Listen Now: A discussion with Mark Vernon about his book on William Blake and the imagination fuelled an agitated exchange about the relevance of politics and the author's criticism of equality and 'wokeness'.
There is so many interesting threads to tug at here for me, a Yid animist with fingertips wedded to the hoofprints of Yeshua, seeking that vestigial heat left by Messiah and the overturning of hierarchy and table. I have three things inked into my skin, a bit bodgy as they age but oaths none the less: Isaiah 11:6, a woodcut of Ahab's whale rising in fury, and No Pasaran!. Tedious personal blather just to shorthand that I am no friend of fascism, hierarchy, or human exclusivism. I love Hart's work and am with you on his worth and those passages in particular. Any man that erudite and an open friend of Faerie who also wears his disgust of the present American State's drooling after the manners of the Reich.
All that postcoding aside, I often listen to Mark's work and have read his Barfield book though not the one here in question. I don't recognize way too much of what you seem to be binding him to in either his person or his writings. I would find an unpacking of these faultlines you describe between you two interesting and, as pickpocket of the Kabbalists (many of whom also traffic in Plotinus), important. But first off it would be bad form after reading this to say, with G-d-gone-Animal blood and body in the bread and wine between us all, that this post here seems more about the smoke of war than the light of understanding. It isn't doing the work I wish it was. Not that I matter or my wishes. Beggars and horses as they say.
I subscribed to your work because, like I said, its interesting and I am wrestling with that hierarchy business as I rifle the drawers of the kabbalists for amulets and trinkets. I think Christianity hasn't really happened yet in many ways, And after all that Christendom has been implicated in, it will not be Monarchs or Priests that pry the pearl loose from the seabed but scavengers. No Kings but Fisher Kings, the wound that won't heal being power over Others, the lordship itself. Yet, when the poet Celan in his Meridian speech remembers Buchner's Lucille crying out the shibboleth "Long Live the King" not homage but as a counterword aware of dates and the murderous Certain on all sides I think peace comes to the cottages and war to palace in many disguises. My friend quotes another friend on the Tradition of changing our Tradition. To say that is to suggest that there are Traditionalists and there are Traditionalist.
As the deportations and infamy sicken the streets here, I get the impatience with anybody not seeing whose teeth are actually doing the devouring of whose children around here lately. And it ain't the Revolution. But listening to the actual interview in light of a couple years following Vernon's work I don't recognize the effigy in the after-fire. You are missing a great deal of worth in all the ash. Any chance there is a part two of this coming to really get some work done in the light after the smoke?
There are so many asshats at large to brawl with these days. But Vernon as a gateway drug to Bannon? Come on.
P.S. I don't know spit about the Blakean particulars here that might have pissed you off. Maybe if I was invested in him as I am my own Living Dead I would have brought a pitchfork rather than a dream of parlay.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I do sympathise, as Mark is sincere in his apolitical posture, and is certainly no Bannon, etc. As to whether the traditionalism of Raine is a gateway drug is impossible to say. Suffice though that his book is resolutely Traditionalist through and through, even though he doesn’t say so. That is one of the things that intrigues me, since it is part of the traditionalist posture that it doesn’t proselytise as such, and so his silence, ironically, I took to mean that he was sincerely Traditionalist even if not openly so.
It is obviously possible to give Traditionalism a quietistic spin, as the Temenos Academy do, but that is a small minority position among traditionalists, who are increasingly looking like Bannon.
One reason to write as I did was simply to let readers know what Traditionalism at large looks like, since Mark is undoubtedly channeling Traditionalism, even if his take on it (the Academy’s take) is inflected differently. People deserve to know this especially since Mark does not say so himself.
My second motivation is more obscure, since it follows from the fact that Mark essentially stonewalled me in the interview - not deliberately, so think, but because I guess he didn’t know how to deal with criticism of Traditionalism even if what is being criticised is attitudes he personally may not share. In editing out those parts of the interview, since they were not enlightening in any way, all that remains is the sound of people talking past each other, so it may not be clear the extent to which we were conflicted and conflicting rather than just talking about different things. I accept that makes it more difficult for the reader / listener to see the connection between the recording and the text.
Nevertheless, if someone argues against equality as a Traditionalist, it seems worthwhile trying to show what that means when it is put into practice, precisely by people like Bannon, even if Mark wouldn’t approve (we hope) of what Bannon does.
I felt that Mark’s supposed apoliticism is contradicted by his wild enthusiasm for the monarchy, which we can only assume (as it seems reasonable to do) is based in his wider, Traditionalist view of the need for such a spiritual figurehead, and is certainly a political stance whether he thinks so or not.
Finally, I used to run a web site focusing on fascist infiltration of the counterculture, in which Traditionalists increasingly figured, so I was keen to take the opportunity to outline where Traditionalism often leads. If that has left the impression that I count Mark as a covert Traditionalist-fascist, I can only apologise to him. But I did give him repeated opportunities during the interview to explain the difference, and he repeatedly failed, or refused to do so, insisting instead that it was meaningless to ask him to talk politically. If he had answered those questions when they were asked, he could have explained the difference himself, rather than the listener having to make their own judgement on it. It was in order to help with the latter that I felt the need to describe the logic of Traditionalism and its politics in such detail, not to say that these are Marks beliefs as such, but to provide the necessary framework for readers to work out for themselves what his relationship to Traditionalism might be.
In any case, I appreciate what you say, and your point is one that needed addressing.
For a the avoidance of doubt, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of Temenos Traditionalism being a gateway to radical rightism. It is perfectly plausible to me that ostensibly mild mannered monarchists who oppose equality and ‘woke’ politics might turn to the radical right. History is full of many examples of such things. To say that it’s not to impugn anyone personally, but it does imply that we should examine the connections among the ideas, so that we can see where the danger is. And I do think there is danger today in opposing the idea of equality and trans, LGBT and anti racist activism. It would certainly be wrong simply to deny such a possibility.
Dear Andy,
There is so many interesting threads to tug at here for me, a Yid animist with fingertips wedded to the hoofprints of Yeshua, seeking that vestigial heat left by Messiah and the overturning of hierarchy and table. I have three things inked into my skin, a bit bodgy as they age but oaths none the less: Isaiah 11:6, a woodcut of Ahab's whale rising in fury, and No Pasaran!. Tedious personal blather just to shorthand that I am no friend of fascism, hierarchy, or human exclusivism. I love Hart's work and am with you on his worth and those passages in particular. Any man that erudite and an open friend of Faerie who also wears his disgust of the present American State's drooling after the manners of the Reich.
All that postcoding aside, I often listen to Mark's work and have read his Barfield book though not the one here in question. I don't recognize way too much of what you seem to be binding him to in either his person or his writings. I would find an unpacking of these faultlines you describe between you two interesting and, as pickpocket of the Kabbalists (many of whom also traffic in Plotinus), important. But first off it would be bad form after reading this to say, with G-d-gone-Animal blood and body in the bread and wine between us all, that this post here seems more about the smoke of war than the light of understanding. It isn't doing the work I wish it was. Not that I matter or my wishes. Beggars and horses as they say.
I subscribed to your work because, like I said, its interesting and I am wrestling with that hierarchy business as I rifle the drawers of the kabbalists for amulets and trinkets. I think Christianity hasn't really happened yet in many ways, And after all that Christendom has been implicated in, it will not be Monarchs or Priests that pry the pearl loose from the seabed but scavengers. No Kings but Fisher Kings, the wound that won't heal being power over Others, the lordship itself. Yet, when the poet Celan in his Meridian speech remembers Buchner's Lucille crying out the shibboleth "Long Live the King" not homage but as a counterword aware of dates and the murderous Certain on all sides I think peace comes to the cottages and war to palace in many disguises. My friend quotes another friend on the Tradition of changing our Tradition. To say that is to suggest that there are Traditionalists and there are Traditionalist.
As the deportations and infamy sicken the streets here, I get the impatience with anybody not seeing whose teeth are actually doing the devouring of whose children around here lately. And it ain't the Revolution. But listening to the actual interview in light of a couple years following Vernon's work I don't recognize the effigy in the after-fire. You are missing a great deal of worth in all the ash. Any chance there is a part two of this coming to really get some work done in the light after the smoke?
There are so many asshats at large to brawl with these days. But Vernon as a gateway drug to Bannon? Come on.
P.S. I don't know spit about the Blakean particulars here that might have pissed you off. Maybe if I was invested in him as I am my own Living Dead I would have brought a pitchfork rather than a dream of parlay.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I do sympathise, as Mark is sincere in his apolitical posture, and is certainly no Bannon, etc. As to whether the traditionalism of Raine is a gateway drug is impossible to say. Suffice though that his book is resolutely Traditionalist through and through, even though he doesn’t say so. That is one of the things that intrigues me, since it is part of the traditionalist posture that it doesn’t proselytise as such, and so his silence, ironically, I took to mean that he was sincerely Traditionalist even if not openly so.
It is obviously possible to give Traditionalism a quietistic spin, as the Temenos Academy do, but that is a small minority position among traditionalists, who are increasingly looking like Bannon.
One reason to write as I did was simply to let readers know what Traditionalism at large looks like, since Mark is undoubtedly channeling Traditionalism, even if his take on it (the Academy’s take) is inflected differently. People deserve to know this especially since Mark does not say so himself.
My second motivation is more obscure, since it follows from the fact that Mark essentially stonewalled me in the interview - not deliberately, so think, but because I guess he didn’t know how to deal with criticism of Traditionalism even if what is being criticised is attitudes he personally may not share. In editing out those parts of the interview, since they were not enlightening in any way, all that remains is the sound of people talking past each other, so it may not be clear the extent to which we were conflicted and conflicting rather than just talking about different things. I accept that makes it more difficult for the reader / listener to see the connection between the recording and the text.
Nevertheless, if someone argues against equality as a Traditionalist, it seems worthwhile trying to show what that means when it is put into practice, precisely by people like Bannon, even if Mark wouldn’t approve (we hope) of what Bannon does.
I felt that Mark’s supposed apoliticism is contradicted by his wild enthusiasm for the monarchy, which we can only assume (as it seems reasonable to do) is based in his wider, Traditionalist view of the need for such a spiritual figurehead, and is certainly a political stance whether he thinks so or not.
Finally, I used to run a web site focusing on fascist infiltration of the counterculture, in which Traditionalists increasingly figured, so I was keen to take the opportunity to outline where Traditionalism often leads. If that has left the impression that I count Mark as a covert Traditionalist-fascist, I can only apologise to him. But I did give him repeated opportunities during the interview to explain the difference, and he repeatedly failed, or refused to do so, insisting instead that it was meaningless to ask him to talk politically. If he had answered those questions when they were asked, he could have explained the difference himself, rather than the listener having to make their own judgement on it. It was in order to help with the latter that I felt the need to describe the logic of Traditionalism and its politics in such detail, not to say that these are Marks beliefs as such, but to provide the necessary framework for readers to work out for themselves what his relationship to Traditionalism might be.
In any case, I appreciate what you say, and your point is one that needed addressing.
Pax!
For a the avoidance of doubt, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of Temenos Traditionalism being a gateway to radical rightism. It is perfectly plausible to me that ostensibly mild mannered monarchists who oppose equality and ‘woke’ politics might turn to the radical right. History is full of many examples of such things. To say that it’s not to impugn anyone personally, but it does imply that we should examine the connections among the ideas, so that we can see where the danger is. And I do think there is danger today in opposing the idea of equality and trans, LGBT and anti racist activism. It would certainly be wrong simply to deny such a possibility.