Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods … Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. … At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: ‘I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.—Aristophanes, Plato’s Symposium
I enjoy reading Richard Spencer’s Alternative Right, but by very definition it seems to be missing something. Radical traditionalism, for me, means keeping in line with a European sense. But the Right only speaks of one half of that sense. Being European means more than being Right. I have alluded to this issue elsewhere.
European Civilization, as an idea, embodies a sense of Left-minded and Right-minded, where left-minded refers to the effeminate other-giving, other-defensive and right-minded refers to the masculine self-sustaining, self-protecting. In my estimate both instincts, when in proper balance, are a healthy part of a whole. Somehow, though, it has come to be thought, that being Left-minded is equivalent to being a modern progressive Liberal, where being a modern progressive Liberal means being hostile to European ethnic identity, history, and civilization. This is what I meant by Reactionary Leftism.
Radical Traditionalism is a needed antidote to this. But, beyond that, a more complex sense than that often given, needs to be developed. The relationship between the Alternative right and left are, in principle, antagonistic, not antithetical. The relationship between those who love their ways, history, and identity and those who back Cultural Liberalism, of course, is another issue.