¶8 We say that Mr. Massis’s mind is troubled by fear; the best proof of this is perhaps the extraordinary, and even altogether inconceivable, attitude that he attributes to his so-called ‘Oriental propagandists’: these would be animated by a fierce hatred of the West, and it is in order to harm the West that they would strive to communicate their own doctrines to it — that is to say, to give it what they themselves hold most precious, what constitutes in some sort the very substance of their spirit!1 Faced with all the contradiction in such a hypothesis, one cannot help but feel real stupefaction: the whole laboriously constructed thesis collapses instantly, and it seems that the author did not even notice it, for we do not wish to suppose that he was conscious of such an improbability and that he simply counted on the lack of clairvoyance of his readers to make them accept it. There is no need to reflect very long or very deeply to realise that if there are people who hate the West so fiercely, the first thing they must do is jealously keep their doctrines to themselves and that all their efforts must tend to deny Westerners access to them;2 moreover, this is a reproach that has sometimes been addressed to Easterners, with more appearance of reason.3 The truth, however, is rather different: the authentic representatives of traditional doctrines feel hatred for no one, and their reserve has only one cause: they judge it perfectly useless to expound certain truths to those who are incapable of understanding them;4 but they have never refused to share them with those, whatever their origin, who possess the required ‘qualifications’;5 is it their fault if, among the latter, there are very few Westerners?6 And, on the other hand, if the Oriental masses end up being truly hostile to Westerners, after having long regarded them with indifference, who is responsible for it? Is it this elite which, wholly devoted to intellectual contemplation, keeps itself resolutely aloof from external agitation, or is it rather the Westerners themselves, who have done everything necessary to make their presence odious and intolerable?7 It suffices that the question be posed as it should be, for anyone to be capable of answering it immediately; and, even admitting that the Easterners, who have shown incredible patience up to now, finally wish to be masters in their own homes, who could sincerely think of blaming them for it?8 It is true that, when certain passions are involved, the same things can, according to circumstances, be appreciated in very different, indeed even contrary, ways: thus, when resistance to foreign invasion is the act of a Western people, it is called ‘patriotism’ and is worthy of all praise; when it is the act of an Eastern people, it is called ‘fanaticism’ or ‘xenophobia’ and no longer deserves anything but hatred or contempt.9 Moreover, is it not in the name of ‘Right’, ‘Liberty’, ‘Justice’ and ‘Civilisation’ that Europeans claim to impose their domination everywhere, and to forbid any man to live and think otherwise than they themselves live and think?10 One will agree that ‘moralism’ is truly an admirable thing, unless one prefers to conclude quite simply, as we ourselves do, that, except for exceptions all the more honourable for being rarer, there are scarcely more than two sorts of people in the West, both rather uninteresting: the naïve who let themselves be caught by these grand words and who believe in their ‘civilising mission’, unconscious as they are of the materialist barbarity in which they are immersed, and the clever ones who exploit this state of mind for the satisfaction of their instincts of violence and cupidity.11 In any case, what is certain is that Easterners threaten no one and hardly think of invading the West in any way; they have, for the moment, quite enough to do to defend themselves against European oppression, which risks reaching them even in their spirit; and it is at least curious to see the aggressors posing as victims.12
←
→

Summary

Guénon argues that Massis’s claim that ‘Oriental propagandists’ who hate the West would strive to give their own doctrines to the West is contradictory, as those who hate the West would jealously keep their doctrines to themselves. He explains that authentic traditional representatives feel no hatred and withhold doctrines only because they judge it useless to expound them to those incapable of understanding, but they never refuse those with the required qualifications, however rare among Westerners. He asks who is responsible if Eastern masses become hostile to Westerners: the elite devoted to contemplation, or the Westerners themselves whose presence has become odious. He notes the double standard whereby resistance to invasion is called ‘patriotism’ when done by Westerners but ‘fanaticism’ or ‘xenophobia’ when done by Easterners. He concludes that, aside from rare honourable exceptions, the West contains only naïfs who believe in a ‘civilising mission’ and clever ones who exploit that belief, while Easterners threaten no one and are merely defending themselves against European oppression.

General notes

  1. contradiction : haïr l’Occident tout en lui donnant ses doctrines les plus précieuses — Rendered as ‘contradiction: hating the West while giving it one’s most precious doctrines’. Guénon underlines the logical absurdity of Massis’s position. If the ‘Oriental propagandists’ really hated the West, they would jealously keep their doctrines to themselves instead of communicating them. To give what one holds most precious to one’s enemy is contradictory. This inconsistency discredits Massis’s entire thesis. ↩︎
  2. logique : celui qui hait garde ses doctrines pour lui — Rendered as ‘logic: he who hates keeps his doctrines to himself’. Guénon states the logical consequence of Massis’s hypothesis. If Easterners really hated the West, their interest would be to hide their doctrines from it, not to reveal them. Massis’s thesis is therefore self-refuting. ↩︎
  3. reproche aux Orientaux de cacher leurs doctrines — Rendered as ‘reproach to Easterners for hiding their doctrines’. Guénon notes that the opposite accusation (that Easterners refuse to share their wisdom with Westerners) has been frequent, and it is more plausible than Massis’s. Easterners are often perceived as ‘closed’ or ‘secretive’. ↩︎
  4. réserve des représentants authentiques de la tradition — Rendered as ‘reserve of the authentic representatives of tradition’. Guénon explains the real reason for the discretion of traditional Easterners: it is neither hatred nor selfishness, but the simple observation that certain truths can only be understood by those who possess the necessary inner qualifications. To expound them to others would be useless, even dangerous. ↩︎
  5. « qualifications » requises — Rendered as ‘required “qualifications”’. Guénon uses this term in the traditional sense: the inner dispositions (intellectual and spiritual) that make a being capable of receiving esoteric teaching. These qualifications depend neither on birth nor on race, but on the individual’s own nature. ↩︎
  6. peu d’Occidentaux possèdent les qualifications requises — Rendered as ‘few Westerners possess the required qualifications’. Guénon observes that authentically qualified Westerners to receive traditional Oriental doctrines are very rare. This is not a refusal on the part of the Easterners, but an objective fact. ↩︎
  7. responsabilité de l’Occident dans l’hostilité orientale — Rendered as ‘Western responsibility for Eastern hostility’. Guénon turns the accusation around: if Easterners become hostile, it is not because of irrational hatred, but in reaction to Western acts (colonialism, exploitation, cultural contempt). Easterners were long indifferent; it is Western aggression that provoked their hostility. ↩︎
  8. droit des Orientaux à être maîtres chez eux — Rendered as ‘right of Easterners to be masters in their own homes’. Guénon defends the right of Oriental peoples to self-determination against colonial domination. Westerners who criticise Eastern ‘hostility’ are in no position to do so, for they themselves have invaded and oppressed these peoples. ↩︎
  9. double standard occidental : patriotisme vs fanatisme — Rendered as ‘Western double standard: patriotism vs fanaticism’. Guénon denounces the hypocrisy of Western language. Resistance to invasion is valorised when it is Western (patriotism), but stigmatised when it is Eastern (fanaticism, xenophobia). This is a pure ethnocentric prejudice. ↩︎
  10. impérialisme moral de l’Occident — Rendered as ‘moral imperialism of the West’. Guénon criticises the rhetoric of universal values (Right, Liberty, Justice, Civilisation) used by the West to justify its imperialism. These grand words mask a will to domination and cultural uniformisation. ↩︎
  11. deux sortes de gens en Occident : naïfs et habiles — Rendered as ‘two sorts of people in the West: naïve and clever’. Guénon distinguishes between the sincere but blind masses (who believe in the civilising mission of the West) and the cynical elites (who exploit this belief to dominate and enrich themselves). The former are dupes, the latter exploiters. Exceptions (those who see clearly) are rare and honourable. ↩︎
  12. les agresseurs se posent en victimes — Rendered as ‘the aggressors posing as victims’. Guénon turns the situation around: it is the Westerners who invaded, colonised, exploited, but they present themselves as the victims of a supposed Eastern ‘invasion’. This inversion of roles is typical of imperialist hypocrisy. ↩︎