Rene Guenon, Alt Right, Traditionalism etc

This is my favourite description of Trump's mindset:

Sam Harris roasts Trump again for 14 minutes - YouTube

[qcrisp]

I think we need to start a Traditionalist thread that makes no mention of the alt-right, as the association is, I think, largely unnecessary and misleading. At the very least, I find it a bit jarring to have Donald Trump on a thread that might also discuss Coomaraswamy, Voegelin (see my new signature), Huxley and any of the others mentioned under the umbrella of Traditionalist (whether they would wish to be included under such an umbrella or not).

That's a good idea. I'm opposed to the alt-right, but I'm at least intellectually open to certain strains of traditionalism. The alt-right are often criticised for not being traditionalists, too.

Eh, I stand by it. Trump is the main face of the alt-right – a movement which is named in the thread title and has been discussed prominently in the thread.

[Gnosticangel]

Qcrisp posted: "I think we need to start a Traditionalist thread that makes no mention of the alt-right, as the association is, I think, largely unnecessary and misleading. At the very least, I find it a bit jarring to have Donald Trump on a thread that might also discuss Coomaraswamy, Voegelin (see my new signature), Huxley and any of the others mentioned under the umbrella of Traditionalist (whether they would wish to be included under such an umbrella or not)."

Thanks for this. The (forced) linking of this material to the Alt.Right tarred much that was beautiful and high-minded with dirt. I found the acrimony and implications of racism/xenophobia in that discussion very disheartening on a site like this.

I would like to see this more specific discussion!

My apologies.

[Hidden X]

Quote Originally Posted by paul b.

It would be far easier to find alt-righter that subscribes to some tenets of New Atheism as espoused by the likes of Harris there, than ones who honestly subscribe to some form of traditionalism. Is this not so very weird and... internet-ish? That a video in which one of major new atheists rants about one Murrican presidential candidate is thought to be a good match for a thread that has Rene Guenon in its title?

Quote Originally Posted by Gnosticangel

Thanks for this. The (forced) linking of this material to the Alt.Right tarred much that was beautiful and high-minded with dirt. I found the acrimony and implications of racism/sexism/xenophobia in that discussion very disheartening on a site like this. I would like to see this more specific discussion!

It isn't forced though. Many of them DO consider themselves to be traditionalists and will often rely to the likes of Evola and Guenon.
Everyone who is familiar with Counter Currents and the related sites & blogs knows that this is true.

Also, it's pretty cowardly to write obviously confrontational comment and to then delete it after others had a chance to see it and answer to it.

[qcrisp]

I think this thread can stand, obviously, as the whole point was to enquire into the link between Guenon and the alt-right, but, as I came up with the suggestion of starting a separate thread that has nothing to do with the alt-right, I might do that later when I have a bit of time. I should point out that I'm hardly an expert, but I do have an interest in this area - enough to be aware of certain dissonances.

I think a thread I started recently was considered polemical because it had the word 'against' in the heading, which was descriptive of the attitudes of some of the people under discussion (not to deny that I am personally against many things in this world). If I start a Traditionalist thread, I shall try to avoid anything in the OP that might be mistaken for the setting of a polemical tone.

[Gnosticangel]

HiddenX wrote: "It isn't forced though. Many of them DO consider themselves to be traditionalists and will often rely to the likes of Evola and Guenon. Everyone who is familiar with Counter Currents and the related sites & blogs knows that this is true."

HiddenX, it's very hard to accept the redefinition of an otherwise positive school of thought based on some later groups announcing that they are now adherents of it, or a portion of it.

For example, if a neo-Nazi blogged that they loved Plato, does that mean Platonism is now racist? Or if the Klu Klux Klan suddenly started speaking out about climate change, does that invalidate the work of serious researchers who came before? Isn't this a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

There should be room for nuanced discussion and acknowledgement of different points of view. I don't wish to fall back into the old argument on this thread. It would be in the spirit of this online community, I hope - or at least be polite - to allow that people can be admirers of Tradition without being racists or neo-Nazis

[Gnosticangel]

Qcrisp wrote: " If I start a Traditionalist thread, I shall try to avoid anything in the OP that might be mistaken for the setting of a polemical tone."

That would be wonderful and I look forward to it!