Speaking the Language of Pagan Traditionalism:
A Conversation with Askr Svarte (Evgeny Nechkasov)
***
Jafe Arnold: Greetings, Askr Svarte! It is not only a pleasure but, I would say, a fateful event to be able to discuss with you some of the deep questions which have arisen from reading and translating your works on paganism, attending your lectures, and conversing with diverse intellectual associates.
For more than a decade, you have been a thinking and practicing pagan involved not only “on the ground” within the Slavic and Germanic traditions, but also “in the sky”, approaching, contemplating, and correlating the diversity of pagan traditions in search of a kind of “meta-hermeneutic.” In the first book of your two-volume work Polemos: Pagan Traditionalism, which I’ve had the honor of translating and publishing, you identify this hermeneutic to be the Traditionalist school of thought pioneered by René Guénon and Julius Evola. It is precisely at this crossroads of Traditionalism and paganism that I would like to stand and converse with you first.
One of the core concepts, if not the most central, of this school of thought is that of the “Primordial Tradition”, the “Perennial Tradition” or, to take into account the critiques and refinements of this notion by some more recent Traditionalist authors, simply that of “Tradition.”
My first, admittedly broad questions for you are: What and where is paganism in this Tradition? What does paganism mean for Traditionalism?
Askr Svarte: Greetings, Jafe! I would also like to take this occasion to express my thankfulness for your high-class work on the book Polemos and your collaboration with the almanac WARHA.
Deliberating on the Primordial Tradition is a voluminous matter. I can formulate my position briefly as follows: Tradition is paganism. These words are synonyms for naming one and the same thing. To take this further, however, I need to issue a number of important clarifications and definitions so that this formulation can carry its weight and grounding.
First of all, if we look at the works, metaphysical schools, traditions, and languages to which René Guénon, Julius Evola, Frithjof Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, and others have turned as normative ideals or as traces of the Primordial Tradition, then nearly 100% of them are part of the heritage and legacy of paganism, such as Vedanta, Tantra, and Hinduism in a broad sense, the non-Abrahamic art of the East and Asia, pre-Christian Greece and Rome, the Germanic and Celtic peoples, and various archaic peoples. Even if we were to take a strictly chronological view, then the roots of the Primordial Tradition (the “ur-religion”) must go back to eras preceding any forms of Abrahamism by many thousands of years.
Further, if we look at the Christian and Islamic currents and those theological and philosophical schools which Guénon, Evola, and others appealed to, then all of them are either borderline or beyond the border of orthodoxy and dogma, such as Christian mysticism, Sufism, neo-Platonist schools, and the tariqa, which borrowed practically their whole structure from so-called “Hellenic wisdom”, that is from ancient pagan neo-Platonism, or from the pre-Islamic culture of Iran or the Turkic peoples. We might also recall that René Guénon’s Traditionalism and mysticism never even came close to the “mainstream” of Islam, and he himself remained an eccentric European in the eyes of Egyptians and Arabs. The same is the case with other Sufi Traditionalist, predominantly European tariqa and societies. Sufism in general exists on the border with heresy and shirk (polytheism) in Islam. In the second volume of my book Polemos, I try to show how paganism continued to live on and transform Islam from within precisely in the form of neo-Platonism, the mysticism of the Sufis, in their specific expressions and deeds. Outwardly, such is Islam; inwardly, this is already something completely different.
The situation is the same with Christianity, and we know even more here because we are much more familiar with the European and Russian context. In one of his early works, Alexander Dugin directly wrote that “from the point of view of Orthodox Christianity, Traditionalism is a form of heresy.” This is indeed so, because for Traditionalism Christ is part of or one of the faces of truth, whereas for a consistent Christian he is all of the fullness of truth. It is also necessary to mention the numerous relics and syntheses of Christianity and Neo-Platonism (such as the Rhineland mystics) and folk cultures (folklore, “dual-faith”). This is especially noticeable in Romanticism or even earlier in chivalric knight culture, which was inconceivable without and indivisible from the Germanic pagan Männerbunde.
Therefore, if we look attentively at what traditions and cultures Traditionalism “sets off” from, and which cultures it has referenced over the whole course of its history, then in the overwhelming majority of cases these are non-Abrahamic traditions or very specific, unorthodox, mystical readings of Christianity and Islam. Guénon and Evola’s skeptical attitudes towards Catholicism and Christianity as a whole are widely known, so this is no place for speculations.
Traditionalism, therefore, does not simply “intersect” with or is merely “close” to paganism. Traditionalism is paganism.
Secondly, in European languages the term “paganism” unfortunately harbors many incomplete understandings and false connotations. The Russian word “iazychestvo” is richer than the English “pagan” and “heathen” or the German “heidnische.” In Russian, this word has semantic and etymological associations with “iazyk” (“language”, “tongue”, “sprache”), tradition (in the sense of ethnic religion), and people or folk (the old Slavic “iazyk” = ethnos). Thus, this word ties into a knot some of the most important categories of metaphysics (language and religion) and specific peoples and their sacred cultures. There isn’t this semantic in the European languages, in which to this day rules the dichotomy of “paganus” vs. “urbanus”, that is the “rural remnants of superstition” vs. the “enlightened urban church.” This is a direct expression of the Christian crusade and, at the same time, is the root of progressism, Modernity, and the moral judgement in terms of city (proto-bourgeoisie) vs. inferior villages, or “new, progressive Christianity” vs. “unenlightened rednecks.” If we hold ourselves to be consistent Traditionalists, then these are among the first categories which we must discard.
The term “paganism” needs to be rehabilitated and, most importantly, returned to its much higher ontological content. “Paganism” is not closed and exhausted by “superstitions” and “idol worship.” I insist that paganism is a special, fully self-sufficient ontology and episteme which describes and interprets everything. In this, I think, I am fully in solidarity with Alain de Benoist, who postulates this very idea in his own way in his works.
The essence of paganism is the doctrine of manifestation (“manifestationism”), mystical monism, non-duality, and holism of the sacred. Unlike the dualist ontology of creationism and the dogma of creatio ex Nihilo.
I have devoted many pages, polemical articles, and books to studying and describing this difference and tracing the different paths by which this ontological rift on the level of cosmogony is manifest in the history of the decline of Europe, and how it served as the trigger for the development of Modernity.
Finally, with these definitions and references given extremely briefly, I can pass to the question of the Primordial Tradition. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, on this question I do not share the idea that there once existed in deep antiquity a single people with an ur-religion. I am a believer in pluralism, in the idea that mankind emerged in several pockets across this world. Moreover, I believe that a people (such as the Proto-Indo-Europeans) has its origin not in archaeology and reconstructed everyday life and language, but in their myth. There are equally as many mankinds and places of human origins as there are authentic myths about such.
The search for an ur-people, ur-language, and ur-religion is an echo of creationist and Modern universalism (the desire to reduce everything to one scientifically credible source), which is reflected in mysticism and Traditionalism in a particular way. Referencing paleo-linguistics, archaeology, and ethnosociology should have necessary limits. Linguists themselves recognize that the deeper they plunge into the thick of centuries, the greater the percentage of their hypotheses are guesses, such as about the Proto-Indo-European language, for example. In other words, we should not speak of operatively, ritually using such reconstructions, especially as they are relevant only to the peoples of the Indo-European family.
In defining the Primordial Tradition, I adhere to the linguistic metaphor which voices that Tradition is the grammar of the speaking and expression of the sacred. If we turn to the etymology of the words mythos and logos, both mean “word”, “telling”, “story”, or “speech.” Tradition accounts for the correctness and form of a sacred narrative, its grammar and poetry. All ancient texts were in one way or another expressed in the form of poetry and song. The content of these narratives can differ, because the sacred is ambivalent. The sacred encompasses not only the luminous, the good, the life-affirming, and Apollonian symbols, structures, and aspects of being, but also the dark, the terrifying, and themes of negation and death. Walter Otto and Georges Bataille, for instance, directly associated the sacred with the experience of horror and the violence of sacrifice.
This directly confirms the arrangement of a plurality of traditions within the sub-lunar, phenomenal world that is intrinsic to paganism. All of the traditions of the world’s peoples have both differences – at times radical ones – and common elements. The most common – the One, the holistic – is expressed on the highest levels of theology, metaphysics, and mysticism: that is the Primordial Tradition as the grammar and apophatic source beyond language as such.
In other words, there is no point in searching for an ur-people and ur-religion in the deep excavations of the steppes of Turan or under the ice of the North Pole, that is to say among the extant world of things. The homeland of the Primordial Tradition is in the Heavens and is apophatic.
Jafe Arnold: It is hard to imagine a richer, more vanguard and comprehensive response to the very first question, for which I and, surely, our future readers thank you. In fact, you have already broached many of the topics which I’d like to move deeper into with you over the course of our dialogue. That being said, before moving from the general to the particular, I think we cannot avoid dwelling a little more on the notion of the Primordial Tradition with respect to the plurality of different traditional forms which, as you say, is intrinsic to paganism in contrast to the universalism of Abrahamic traditions.
According to your understanding, it is as if before us we have the following picture: the “metaphysical grammar” of the Primordial Tradition necessarily finds differing refraction across different cultures, from which we have the virtually countless different traditions which fall under the historical, polemical or structural-categorical umbrella of “paganism.” To grasp the linguistic metaphor you’ve introduced, it is as if we have one “proto-“ or “meta-“ language or language family with different linguistic offspring, or one language with different dialects or accents. The Primordial Tradition contains the open fullness of all forms and threads, whereas different traditions formulate, shape, or accent these in their own ways. “Paganism”, then, as a broad category, is this whole paradigm of different traditions up to the monotheistic “rift.”
On this “fullness”, however, some Traditionalists who have openly, explicitly (but perhaps never comprehensively) devoted attention to paganism “as a whole” have fixated on a kind of extreme dualism of traditional forms. For Evola and the Serbian Traditionalists such as Dragoš Kalajić and Boris Nad, this takes on the form of a maximal rift between the “Uranic” and the “Chthonic.” One might even have the impression that in Evola’s conception, which ultimately took on pronouncedly racial forms, only the “Uranic” truly pertains to the Primordial Tradition (which necessarily raises questions of chronology and civilizational morphology), whereas the “Chthonic” is positioned as a kind of “anti-Tradition” that is just as old and perhaps inextricable from terrestrial existence. Indeed, many of the world’s mythological heritages, especially of the Indo-European range, conceive of the cosmic drama as beginning, unfolding, and ending in the contact and conflict between such, to borrow Alexander Dugin’s terminology, Apollonian and Cybelean Logoi. In your Polemos, you adopt this line and interpret Modernity as a fundamentally Chthonic-Titanic revanche.
Where is the line drawn? Is the Chthonic just as integrally present and meaningful in the Primordial Tradition, in pagan traditions, as the Uranic? What does this distinction between these, according to yourself and the latter Traditionalist authors, “qualitatively” opposed traditions mean in the language of Tradition?
Askr Svarte: You are very correct in taking note of such fundamental points.
What Julius Evola, for example, spoke of in the case of “Uranic” and “Chthonic” aspects is an echo and paraphrasing of René Guénon’s concept of “counter-initiation.” Evola was the first to try to go beyond and rethink this concept. The idea of counter-initiation might be considered an obvious trace or effect of Abrahamic dualism, and in fact as a figure of “total evil”, another name for the Antichrist. Or, from another point of view, the roots of this idea are the Modernist echo in the works of Guénon himself, who was inclined to think not in plural but in universal and at times progressivist categories. As Evgeny Golovin once said: “[Absolute] truth is the original sin of monotheism.” Further deconstruction of this concept was accomplished by Alexander Dugin in his early work Absolute Homeland. Dugin insists on a plurality of forms and experiences of the sacred and therefore gives voice to otherwise simple things: what for one society may be sacred and initiatic, might for another be strictly taboo. Therefore, in principle, there can be no talk of a universal formula of counter-initiation. The formulation closest of all to my own would be the following: counter-initiation is whatever (phenomena or state) hinders one’s advance along the path of spiritual and divine self-realization.
There exists a plurality of forms of initiation and mysteries within the world of Tradition and archaic societies. Thus, we cannot extend this principle to the societies of Modernity, the ideals of the Enlightenment, etc., i.e., to that paradigm of knowledge which is built on the total rejection of any and all forms of the sacred, whether the Uranic, Dionysian, or Chthonic. This is the line where plurality ends and hard polemos begins.
Let us return to the sacred. French anthropologists and sociologists have explored in detail the dualistic structure of the “profane” and the “sacred” in archaic and more complex ancient societies. The non-dualist approach speaks of an ambivalent sacred, of a whole which embraces poles stretching from the “concentration of Divine presence” to “absolute prohibition.” Both poles are markers and manifestations of the sacred in one or another society. Such an understanding of the sacred can be called Dionysian, when both the purest and the dirtiest merge in coincidentia oppositorum. Evola’s understanding of the sacred would be more Apollonian, of course.
Within the linguistic metaphor, we can once again speak of the fundamental possibility of expressions which differ in meaning but are identical in correctness. We can offer praise to the purest and most beautiful Deity, or we can sing obscene songs associated with fertility and Eros. We can observe purifying fasting before mysteries, or we can stand amidst the blood of sacrificed animals. It is all one and the same.
The problems start whenever the structure, grammar, and lexicon of Tradition (with a capital “T”, as a paradigm) begin to break down and lose meaning. As in schizophasia, for example, when a speech is constructed grammatically correctly but does not carry any semantic content and cannot be deciphered. Or the speech of a person seriously ill with dementia or autism, which consists of abrupt breaks, mumblings, interjections, and generally breaks down into glossolalia. Here we can recall how Martin Heidegger contrasted existential Speech or Discourse (Rede), which is beingful, maximally concentrated, authentic speaking, to the empty, meaningless Idle Chatter (Gerede) of blind masses.
The language of Tradition is opposed by the language of Modernity and the language of Postmodernity. If we look at them inwardly, and not superficially, then we see inversion and schizophasia (Modernity) or glossolalia, “lalanguage”, and the complete disintegration of the forms and content of expression (Postmodernity). We recognize some form of speech in them (that is, we catch a certain similarity to our own), but it is hopelessly hostile or foolish. Such can, indeed, be called an anti-traditional language.
Different strategies of war can be arranged in relation to this: either frontal confrontation and suppression or passing through the lower poles to the Absolute from the other side of the era of the End. Julius Evola conceptualized the latter strategy during the second half of his life.
Regarding Dugin’s concept, a careful reading of his works reveals that the Logos of Apollo is just as universalist, covetous, extremely dualistic and destructive of plurality as the Logos of Cybele. Modernity and Postmodernity are their joint “brainchild.” Responsibility for the decline of Europe cannot be blamed on any single Logos. For this reason, some points in Noomakhia do not seem convincing or very clear to me. Such polarization of absolute light and absolute darkness seems to be a stretch.
Jafe Arnold: I sense that what we are inevitably nearing here, in our discussion of different traditional forms as well as their confrontation with or development up to Modernity, is that fateful, originary question of the relation between Mythos and Logos, which you already mentioned earlier. In your recent lecture series “Man and the Sacred”, you spoke of a certain “synthesis” of Logos and Mythos as constituting the linchpin of Sacred Tradition. These, of course, are highly contested terms, or rather “first-words”, whose meaning and trajectory might lie at the core of the history of philosophy and the course of our present cycle of consciousness. Would you dare introduce us to your approach to these different “sayings”, their significance to the pagan heritage, the rise of the Abrahamic faiths (e.g./ c.f. Gospel of John 1:1), and what they might say to us today?
Askr Svarte: Yes, both terms are extremely important and each of them is, in its own way, saturated with enormous potential. Let’s go in order.
In my lecture course as well as my books, I do not speak of a “synthesis” of Logos and Mythos. Rather, I speak of the hermeneutic circle of the process of interpreting and knowing between two poles. One pole is Mythos with its intrinsic, particular structure of thinking and mental procedures, as well as its own culture or “style” (as per Oswald Spengler). On this pole is located the mythology and mytho-poetics of traditional societies, their special, existential, ontological being-in-the-world and its very constitution. How we (a people) think largely creates the world in which we live.
The second pole is Logos with its already more rational and “itemized” procedures, its less flexible and less poetic structure which would much later, and under the influence of a number of additional negative factors, gravitate towards scholasticism and positivism in various versions.
In ancient Greek both Mythos and Logos originally meant approximately the same thing: “saying”, “narrative”, “word”, “story.” They were extremely close to another most important word, poiesis, that is “expressing”, “bringing-into-being.” The divergence between these two synonyms correlates with the difference between the oral transmission of tradition (mythology) in poetry and song, which was proper to the Indo-Europeans, and the written preservation of one or several “canonical” versions of a sacred tradition (Logos). This is analogous to the transition from voice to text with the subsequent revision of the “fabled-said” heritage for reliability, relevance, historicity, etc. This is the severe procedure to which Logos subjected Mythos starting with Christianization and the “exposing” of other traditions. This is what the first line of the first chapter of the Gospel of John is about if we read it as a gnoseological arrangement: there is only the written and “certified” text of sacred history, the “word” of God given through the prophets. This heightened emphasis on sacred writings and their authenticity is a feature of Semitic societies. Such marked the beginning of the denunciation, de-sacralization, revision, and genocide of mythological (=pagan) consciousness in favor of Church dogma and, later, the scientific view of the world.
But this is not the product of Abrahamic thinking and its influence on Europe alone. Unfortunately, the ontology and gnoseology of creationism found catastrophic resonance with some of the propositions of the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle which, despite the anathemas, Abrahamic theologians ripped out of the whole integral structure of their thought and reworked. The separation and contrasting of Logos and Mythos is already clearly noticeable in Socrates and Plato, although they still drew their force from Myth and Tradition. Neo-Platonism in many ways adjusted and corrected this movement, showing the intelligible path to the One. Within Christian theology, all of this was presented in crooked distorting mirrors, language games, and open “propaganda” as we would say today. The “Logos” of which John spoke has nothing in common with the Logos as we understand it; the former only used the same phoneme and letters to convey an altogether different meaning. Distinguishing between the One as monism and “the only one” of monotheism is of principal importance.
So, Mythos and Logos are two structures of thinking which, by virtue of historical factors and the metaphysical involution of time, came to be set up in harsh opposition to each other. The rational Logos of New Time (Modernity) has very successfully suppressed the sacred on the global scale.
My thought rests in presenting Logos as thinking which is inevitably rooted in and nurtured by the soil of Mythos. Hence the methodology of interpretation and hermeneutics which are respective to mythological thinking, which does not demand logical strictness, linear consistency, or the strict equivalence of A=A and other such “laws.” On this question I am in solidarity with the description of thinking put forth by Martin Heidegger: the essence of thinking lies in inquiring in a circle around key questions, approaching or distancing from them in a circle. When we commit such questioning around one or another topic, we have the pole of mythological interpretation and the pole of more clearly logical interpretation. But we do not surrender primacy or priority to one or the other. Among contemporary anthropology we could mention Eduardo Kohn, whose work How Forests Think is very close in its structure and subject matter to what we are talking about here.
Jafe Arnold: Without a doubt, here we have been exclusively “Logolizing.” Let us turn to Myth. In Polemos you submit that the myth of the Titanomachia aptly encapsulates the course of, in the very least, the past few centuries up to our days. Is there another myth of yore which you sense speaks most resonantly to our current cosmic situation? Is there a myth which most adequately expresses the spirit of the initiative of Pagan Traditionalism in our days?
Askr Svarte: All in all, the spirit of confrontation, of war for authenticity, most fully expresses the initiative of Pagan Traditionalism, appealing as it does to the widest possible audiences of pagans at all ends of the earth. It could be admitted that this is conditioned by the specifically Germanic, “Odinic” style of exacerbating a situation, sowing discord, and striving for unconditional victory. The general context and meta-historical myth of the war between the Gods and the Titans (Ragnarök is the Germanic analogue of the Titanomachia, but placed at the end of the cycle) allow for such a generalization. This is a martial and, in some sense, political approach to the matter. Without a doubt, it is inspired by the uncompromising figure of Baron Julius Evola (the first half of his life and ideas’ development). But, as we know, later Evola, like a number of other Traditionalist thinkers and Conservative Revolutionaries, arrived at the necessity of radically rethinking the whole strategy and, so to speak, the Traditionalist’s existential state in the world without Tradition.
I am also engaged in conceptualizing this problem now, and it demands a shift of “big myth.” Here we need other leading words for inquisitive thinking, for example: non-duality, monism/the One, death, gift, sacrifice, language, eschatology, initiation, Another/Other.
If we compare this with moving through the triad of Divinities, then this means passing from the Divine that defends and upholds the Cosmos to the figure of the Divinity responsible for the final destruction and death of this Cosmos.
Naming any one leading myth would be difficult, since the matter at hand would be a palette of plots in their complex and, at times, implicit connections. For example:
- The myth of Odin’s ritual suicide / self-sacrifice to himself;
- The myth of the ritual killing of a chief or first being as the act of cosmogony;
- The myth of the gift and the destruction of the accursed share (of the extant world of things);
- The myth of the highest initiation into the Selfhood of the Divine of the Advaita-monism Tantric type;
- Myths of the death, dream-visions, awakening, and identity of the observer within the world and “without” it;
- And finally eschatological myths, especially that of Ragnarök.
Developing the philosophical and theological meta-language of Traditionalism on these grounds means radically changing the dominant attitude towards the world and being within it. This can be expressed with the phrase “eschatological optimism.”
In pagan circles in Russia, Europe, and the US, I’ve far from rarely seen the popular thought that “in the 21st century paganism is experiencing its long-awaited renaissance.” This is a very naive thought. Paganism today is experiencing its awakening from a long, heavy slumber, but it is waking up not in the vivid rays of light of a New Renaissance, but amidst eschatological twilight, oblivion, and the destruction of everything. This concerns all the pagan traditions of Europe and all those which have been affected by globalism, colonization, and modernization over the past few centuries. Paganism today is an awakening “subject” which needs to quickly and precisely understand where and in what circumstances it has awoken and what needs to be done. The majority of pagans prefer to remain in the world of illusions, comfort, and faith in progress and “rebirth.” The real situation is such that paganism today has awoken in the middle of an eschatological battle, and it must authentically come to consciousness of itself in the very last instant before the end of the world and everything extant. Either paganism will die in the decaying corpse of Postmodernity, in which case this death will be an inglorious and absurd one, and then we will simply turn away from such paganism as something shameful and unworthy (in which case “progressive” pagans will even live well, as their shame will be dressed up with liberal-democratic recognition and “success” in the world of das Man); or paganism will – obviously in the face of very small groups – pass through the eschatological event of the oblivion of being like the highest mystery of initiation. Then it will be possible to speak of the uttering (the expressing, bringing-into-being in this world) of Another Myth. This is a matter for a separate, larger conversation, although it is subtly outlined in the second volume of my Polemos.
Nevertheless, I consider it important that the “war of ideas” paradigm expounded in Polemos as well as other articles and books be “synchronized” with the ensuing paradigm. Both myths need to be thought non-dually. Polemos, then, becomes a propaedeutic, an introductory explanation of key topics so that one can then take the leap into absolutely enigmatic domains.
Jafe Arnold: Thank you, Askr Svarte, for sharing your time, words, and thoughts with Continental-Conscious. I am more than sure that there are more than enough points for reflection and future discussion to be taken from the paths you’ve laid out here.
I especially look forward to seeing through the release of Polemos II: Pagan Perspectives by PRAV Publishing in 2021.
Would you be able to share with readers some insight into your current writings and projects?
And finally, could you please leave our readers with some parting words of your choice?
Askr Svarte: Thank you for the interesting and extremely substantive questions!
We’ve built up our conversation here around the ideas expressed in Polemos. Besides Polemos, in English is already available my more complex work, Gods in the Abyss: Essays on Heidegger, the Germanic Logos, and the Germanic Myth, which is devoted to studying the Germanic Logos and, more broadly, the fate of Europe. This book could be called a passage to the myth of sacrifice, because Odin unites these two motifs within himself.
In 2020 my book Pagan Identity in the 21st Century was released in Russian, which consists of polemical articles, summaries of my lecture course on pagan theology, sociological studies, and reviews. This is a kind of complementary volume in which I tried to apply all of our ideas to practical studies and education.
Now my large work, Tradition and Future Shock: Visions of a Future that Isn’t Ours, numbering more than 400 pages, is at the final stage. This book is devoted to a frontal philosophical, metaphysical, mystical, cultural, economic, and political critique of progress and the technogenic civilization, the so-called ideas of Neo-Reactionism, Archeofuturism, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and Klaus Schwab’s “Global Reset.” But the ideas presented in this book are, of course, broader and more radical than merely the examples listed above. I hope to very soon begin publishing announcements and descriptions of the book. A sufficient number of excerpts have already been published in Russian.
Forthcoming in 2021 are the new issues of our almanacs on paganism and Traditionalism. We continue to actively work with like-minded associates in Russia and other countries.
As for some parting words, we can respond with some deep formulas:
Traditionalism is Paganism.
Myth is our Homeland.
The Divine is within You.
There is no other Tradition to turn to.
***
Continental-Conscious 