Europe versus the West: Interview with Adriano Scianca
In this thought-provoking interview, Italian journalist and essayist Adriano Scianca discusses his recent book, « Europe versus Occident. La fin d’une ambiguïté » ("Europe versus the West: The End of an Ambiguity"), published by Éditions de la Nouvelle Librairie in collaboration with the Iliade Institute. Scianca explores the complex dichotomy between Europe and the West, arguing for an ontological difference between these two entities while rejecting simplistic Manichean views. He criticizes both pro-Russian circles that conflate Europe with the West as a "satanic bloc" and those who uncritically align with liberal Westernized elites. Addressing questions about America's role as Europe's potential adversary, technological advancement versus tradition, and cultural Americanization, Scianca advocates for a "third path" he calls Hesperia—a concept that combines "strength and freedom, law and identity, technology and rootedness" while avoiding both Enlightenment-style Westernism and obscurantist anti-Westernism.
Originally published on Éléments on April 25, 2025
Translated by Alexander Raynor
Interview by Xavier Eman
Who is Adriano Scianca?
Adriano Scianca is an Italian journalist born in Orvieto, Italy on August 2, 1980. Since 2013, he has served as the editor-in-chief of the periodical Il Primato Nazionale, which publishes both online and in print. Until September 2020, he was the national head of culture for the political organization, CasaPound Italia.
Scianca graduated in Philosophy from Sapienza University of Rome and has been a registered professional journalist with the Order of Journalists of Lazio since 2011. His career includes work as an editor for La Verità newspaper and contributions to Libero and Il Foglio. Previously, he was on the editorial staff of Secolo d'Italia.
His writing has appeared in numerous publications across Europe, including Italian periodicals and journals in Germany, France, Spain, and Portugal. Scianca has authored several books addressing political topics from an identitarian perspective.
“There is a third path: one that seeks to combine strength and freedom, law and identity, technology and rootedness.”
Italian journalist and essayist Adriano Scianca recently published a remarkable short book with Éditions de la Nouvelle Librairie, in collaboration with the Iliade Institute, titled Europe versus the West: The End of an Ambiguity. Far from merely reiterating the deep and original differences that separate these two entities, the author invites us to reconsider this dichotomy in a new light—particularly in the context of recent geopolitical upheavals—in order to avoid falling into simplistic, Manichaean postures that ultimately prove paralyzing.
ÉLÉMENTS. Your latest book is devoted to the dichotomy between “Europe” and “the West,” a recurring and central theme in New Right thought. Why did you feel the need to “clarify” this topic?
ADRIANO SCIANCA: Because the reactions to the war in Ukraine that I observed within the Italian non-conformist sphere (and I don’t think the situation is any different in France) revealed, on the one hand, pro-Russian circles that followed Moscow’s rhetoric to the point of completely conflating the notion of Europe with that of the West, turning it into a single “satanic” bloc hostile to the rise of the “multipolar world”; and on the other hand, circles so opposed to that rhetoric that they aligned just as completely with the opposing camp—that of the liberals and Westernized elites, the BHL type. In effect, the concept of Europe was reduced to that of the West from two opposite directions: those who opposed that bloc, and those who exalted it. That’s why I felt it was necessary to revisit this basic distinction.
ÉLÉMENTS. While you conclude that there is an ontological difference between “Europe” and “the West,” your approach rejects all simplistic Manichaeism, and you don’t hesitate to criticize certain “mental habits” of the radical right, which you argue sometimes adopts caricatured positions—especially toward the United States, seen as “the Great Satan.” But even if they aren’t the embodiment of evil, aren’t the United States still the main enemy of a sovereign, powerful, and independent Europe—the only Europe that could truly compete with them?
ADRIANO SCIANCA: I must admit a certain skepticism toward the category of “main enemy,” which seems to me to stem from a misreading of Schmitt. The German jurist was a master of concrete thought, and when he speaks of the friend and the enemy, he has in mind an existential conflict that is already underway, even before any political analysis begins. In contrast, if I were to now draw up a list of principal enemies by ranking geopolitical powers according to my philosophical sympathies or antipathies, I would be engaging in a very abstract exercise—thus, not at all Schmittian. Today, is Russia the main enemy of a Ukrainian? Was the Austro-Hungarian Empire the main enemy of an Italian in 1915? Was Islam the main enemy of a Frenchman who went to the Bataclan on the night of November 13, 2015? In all these cases, I get the impression that it is always reality that chooses for us, even before any philosophical evaluation.
That said, I’m not dodging the question: the United States is certainly a spiritual, cultural, geopolitical, and economic power that is anti-European. I have no doubt about that. Americans still see us as the corrupt empire they fled in order to found the New Israel. However, rejecting the moralistic Manichaeism that sees the United States as the Great Satan and anyone who claims to be anti-American as an objective ally does not mean moving closer to Washington. On the contrary, it means approaching autonomy from the U.S. in a less childish, more realistic—and therefore more effective—manner.
ÉLÉMENTS. You rightly point out that rejecting the “West” shouldn’t be confused with neo-Luddite technophobia or a longing to return to “oil lamps.” Without falling into such excesses, don’t a sense of proportion, respect for nature and its limits, and a desire to resist the hubris of a certain techno-scientific headlong rush form part of Europe’s DNA?
ADRIANO SCIANCA: The ancient Romans sanctified borders, placing them under the protection of the god Terminus, but they never stopped pushing them farther. Every discovery, every invention—from the wheel to fire, from gunpowder to nuclear energy to artificial intelligence—leads to the surpassing of limits and the testing of new ones. In the end, no one, however “Faustian,” enjoys crashing into a wall at full speed or dying of radiation exposure. A total absence of limits would be unlivable.
That said, a certain drive toward the unknown, toward adventure, risk, discovery, and experimentation seems to me inherent to the European spirit—and almost exclusively so. Of course, this identity trait lives in a complex dialectic with the pull toward order, harmony, tradition. But no order is eternal—not even the divine, as the turbulent Indo-European theogonies teach us. What I see as intrinsically anti-European is the idea of an absolute limit, of a metaphysical prohibition, of rules handed down once and for all that man must passively accept.
As for hubris, let us recall that originally it referred to the arrogance of one man toward another of equal rank (for example, Agamemnon seizing Achilles’s prize), within a power dynamic that was always tense and contested—not the “sin” of a man who failed to “stay in his place” within fossilized ontological hierarchies.
ÉLÉMENTS. You write that affirming one’s “Europeanness” in opposition to the United States isn’t just about giving up Coke, McDonald’s, jeans, and Marvel. That’s undeniable—but isn’t it still a necessary first step? To refound the specifically European “way of being in the world” you call for, mustn’t we shed the trappings imposed by American soft power, which—far from being merely superficial—shape minds and behaviors?
ADRIANO SCIANCA: Certainly, no good European can live solely on McDonald’s and Marvel movies. But my critique targets a certain moralism that boils everything down to a race for individual purity. I also believe that soft power must be countered with other soft power, not with asceticism. Let me add another thought: Is Americanization today spreading more through McDonald’s burgers—or through narratives that are presented as “dissident”?
There is Americanization through conformity, yes—but there is another, perhaps more dangerous form, that spreads through supposed anti-conformity. Today, a “dissent” has taken hold that operates entirely within Americanized frameworks. A few years ago, I heard a woman the same age as my parents, with no ties to radical politics, try to convince me that Biden had been secretly arrested and that the mainstream media was hiding the truth. Why was this placid grandmother—who likely never ate a Big Mac—deep in the heart of authentic Italy, earnestly repeating QAnon nonsense?
Why do we increasingly hear “dissidents” following religious preachers, adopting messianic political categories, preaching the absolute right to armed self-defense on one’s property? Before judging the Americans as distant from us, let’s take a look at those already among us.
ÉLÉMENTS. You stress the need for a certain “political pragmatism” to break free from unproductive romanticism and paralyzing “absolutism.” How far should this pragmatism go without risking “compromise”? For example, can (or should) one support Emmanuel Macron, given his stated ambition to create a “European army” that could eventually become a pillar of the “Europe-power” we aspire to?
ADRIANO SCIANCA: If a “hostile” government does something moving in the right direction, it’s fair to point out its contradictions, shortcomings, and hypocrisy—but one cannot suddenly support the opposite of everything one has always stood for, just to spite those in power. It’s clear to everyone that Macron’s activism on the common defense front is a desperate attempt to go down in history as a European statesman, despite his domestic failures. Just as it’s obvious that his anthropological and cultural profile is ill-suited to the leadership role he suddenly claims to play.
And yet, after criticizing Europe for being powerless, defenseless, disarmed, outside of history, we cannot then reproach it for exactly the opposite—simply out of fear of being associated with Macron. In my book, I evoke the image of a “European singularity,” modeled after the technological singularity. As we know, the latter refers to the phase when intelligent machines begin to program themselves faster and faster, escaping the control of those who created them for very different purposes. In the same way, Europe-power, once set in motion by these ruling classes, could become something else entirely—escape their control and sweep them away.
In any case, I won’t become an advocate of our own impotence out of fear of appearing compromised with Macronism—especially since those making such accusations often have far more embarrassing associations.
ÉLÉMENTS. In the closing pages of the book, you put forward the concept of Hesperia, also highlighted by David Engels, as the goal for “good Europeans.” This term may at first seem a bit abstruse or at least relatively disembodied. Could you provide a concrete definition?
ADRIANO SCIANCA: It’s a concept that comes from a somewhat creative translation of a Heideggerian distinction. The German philosopher contrasted the West and the Abendland. The former is the globalist, uprooting West we know. The latter is something entirely different—it’s the revival of the Greek spirit in a context no longer Greek. French translators rendered Abendland as Esperia (which is also one of the oldest names the Greeks gave to Italy). Guillaume Faye adopted and developed this concept in his own way.
Of course, it’s always somewhat difficult to give concrete substance to philosophical concepts, but in my case, the idea served to break the binary dialectic between Enlightenment-style Westernism and obscurantist anti-Westernism. There is a third path: one that seeks to combine strength and freedom, law and identity, technology and rootedness. West is the name of the place where the sun dies; Hesperia is the name of the land that holds the sun through the world’s night, awaiting its inevitable rebirth.