Talk:Radical Traditionalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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