Ethnopluralism is one of the most fruitful trends in modern "right-wing extremism" (even if there's nothing necessarily "right-wing" to it. In parts of the anti-globalist "left" there is an understanding of how modern capitalism destroys indigenous cultures, and an insight that this is not good. Those interested can start with Rodolfo Stavenhagen and his concept of ethnodevelopment. Even "leftist" movements like the Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam are based on the principle of "separation, not segregation"). In short, it contends that no ethnic group is of higher value than any other, that they all have a right to exist, and that the diversity of ethnic groups that exists today is worth preserving.
Ethnopluralist thought can be found many places in "the scene" today, the Swedish National Democrats pretty explicitly base their ideological platform on it. The leading thinker would be the American Richard McCulloch.
The basic ideas of ethnopluralism find strong support in several different traditions. Even in Islam there is an ethnopluralistic core, which is clearly demonstrated here:
"O Mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you."
One can interpret this to mean that since Allah created various different nations, their existence is something positive. Of course the Islamic practice of expansion, where one language and one religion is spread, is problematic, but the basic traditional idea can still be traced.
A couple of differences
But ethnopluralism and Traditionalism are not identical. Traditionalism (not unlike Bakunin) sees the nation as a natural fact, which has a right to exist. This does not mean that the nation state is the ideal political organisational form of Tradition. This is rather the Empire, where several different nationalities are united under an Emperor (or a Caliph) and the higher ideals and higher spirituality that he stands for. It is clear that the most inspiring thing in history to Evola was the pan-European, pan-imperial brotherhoods like the Knights Templar and the SS. One came from all the European nationalities to fight for the same ideals.
Ethnopluralism can also be taken to ethno-masochistic extremes, for example on the question of yay or nay to a European Reconquista. An extreme ethnopluralism can make any form of repatriation and assimilation impossible.
Lastly some words about Frithjof Schuon. Schuon was a convinced Muslim, and this meant that he from Tradition was forced to try to justify every act that Muhammad ever committed in his entire life (this is the big problem with Schuon). This includes the genocide against the Jewish Bedouins, which paradoxically meant that the usually peaceful Schuon was forced to put a disclaimer about genocide in his version of Tradition. He justified this with the historical genocides in the Old Testament, and claimed that some peoples were so corrupt that the best thing was to simply exterminate them. For us that see the Old Testament as a mix of traditional teachings and historical events, it is significantly easier to oppose genocide than it was for the poor Schuon.