Interview by Counter-Currents.
As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview. In turn, I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments. Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below. I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it.
Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired?
Unusual place to start. Back in 2007 Tom Sunic suggested that I make an introduction. At the time I was interested in identifying and bringing together in a virtual but real-time environment a small group of people distinguished by the capacity for originality. My experience of what passes for the apogee of radical right thinking - I mean foundational philosophy - was that it draws in large measure from the same wells as fascism and National Socialism, and from these ideologies themselves. Of course, on both sides of the Atlantic there was also a quantity of serious thought given over to interpretation, analysis, strategising, protest, and so forth. But there was nothing that I could see that was newly culled from a modern understanding of Man and Nature, and that opened out into an expansive and creative enquiry into the truths of who we are and how to live.
In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. It was (and is) a barren coupling. I wanted to find some basis for reconciling the unreconcilable ... science and philosophy, truth and beauty, the New World and the Old, because then we might have a foundation on which others could build intellectually. And we might, if we were lucky, come into possession not just of a reactionary critique of liberalism à la de Benoist but something shattering, something epochal and renewing.
I raised this heady notion with a few people I respect, some of whom are members of CMS. I offered my own theory that one possible path to reconciliation was to move the philosophy into existentialism and the religion into esoterism ... at all times asking the question: what is true?
Perhaps not surprisingly, what I found was that, by and large, the scientists saw the point quickly. The few philosophers I was able to talk to would not look beyond the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience. It was clear, though, that in reality they were hostile to any threat to the Weltenschauung they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon. They were, I’m afraid, telling me that they did not possess the capacity of original thinking. I believe few original thinkers, even those given to Idealism, would be disinterested in a group endeavour to change the European Mind.
So I let go of the group project and did not take up Tom’s suggestion of talking to William Regnery. The only point of doing so would have been to use his contacts to potential participants. Today, I am using MR to encourage an ontological approach to the problem. It has many critics and disbelievers. But they are not the ones who hold the key to the future. Fascism will never be our new thought world, and will never gift us a sovereign and free European life.