healing of the West so we investigate other traditions in order to revive our own. The end result, whenever it may occur, is not at all Euro-centric, since it affects the entire world. From the perspective of Tradition, the fundamental problem is not the encroachment of aliens into the West, whatever inconveniences that may bring, but rather the deformation of non-European cultures through the deviance and decadence of contemporary Western forms of life.<\/p>\n
We recently pointed out what Metternich called the natural feeling of nationalism. Every society has the natural right to preserve its bio-cultural integrity. Yet, culture is the outer expression of the spirit of a people; if that spirit is deformed, it will show up as cultural distortions. It is not enough to save the body if the soul is lost. As a fish rots from the head, the challenge of bio-cultural integrity will come from the top. Since we dealt with these phenomena in the discussion about Vilfredo Pareto<\/a>, there is no point to do it again here.<\/p>\n There is another factor in play, however. The nobility did not fully share that sentiment, at least not in the same way. Julius Evola makes this clear when he rejects Hitler\u2019s claim that \u201cBeing a street sweeper in the Reich should be considered a greater honour than being the king of a foreign country.\u201d Specifically, the nobility led their lives apart from the commoners. They would choose a spouse from the nobility of other nations rather than a commoner of their own ethnicity. In effect, they became a race apart, even to the extent that the people had rulers who were not even of the same ethnicity. This led to the idea of \u201chigh culture\u201d as opposed to the folk cultures of the people.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the cosmopolitanism of the nobility often led to the contempt of the masses they were supposed to be ruling. This feeling persists today in the ruling elite, even though no longer noble; they often have more in common with their peers of other nations than in their own citizens. Even on the right, there is too much contempt expressed about the \u201cmass man\u201d.<\/p>\n Here is where the spiritual elite are supposed to mediate things, as Vladimir Solovyov pointed out<\/a>. The spiritual leaders give a voice and a consciousness to the folk, which lifts them out of the mass.<\/p>\n I can bring up a point here about some objections to the Venner post that I did not understand, since many saw it as a personal attack. I was told it was the use of the word \u201cvulgar\u201d. \u00a0Now its primary meaning<\/a> is \u201cof or relating to the common people\u201d. Because of the faux contempt of the common people, this word has picked up unsavory connotations, particularly in English (in French, \u201cvulgarisation\u201d simply means \u201cpopularization\u201d).<\/p>\n This brings me to the point, and it involves something distasteful. However, I have become persuaded that it is necessary, since, once comments have been archived, they become authoritative unless refuted. The opposite of a fact is not a mistake, which we are always happy to correct, but rather an unsupported personal opinion that pretends to be a fact. Hence we are compelled to address some of those pseudo-facts. For my source, I am relying on New Culture, New Right<\/cite> by Michael O’Meara<\/strong>. Unless and until the publisher or distributor sends out an errata sheet with the book, we shall consider it the authority on all things \u201cnew right\u201d.<\/p>\n Assertion<\/b>: “Venner was not, strictly speaking, a New Right author.”<\/p>\n O’Meara writes (p 17):<\/p>\n \nAfter an adolescent stint in the Action Francaise, the precocious Alain de Benoist participated in Venner’s and Mabire’s Euope-Action, the first right-wing group to embrace issues anticipating the cultural and identitarian concerns that would hereafter define the European New Right.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Fact<\/b>: Venner was “strictly speaking” one of the ideological founders of the European New Right.<\/p>\n There was an objection to our characterization of fundamental views of the new right. O\u2019Meara mentions five currents that form the new right (p 29):<\/p>\n Someone objected to our characterization of the new right as neo-pagan; you can believe the comment writer, or you can believe O\u2019Meara and Gornahoor. Your call.<\/p>\n There was also an objection to our characterization of the new right as rooted in biological elements. It is difficult to interpret point (2) in any other way. Also, point (5) is specifically oriented, according to O\u2019Meara, \u201cto the life sciences and their genetic, eugenic, and ideological implications.\u201d<\/p>\n There was an objection to the alleged influence of tradition on the new right, again in direct contradiction to O\u2019Meara. But here is where the confusion comes in. The new right has absorbed Guenon\u2019s anti-modern critique, but not his \u201ctraditionalism\u201d as such. This explains the one-dimensional understanding of those whose understanding of Tradition is limited to new right authors.<\/p>\n Although there are some points of contact between the two worldviews, there is also a gap. Tradition is looking for a spiritual as opposed to a bio-cultural renewal. Since most of our new right readers have abandoned us, this will probably be our last post on this topic for a while. There is too much misunderstanding, but as we have shown, it is not on our part.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After the passage of a sufficient interval of time, I have taken it upon myself to address some issues that brought unwanted attention to this blog. Specifically, it involves the unexamined assumption that there is a sort of natural affinity between the tenets of Tradition and various identitarian movements, which … Continue reading Facts and Opinions<\/h2>\n
\n