Talk:Radical Traditionalism

Traditionalist school

This article, as i see it in Arpil, 2006, is a mess. It is sub-par, disorganized, almost useless to readers seeking information, and basically just not readble. I strongly agree with Sam Spade's original attempt to merge its contents with Traditional School. If not, i vote to delete it as being beneath Wiki standards of information. Catherineyronwode 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. What? You want to merge two totally seperate subjects because you feel that the article needs some sort of improvement or, even better, delete them entirely? They're two seperate movements from two totally seperate circles from seperate places and seperate eras of time. If you can't muster up the effort to do a little research on your own, it's no problem of any who contributed to this article. :bloodofox: 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think :bloodofox: is being a little over-aggressive here but he's basically right. Traditionalism and Radical Traditionalism are quite different. They both consist in part of a critique of the modern world, which is why you will see, for example, Evola mentioned in both Traditionalist and Radical Traditionalist texts, but although they share an opinion that the modern world is flawed they propose strikingly different solutions. If this article and the Traditionalist article are to be merged then we might as well merge this with the article on Marxism and any other movement that critiques the modern West. This article could do with a cleanup, but so could many others on Wikipedia. The solution is to clean them up, not to delete them. Do you propose we delete all the stub articles too? Anomenat 10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical traditionalism, Traditional School, and Fascism

Bloodfox, you have read what i wrote incorrectly. I did not propose to delete the Traditional School page. In fact, i even added to it today. This page, however, is not up to par, in my opinion.

You also ask what Raditical Traditionalism has to do with Fascism, Neo-Nazism, and anti-Semitism. The answer is as clear as the nose on your face. From the article itself, i quote:

Radical traditionalism takes its philosophical cue from philosophers such as Nietzsche, Georges Dumézil, Alain de Benoist and Julius Evola.

Please look up Julius Evola and you will see the connection; Evola supported italian Fascism, was employed by the Nazi SS, and promoted anti-Semitism. If the Radical traditionalist movement avows that it owes its thinking to Evola's precepts, it will logically share the affiliations he himself openly acknowledged.

Catherineyronwode 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask what it had to do with it. I said it had nothing to do with it. Scant relation through influential Europeans during the 1940's, sure. Most people from this era and place were involved with National Socialism and, far south, Fascism in some way, particularly many of the most notable minds of this period. However, that's not all they did throughout their life nor were they even associated with that time and period throughout most of their time on Earth.

What this article doesn't mention as much as it should are the very strong Heathen currents (the dominant subject of all of the TYR issues so far) that run very thickly throughout this form of "Radical Traditionalism" and the largest names involved are very vocal tribalists - A far cry from your totalitarian state crowd. This is perhaps the most obvious difference between the "Traditionalist school" and these modern "Radical Traditionalists." As mentioned here a bit, the neofolk subculture also plays into this subject, with notable relations with various artists and personalities associated with it.

Again, a little research is in order here- Things aren't quite as black and white as some people would have them. Obviously, the focus in this form of 'traditionalism' is not turn of the century politics but reconstructive paganism and a distaste for our current ultra-industrialized consumer-based modern culture. :bloodofox: 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would submit that you are making the same error -- lack of research -- of which you have accused me.

Evola lived and wrote long past the period of "the 1940s" with which you associate him. He died in 1974.

Likewise, Evola did not paticipate in "turn of the century politics" -- because he was only 12 years old at the turn of the century.

By casting Evola back 35 years before when he actually lived, you overlook his direct contributions to the development of Radical Traditionalism.

The same goes for Savitri Devi, also an obvious influence on the "greening" of the Neo-Fascist and far-right Nordic currents in the late 20th century. She only died in 1982 and was lecturing almost up to the day of her death.

If Radical Traditionalism is notable, per WP standards, and not just some little backyard circle of friends who started a zine in 2002, we need to see more than what you have here, which, to be honest, looks like a vanity page for a fanzine called Tyr.

If Radical Traditionalism bears any relationship at all to Traditionalism, you will be asked to state clearly the movement's positions on White Supremacy, Aryan Identiy politics, anti-Semitism, Hyperborean / Nordic pseudoscience, and all the other concepts identified with the Traditional School.

If you would like to write a coherent article defining how Radical Traditionalism grew out of and away from Traditional School thinking, that would be the best argument in favour of keeping the two articles separate and not merged.

So far, i see nohing here of note.

Catherineyronwode 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what you mention here and I state clearly above that Evola did more than simply work for the Third Reich for a brief period. He also had all sorts of new age inclinations. Neither have any real relation to this subject.

More over, Devi could hardly be credited with "greening" National Socialist or far right European circles, albeit she was quite a character. I didn't write this article. As I've stated above, it can use some changing. However, inserting your usual tabloid splash of "Nazi menace UFOs!" over it when it clearly has nothing at all to do with the subject isn't helping anyone.

Again, from AFA head Stephen McNallen to publisher/writer/journalist/musician Michael Moynihan, look into the people behind it and the organizations they're involved in - you'll discover the roots and reasons behind this circle of people.

As for the questions regarding the quality of the Tyr journal, there's no xeroxing here. They may be irregularly printed but they're definitely high quality and xerox-less. :bloodofox: 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming needlessly heated.

If Evola had NO relationship to Radical Traditionionalism, then why is he mentioned in connection with it? If he had SOME connection with it -- even if only as an influence -- then please clarify on the page itself. It is the page itself which is weak.

About Savitri Devi, you say you didn't write the page on her. No one said you did. It is well written, goes into great detail about her influence on the "greening" of Neo-Fascist organizations (including her vegetarian and anti-globalizations stances, shared with some on the far-left. If you have problems with that page, please take your discussion to the SD talk page.

Next, if Radical Traditionalism is so different from Traditional School, why waste time telling me to check out Mynihan and the AFA here on the TALK page? Please take the time instead to write the information into the RT page itself and improve that page. If the page is good, solid, and not a vanity page, then you will find that there no talk about merging the page with TS.

You make a severe error when you equate my calling Tyr a fanzine with my asserting that it is Xeroxed. I did not do that. Fanzines can be printed, as i know well, for i produced fanzines myself for years using repro methods ranging from spirit master, mimeo, and thermo fax to Xerox, and sheetfed photooffset printing. One was even printed in purple ink on cream laid paper with gold ink on a purple cover, no less -- but it was still fanzine.

Can you improve the RT page, demonstrate that the RT page not a vanity page, and show us that Radical Traditionaism meets the WP standard for "notability?"? If so, plese do so, and soon, and all this talk of merging will be put to rest. Thanks.

Catherineyronwode

Regarding my confusing paragraph mentioning Devi above - When I said "this" article, I meant this, the Radical Traditionalism article, not her own.

Regarding the 'vanity' status of the article - I haven't had a whole lot to do with this page yet (or Radical Traditionalism, for that matter) and I believe the author who put together the small article that we have now doesn't have much to do with Radical Traditionalism either.

Regarding Tyr as a 'fanzine' - I got the impression that you felt that the magazine was some sort of poorly made personal fanzine, whereas it's more a directly related "journal" that could be seen somewhat as a mouthpiece for the key people behind it and their sphere of involvement.

I'll get around to improving this in time unless someone beats me to it. However, it's not going to be any easier if it gets merged with a largely unrelated subject, despite some lines of influence.

:bloodofox: 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Traditionalist School is a largely unrelated subject, as it is based on the "perennial philosophy" and organized religious belief. If the article must be merged to survive, I would suggest merging it with "Development Criticism" perhaps with a mention in "Neopaganism". - Robina 10:42, 6 September 2006

this article has huge problems of npov and scope. By invoking Evola, it essentially embraces the Traditionalist School, as is indeed done by proponents of "fascist-Asatru" such as the highly dubious Werkgroep Traditie. It is not clear whether this is a topic of the European far-right, or what. Citing a murky journal as our only source for this -ism doesn't help much. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article may have NPOV issues or other problems. But let's not make such snap judgements, it's definitely an interesting topic, and for someone who is interested in Fascism-related topics, it's definitely worth working on. Give the article some time and a few editors later, and it'll improve. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I gutted a bunch of the unrelated Neo-Nazi stuff that was plastered all over it and a ton of uncited POV and apparent opinion. Let's try to keep it neutral, referenced and per policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be cited and all that. But hey, Bloodofox, are you sure this is not Evola's ideology? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this as something of its own with a myriad amount of influences. Of course, presenting material by Alain de Benoist and Julius Evola will cause some people to freak out, no matter what it is. However, it would seem to me Tyr differs quite heavily from the Traditionalist School and Evola's take on it. Subjects regarding indigenous paganism are mentioned regularly, being probably the largest and most obvious difference between these schools of thought. Evola and de Benoist are mentioned alongside such very different figures such as Pentti Linkola and Sveinbjorn Beinteinsson. To me it seems like a particular extension of the ethos of the original Industrial Music Culture, which never cared about who was upset where or why and generally presenting material as radical as the music was at the time, sometimes resulting in shocked reactions, especially from Europeans. I think this is backed up by the musical pedigree of the musical artists presented as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is Evolas ideology called then? My understanding of it is that he supported Fascism, but disagreed on many points with how Mussolini ran things. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that depends on who you ask. I'd just call it a particular type of Eastern cultural appropriation combined with the politics of his specific day and place but that's me. The guy gets a lot of fanfare in some modern circles, usually from knee-jerk reactionaries (almost entirely due to his wacky involvement with the Ahnenerbe) and would-be neo-fascists to the curious, yoga-centric New Agers and literate spectators in between, but, frankly, he was hardly extreme by the standard of the era he existed in. Evola got really into New Age stuff towards the end of his life (probably more troublesome to most of the local Catholics at the time than his previous involvements) and published a bunch of material on it that still gets some currency around the New Age mills to this day. I know there's some controversy regarding exactly how much Evola's 'Traditionalism' has to do with the Traditional School amongst those with a toe in it and as far as I can tell it's probably not a whole lot, all in all. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyway, with or without Evola, one thing is for certain: this article must be improved upon with academic sources. In the current state it's not good enough and needs to be expanded and sourced. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloodofox is hiding the obvious connections with fascism by removing information. If he wants to make the point that there are "myriads" of other influences, let him discuss those, not remove the ones he doesn't like admitting to. I frankly fail to see how this is different from fascism. Not "fascism" used as a slur, of course, but the historical fascism which was a self-designation used by people who were just as convinced it was a Good Idea as anyone ever is of their chosen ideology. Evola is of central importance here, because his person connects pre-war fascism and post-war neo-fascism-slash-traditionalism-slash-$EUPHEMISM. dab (𒁳) 13:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hiding information"? Excuse me? Why on earth would I do that? The simple fact is that you're keen on ranting away and inserting your opinion wherever you see fit all over any article relating to this subject without any semblance of source, all the time freely admitting one did not exist. I hate to burst your bubble here, Dab, but removing information that is not sourced is the most basic of policies here on Wikipedia. I've pointed out various other influences above. Of all of this, what I particularly don't appreciate is your repeated gestures at attempting to show that I have some sort of favorable agenda towards what I disagree with you on, notably by calling me things like a "wreckless propagandist" all the while. However, I think it's pretty clear to anyone who has been on the opposite side of the fence of your opinion that this is a common strategy of yours. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I in a way have to side with dab here. I'm aware that many of these Radical Traditionalists, or "Indo-European Traditionalism" as they sometimes refer to their ideology, are quite inspired by Julius Evola. Now, I'm not positive on this being a neologism coined to describe Evola's ideology, but there are certainly radical traditionalists out there who are very inspired by Evola. Have a look here, for exampel: For many, the point of entry to Evola is not his Traditionalism, but his "idealization of the Indo-European.[1] (all right, I know the source is a blog, but it's just an example of this in the wild). They also seem to be very inspired by the concept of the Kali Yuga too, from what I've noticed. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I am not disputing there's an Evola connection here. However, without references, it comes down to run of the mill original research and that's still a long step away from plastering links to unrelated National Socialist groups all over the article or even just blatantly labeling it as a neo-fascist group as Dab would prefer. For example, the magazine clearly puts forth an anti-Nazi disclaimer up front. And, besides, if we have a source making a claim - even, for example, if they're stating that it's the greatest magazine ever, we have to treat it like any other source and follow policy with it. This means stating who said it and what exactly they said and where. Frankly, I think it's all pretty nutty and don't care for my Heathenry spiked with new age occultism, which is why statements like that I'm "trying to hide information" are completely unnecessary. Maybe it has something to do with his recent RFC and ARBCOM that didn't work out well for him where I presented evidence on this very subject, I'm not sure. The only reason I even bother with this is that I'm pretty familiar with many of the figures through their musical history and I'm picking up on a pattern of intentional disregard of policy in favor of instilling opinion. It's clear some of these figures are new discoveries for Dab, for example Moynihan, and a little more thorough research (See Talk:Michael Moynihan (journalist) for an example) combined with an amount of restraint and a big dose of manners would do him good in these areas. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that they aren't neo-Nazis. They don't have any dogmatic belief in Nazism at all. However, dab has a point here that they [Radical Traditionalists] are very supportive of Nazism/neo-Nazism due to pragmatic ideological reasons (i.e., neo-Nazis are supporters of Indo-European nationalism, the same is true for Radical Traditionalists). I don't think this makes them neo-Nazis or neo-Fascists but they are certainly inspired by both Mussolini and Hitler. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How are they inspired by "Mussolini and Hitler"? "Indo-European nationalism"? I don't see the connection. Keep in mind we're talking basically about the Tyr journal, as it Radical Traditionalism doesn't really exist outside of it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get something straight first: "Radical Traditionalism" or whatever it's called, exists. But it's not a wide movement or anything like that. There are a few (very few) neo-Fascism or neo-Nazism sympathisers who advocate some sort of nationalism in the sense of Indo-European Traditionalism (or "Indo-European ideals", as they sometimes call it). They are actually quite rational in their beliefs and don't hold Nazi Germany as the immaculate image of Germanic nationalism, nor do they think Fascist Italy was picture perfect. However, they consider Hitler and Mussolini to have been great leaders and although to some extent critical of both Nazism and Fascism, also sympathise in many ways with Hitler and Mussolini on a political level. But when I say they're rational, it's that they are not fanatical nationalists, but rather, critical of their sources of inspiration even though they also sympathise with many neo-Nazis. My own generic label of them is that they are simply white nationalist who happen to be inspired by various influential political leaders and ideological thinkers from the first half of the 20th century, such as Hitler and Mussolini, but also writings of George Dumezil, Savitri Devi, and many others. Evola is also, seemingly, a huge source of inspiration for these guys. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

googling "radical traditionalism"

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ... I find that "radical traditionalism" in the vast majority of occurrences is used compositionally, i.e. somebody's "traditionalism" being discussed in terms of being "radical".

• The radical traditionalism of the Nahdlatul Ulama in Indonesia
• Ralph Shapey: Radical Traditionalism (album title)
• Building on EP Thompson’s notion of ‘radical traditionalism’, I argue that Ford offers an economically radical critique of capitalism[2]
• "The original fundamentalist revolt was a radical-traditionalist movement aimed at countering the burgeoning rationalization of industrial bureaucracies and the deleterious impact this had upon the moral milieu of local Protestant communities in large Northeastern cities[3]
• Radical traditionalism: William Cobbett in the Industrial Revolution
• etc.

All of these instances of "radical traditionalism" have nothing to do with Moynihan's term. It is unclear that the coinage of "Radical Traditionsism" as referring to a sort of Neofascist Neopaganism has any currency beyond the Moynihan-Godwin-Michell publications. Highly dubious article. I think this is just another case of somebody trying to abuse Wikipedia in helping coin a term. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC

Good work, I agree. Doug Weller (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Four years later

The same Google search seems to be more productive:

• Tyr journal (as before)
• John Michell, Confessions of a Radical Tradionalist
• "Alternative Right - An Online Magazine of Radical Traditionalism"
• Julius Evola - Radical Traditionalist

These primary sources seem to be all talking about the same Radical Traditionalism. As for secondary sources, so far I've found only

• John Michell, Radical Traditionalism, and the Emerging Politics of the Pagan New Right.

...which is obviously a bit thin for the time being. I think this is worth watching, this seems to be a growing thing and more secondary sources may pop up. —Ashley Y 09:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)