Founded by the French metaphysician René Guénon, the spiritual philosophy of “Traditionalism” has been surprisingly influential in the modern age. Most notably, Britain’s current monarch, King Charles, is (or was, before his coronation) a Traditionalist, and even introduced a Traditionalist conference around a decade ago. Traditionalist authors are also referenced in his book Harmony.
In contrast, I have described myself as “a Traditional anti-Traditionalist.” And, yes, that is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.
Here, I’m going to explain (1) what Traditionalism gets wrong, (2) why it is now a danger to our freedom, (3) what a real “tradition” is, and (4) what we need to do to recover eternal truths (and it’s not following Guénonian Traditionalism).
Traditionalism and Religious Belief
According to Traditionalist doctrine, the major religions preserve aspects of a “primordial tradition.” This belief was drawn not from the religions themselves, of course, but, instead, from Theosophy.
Created by Russian emigre Mme. Helena Blavatsky, Theosophy was once an incredibly influential force in the underground spiritual world, influencing everyone from occultist Aleister Crowley to painter and adventurer Nicholas Roerich. The Theosophical Society was founded in New York City in 1875, the Blavatsky later moved to India, where Theosophy influenced and supported the anti-colonial movement.
Yet, while indebted to Theosophy in particular, Traditionalism rejects this earlier movement along with Western occultism (although Guénon retained a respect for Freemasonry). Accordingly, instead of joining an occult Order or a Theosophical lodge, a spiritual person must embrace one of the major religions.
As the spiritual elite, doing this in the light of Traditionalism, the practitioner will know that their religion isn’t (as, for example, Christianity and Islam claim) the only truth. Rather, the Traditionalist will know that he or she is practicing some fragment of the primordial revelation.
However, because the religions preserve a small part of the primordial tradition, innovation can only lead away from the primordial. Thus, one must join a traditional form of the religion (Russian Orthodoxy as opposed to American Evangelical Christianity, for example).
Looking at the New Thought-influenced forms of Christianity today, with its emphasis on getting rich (which obviously opposes Jesus’s message, condemning wealth) Guénon seems to have a point. But his attitude is, ultimately, wrong. Innovation can lead us astray but so can doing the same old thing.
Innovations might be little more than an excuse to get rid of inconvenient teachings. But religions, and religious practices, also stagnate.
This is true for monotheistic faiths and pagan and neopagan ones as well.
No matter how far back its lineage might allegedly go, if leaders do not exemplify the ideals of the tradition (e.g., lying about members or former members), the essence has already seeped out of it and the rituals and practices are empty.
Occultism: Hanging Onto The Sacred
Today, occultism is often perceived as anti-Christian. Of course, this is largely due to Hollywood movies and the “Satanic Panic” of the early 1990s. Growing up in a fundamentalist household has also led many people to seek spirituality elsewhere (e.g., neopaganism).
But occultism and Christianity are not inherently antithetical. The magicians of medieval Europe were generally Christian theologians (e.g., Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim) or prominent in (Christian) societies (such as John Dee, who claimed to commune with angels).
During the 18th century, when religion (especially Christianity) and aristocracy were under attack in France, all sorts of Masonic rituals and Orders emerged, going against this grain. These Orders taught Christian Mysteries and made their initiates into spiritual chevaliers (“knights”).
In regard to religious faith, the Masonic Rose Croix degree was described, very early on, as “all of Catholicism in a degree” and the Ordre des Chevaliers Maçons Élus Coëns de l’Univers (Order of Knight-Masons Elect Priests of the Universe) was a Catholic, pro-monarchist Order.
Again, members of the Order of the Gold and Roy Cross in Germany even imposed conservative Christian views on the populace when they got into power, even though their Order taught alchemy and spirit-raising.
Other Orders of the 18th century included the chivalric Strict Observance and Die Brueder St. Johannes des Evangelisten aus Asien in Europa (the Asiatic Brethren of St. John the Evangelist in Europe), which translated and taught Kabbalistic doctrine.
Rosicrucianism, alchemy, Hermeticism, Kabbalah, Christian chivalry, and so on all merged together in these Orders and their rituals. But, such syncretism suggested that there was a single, authentic, ancient source of wisdom.
Hence, the Egyptian Rite of Freemasonry claimed (erroneously) to teach ancient Egyptian Mysteries. (Its rituals drew from Rosicrucianism and alchemy.) And, hence, the protestant pastor and Freemason Antoine Court de Gebelin proposed that the Tarot was really an ancient Egyptian book of wisdom (this theory has remained popular among Tarot readers).
These esoteric Masonic societies provided a foundation not only for Theosophy but for such occult societies as The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the Ordo Templi Orientis (founded as an Academia Masonica, justified by various irregular Masonic charters). These, in turn, provided a foundation for other occult movements and societies, from Wicca to Dragon Rouge.
In an age when traditional religion appears either fundamentalist or hypocritical (or both), New Age spirituality and esotericism represent an attempt to practice, and to preserve, authentic spirituality.
The Traditionalist Simulacrum
Guénon’s Traditionalism emerges from the Western esoteric background, although, as mentioned, most immediately from Theosophy (and not from the religions that the Traditionalist is supposed to practice).
Like much else in Traditionalism, this is hypocritical.
Traditionalism might openly (or exoterically) oppose modernity but, inwardly (esoterically) it is modern, exemplifying consumerism, skepticism, and individuality in all but name.
First, choosing a religion, rather than being compelled to follow it out of conviction, represents merely another consumerist choice not unlike consuming politics from a favored media source. (Indeed, while Guénon “moved into” (note, not “converted” or “reverted” to) Islam, he originally wanted to study Vedanta Hinduism but couldn’t find a teacher.)
Muslims do not follow Muhammad because they think the Qu’ran represents a fragment of some pre-Islamic revelation. They follow Muhammad because they believe that “there is no God but Allah [God] and Muhammad is his messenger” (La ilaha illallah muhammadur rasulullah).
Likewise, Christians do not follow Christ because they think the story of the New Testament represents some fragment of a pre-Christian revelation; they follow Christ because they believe he is the son of God.
Choosing a religion is, we might say, the consumer choice to end all other consumer choices. It is not an escape into politics, drugs, or shopping, of course (and that is good). But it is an escape into a chosen religious practice (without the belief that is supposed to accompany it).
The Traditionalist is, in other words, a skeptic. And skepticism is one of the most persistent and worst traits of modernity. Pre-modernity is overwhelmingly characterized by belief or “faith.”
Indeed, faith is lacking in Traditionalism. The “Tradition” it aims to preserve through the religions is not even one that the religions recognize as legitimate.
Worse, while Traditionalism would present itself as against the modern idea of individualism, it enables (even requires) Traditionalists to think of themselves as different from their fellow religionists. (The latter are actual believers or religious literalists while the Traditionalist believes that he is practicing merely a fragment of the primordial tradition.) And, enabling a sense of difference to others, Traditionalism sneaks individuality in through the back door.
Indeed, Traditionalists often think of themselves as representing an elite (i.e., as those who are different to, and better than, others). Unlike their co-religionists, they do not see themselves as sheep in a flock. They believe that the sheep (non-individuals) don’t actually know the truth.
Traditionalism is, as such, a modern simulacrum of tradition.
The Two “Traditions”
Guénon created a theory that enables certain persons to exit modernity via the convenience of a ready-made religious tradition. But that is not the only, or even the natural, choice for such people.
We might say that there are two actual traditions, both in pre-modernity and modernity:
(1) The tradition of the masses.
(2) The tradition of creative geniuses.
Guénon’s Traditionalism attempts to fit specifically intelligent and questioning persons into the first of these when their natural home is in the latter.
To use a movie metaphor, it turns the major religions into a kind of “Matrix” that simultaneously hides the ugliness of the real world from the Traditionalist and deprives the world of the clarity and creativity necessary to reembody the world with the sacred.
Hence, Julius Evola was a Dadaist painter before becoming a Traditionalist (or “Radical Traditionalist”), but not after.
Since there can be no innovation or personal expression, Traditionalism is fundamentally in opposition to any development in any of the arts. (Hence, if it promotes the arts at all, it promotes those of the past.)
Of course, we must admit that Frithjof Schuon became a painter after becoming a Traditionalist but, breaking with Guénon, he did not live or think like a Guénonian Traditionalist.
Indeed, much to his credit, Schuon never stopped searching for truth or beauty in new places. Writing about Christianity, enamored with Vedanta, and teaching Sufism, he moved to the USA late in life and began exploring native American spirituality (which he depicted in his art).
The Tradition of Creative Geniuses
In my book The Path of the Warrior-Mystic: Being a Man in an Age of Chaos I talk about historian Arnold Toynee’s notion of the “creative minority.”
Toynbee notes that primitive tribes follow the dictates of their ancestors (who are all dead) and stick with what they advocated. These are societies that exist as living fossils, never (or, at least, slowly) adapting to changing circumstances. There is nothing in such societies that can be described as “genius.” (They might even be described as “anti-genius.”)
Civilizations, in contrast, are continually renewed by creative geniuses.
For Toynbee, the true creator is a mystic. He goes off into the wilderness and receives a revelation. The revelation attracts a few enthusiastic supporters. And they (the creative minority) create a new culture that transforms and renews their civilization.
Creative Geniuses do not pluck ideas out of nowhere.
Firstly, they study the creative geniuses of the past and the present. They might adopt some of their techniques but what they absorb most of all is the spirit of the creative genius: The guts to go against the consensus of the unthinking or partially-thinking masses.
Secondly, they draw on unexpected sources. Degas and the French Impressionists drew inspiration (and compositions) from Japanese woodblock prints. Fashion designer Is set Miyake drew from origami and Samurai armor to create new types of garments. Bruce Lee studied Western boxing and fencing as well as Chinese martial arts. Performer and singer-songwriter David Bowie studied traditional mime.
There is a tradition of the genius that is the anti-tradition.
Similarly, the mystic breaks with the existing religious tradition. He receives a revelation (or gnosis), argues for his gnosis, and, in doing so, initiates a new tradition. In this way, one religion replaces, or breaks with, another (e.g., Joseph Smith’s founding of Mormonism).
But this also occurs within religions when a believer is visited (or claims to have been visited) by a god or goddess, an angel, Jesus, or Mary, etc. Such visitations are often regarded as valid by the religious authorities (hence the angelic visions of Christian mystic St. Teresa of Avila).
At other times, the genius might attempt to illuminate how his tradition has strayed from its original gnosis (e.g., Martin Luther in his Ninety-five Theses or Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences) and, thus, to return it to that gnosis. This might lead to the establishment of a new tradition instead, however (e.g., Lutheranism).
So, as stated, there are two traditions: The tradition of the creative genius or the mystic who has a revelation and renews, reinvigorates, or empowers his or her society or civilization in some way, and the tradition of the follower who follows a particular interpretation of the revelation.
The latter might be a genuine believer. He might hope to be blessed by God. (Others in this category, simply, hope to win the favor of those higher up the social hierarchy and obtain a position of influence.) And, in general, he must attempt to preserve the tradition against any further gnosis.
The Threat of Traditionalism
I recently described the New Age belief that “we are all one” as inherently evil. It is a belief underpinned not by gnosis but by the politics of the “hive mind.” In our time, there is a clear attempt to get rid of all borders, not merely around countries but around people (in the sense of redefining language to make the unacceptable, acceptable, and to force people to think, speak, or act against their conscience).
I noted this phenomenon a few years ago in The Path of the Warrior-Mystic, where I remarked on René Magritte’s painting “The Treachery of Images” (1929). This painting depicts a pipe with the words “This Is Not a Pipe” (Ceci n’est pas une pipe) painted beneath it. This early twentieth-century work signifies the shift from believing that concrete things (such as men and women) are real to thinking that language (which tells the viewer whether the object is an object or not) is real. (You will note the recent disappearance from everyday conversation of the adage “seeing is believing.”)
Our societies are dominated by those of merely above-average intelligence. These people know how to regurgitate the latest ideology, and they unashamedly change their minds when the ideology changes. Although they will present themselves as moral, wise, and enlightened, their aim is to obtain positions of privilege. Perhaps surprisingly, these people are influential in the world of esoteric spirituality (and outside of it). Yet, they are soulless.
The genius is what we might call “an unequal.” He, or she, is an outlier, a troublemaker, and a perennial threat to those in power who are not especially intelligent or who are not really interested in representing those who elected them. Our political ideology itself is against the genius. Every outlier can be accused of some thought crime. Hence, most high-priced art is obviously meaningless, though some psychological meaning is tagged to it so that it can appear to have depth.
Traditionalism plays into the hands of plebian authoritarianism, robbing us of potential creative geniuses.
Evola could have become a genius of the arts, rescuing it from the nihilism and consumerism that permeates it today.
Of course, he wrote books on everything from Buddhism to the Holy Grail, Heidegger, and magic, but does it really embody his genius? Evola’s interpretation of much surrounding the Holy Grail is patently incorrect. and, worse, his attempt to convince his readers that the fraudulent antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion should be read as a spiritual text (which, though not true in a literal sense, should be seen as a true is some transcendent sense) is intellectually thoroughly dishonest, to say the absolute minimum.
After his experiences with Catholicism, Theosophy, and Freemasonry, Guénon had the genius and energy to create a movement (Traditionalism) but he created one that looks only backward, fetishizing the past and insisting that past traditions be practiced without innovation, no matter how sterile they might have become.
Other Traditionalists have written books on the major religions or have promoted traditional arts. But, without developing, the traditional art can offer very little defense against modern technology since they have such limited application to a world of eight billion people.
King (then Prince) Charles has promoted traditional architecture, for example. This is good. But we need architecture for the world today that, unlike so much modern architecture, is not soulless.
We see an example of the possibility of such architecture in the “vertical forests” of architect Stefan Boeri.
These “forests” are not traditional. They might even be anti-traditional. Yet, in them, we can see the primordial, both literally, in the plant life incorporated into skyscrapers, and in reference to such motifs as the Green Man, with leaves issuing from its mouth.
The Green Man is found in the architecture of medieval English churches. Notably, more recently, it was painted in gouache for the invitation for Charles’s coronation as King.
The Tradition of Geniuses
Contrast the above with, for example, fashion designer Issey Miyake.
As mentioned, Miyake drew on classical Japanese tradition (origami, samurai armor, etc.) to create clothing that had not been seen before while, at the same time, reviving and reinvigorating Japanese tradition in an Americanized, post-World War II environment.
As a fashion designer, creating new designs, Miyake is an anti-traditionalist. But, from another perspective (revivifying his tradition), he is an authentic, living “Traditionalist.” Miyake infused new life (or gnosis) into his tradition.
Whether we like it or not, there is no going back (at least, not authentically).
As Miyake shows, traditions do matter. And creative geniuses have a good understanding of traditions. They work through at least one tradition, acquiring skill, knowledge, and insight. And they often draw on other traditions. But they create something that has not been seen before. And what they create reembodies the timeless or the eternal.
Follower or Mystic Genius: Now is the Time to Choose
Although we can’t authentically choose a religion, the genius (and potential genius) can choose between ignoring his or her calling or pursuing it.
Hence, the choice we face today is between:
(1) The tradition of the masses.
(2) The tradition of creative geniuses.
This is the choice we face in relation to creativity and culture.
And, for some of us (especially not born into a tradition or that can no longer follow that of their family), it is the choice we face in relation to spirituality.
Choosing the path of the genius is not a shortcut. It requires many years of study and practice in combination with continual work to overcome our own shortcomings and fears. And it requires a singular devotion to discovering the Truth rather than thinking or saying what is convenient or what will be praised by people we want to impress.
On our journey, then, we must recall that the religious guru or “teacher” has often made fraudulent claims based, he has said, on personal revelation. And he has abused and misled his followers based on his fraudulent authority (often that of leading a supposed ancient tradition).
The anti-traditional aspect of the genius is aimed precisely at sterility, hypocrisy, and abuse. He strips away what is inauthentic, out-of-date, and repellent to rediscover the perennial Truth.
As such, we must also recall that the authentic shaman, nympholept, and mystic communed with the divine and received gnosis unique to them and to their time. In a different way, the authentic artist or poet has done (and does) the same.
Follower or Mystic Genius? In our time of conformism, secularization, and anti-genius, the choice you make, matters.