Is it possible to be a traditionalist and support industrial capitalism?

Is it possible to be a traditionalist and support industrial capitalism?

What would a neo-reactionary economic ideology look like?

The only modern cases of National Socialism were pre-revolution Libya, pre-war Iraq, and pre-war Syria. Bur they’re all gone now so Hmm really makes ya think goy

>What would a neo-reactionary economic ideology look like?
If I had to guess I'd say Distributism comes pretty close to that ideal.

It’d be interesting to let ISIS establish themselves and see if a nominally neoreavtionary state can survive. Base the economy around conservative Islam.

This photo is so fucking horrible even if it's meant as a joke! You should be ashamed.

Not to sound like your typical liberal, but reactionary states, being reactionary, means that they're generally fighting against whatever tide of progress happens to be going on at the time, which means that they're usually pissing off everybody and have few allies to turn to, hence why they often fail.

Commie chan best girl.

All three seem yucky.

>GIVE UP YOUR CULTURE
>You will now serve the state under the false objective of racial defense, which is really the destruction of other cultures and your very own humanity. If you aren't one of us, see you in the afterlife.

>GIVE UP YOUR LAND
>Your property will serve to fuel the endless war machine. Your most basic of physical properties, the body, will also belong to us. Now go to the frontline to die!

>GIVE UP YOUR PEOPLE
>Your people are who we tell you. You will have preference for no one but the ruling class. You serve us.

Communism and capitalism are both intellectual heirs of the French revolution, both are terms coined by Marx, and Marx is on record saying capitalism is a necessary stepping stone to communism, and both capitalist and communist fanboys are seeing history as a straight linear progress and are seeing a stateless, borderless, rootless society in the end. How can anyone think capitalism and communism are "opposites" is beyond me.

>submissive as a plus
>dominant as a minus

>both are terms coined by Marx

At least you have a culture, land, and part of the community, i.e. the people's community, the nation defends the welfare of your own people. I'd rather live under Nazi Germany than live in Europe because Europe is cucked, its being overrunned by Muslims and liberalism is dying also.

>culture, land, and part of the community
All spooks

>Communism and capitalism are both intellectual heirs of the French revolution, both are terms coined by Marx

Better than today. At least during WWII, they made you into a man inside of some effiminante sissy liberal fag who virtue signals all the time instead of manning up and fighting back against the scum of the earth such as Pisslam. At least Islam didn't dominate Germany and at least Hitler was a man and allowed men to be men and women to be women. Those were the good old days before SJWs and feminist hags ruined society.

Meh, I'd take what we have today over what they had back then. Better to be a sissy than a mass murdering psychopath, although the ideal is to be neither.

I'm Eastern European, not amerimutt.

Oh really. Looky here everyone. We have a cuck, a millennial cuck. I bet you need a safespace and you get triggered all the time because of mean hurtful words and the big meanie tough guys hurt your wittle fweeings! Man the fuck up millennial subhuman. Being a sissy is a sign of weakness. Our country needs strong people to fight back not little millennial limp-wristed ivy league cucks like you.

If modern countries are so weak, why do they always beat less modern countries?

>I lost the fight
>but I'm tougher than you

>Better to be a sissy than a mass murdering psychopath
it's literally not though

I know user. Do you not remember that it was America, British, and Soviet men who brought about the fall of the the German reich and Japanese empire? Perhaps the Germans and Japs were too sissy to stop them and fight back.

Its because they have militaries that aren't cucked and faggy and shit. They turn you into real men, but compared to WWII though, militaries in most modern countries are fucking pathetic, weak, sissified, and girly shit. Men didn't take shit like that in WWII and even though I'm glad we kicked the Japs asses and the Nazis, I think we should have teamed up with the Germans and fight against the cucks and the weak ivy league losers and sissies. At least like I said before, at least Nazi Germany was manly. There was no "My Little Pony" shit, or Steven Faggotverse or whatever you stupid sissy millennials are into.

There is literally no reason for Amerisharts NOT to be capitalists. They have no culture or history to give up. All they have is consumption to drive their existence. That is why they are fat and stupid.

Not like they gave us a choice, they were so "manly" that they declared war on everyone and sent their meth addicted armies to die for no reason.

Everyone was manly back in the day. You didn't have some retarded rolemodel like these SJW progressive faggots behind Steven Faggotverse and that whiny jew kid that's raised by lesbian spacerock communists. Jesus what kind of society is this generation coming to? But, yeah they declared war on everyone but that's what made them so based. They didn't give a fuck about what the world thinked of them, they didn't talk about trigger warnings, safe spaces or people's feelings. No, they waged war and they were manly about it. They sent boys, young boys no more than 12 to fight for their country. That's manliness, that's strength. Today, it would be PC shit and kids crying about bullets or getting a scratch or something sissy shit. Or they would be busy watching some weird Jew kid on cartoon network.

Sounds retarded, no wonder it only lasted a 12 years. If you send all your manly citizens to die, refuse to use diplomacy or good strategy because that's unmanly, and don't have any goal in mind other than die for the sake of manliness, then your gonna run out of manly people to throw into the meatgrinder, you'll lose the war, and the only people left to run it afterwards will be the pussies who didn't fight.

Capitalism is based in individual property rights and a general annotation of respect and desiredness for non aggression principle. The other two are aocialist doctrines based in poverty and aggression. This thread is a joke.

>Better to be a sissy than a mass murdering psychopath
Wrong.

No.

>believes in the positive/negative rights bullshit
top cuck

Sorry alpha male joe rogan. I'll get back to the plantation.

No, no he is not.

Granted, the minuses on all three are a show stopper for me, but if I *had* to choose, dom turns me off more than anything.

>dominant as a minus
Yes it is you cuck.

>Is it possible to be a traditionalist and support industrial capitalism?
It isn't.
>What would a neo-reactionary economic ideology look like?
If you're as autistic about community as I am (and take inspiration from history, as I do), then it would be some form of collectively-managed mode of production connected to the space of habitation. It is the only thing that would allow a community to form on the basis of labour once again, as it did in history (peasant communities, guilds, communes). It would also allow for the dominance of local management over centralized management (centralized legislation due to the need of maintaining a standard legal order, but local enforcement due to the decentralization of society into communities).
>you get to educate commie-chan with the mountains of literature you get from university
>you get to search for an alternative mode of production together
>she's the Soviet sort of communist, so she's probably patriotic af and decently conservative
>you get to be an alcoholic with someone else
Sign me the fuck up.

you can say anything about the commies but you can't say they had poor education.

>community is a spook
"Spook" refers to internal coercion, not external coercion. Community is, using Durkheim's terms, an objective fact, since it's external to the individual consciousness, and externally enforced. That means that it would remain external and externally-enforced (objective) even if you eliminated the internalization (subjective) of that concept (which is literally impossible, how do you expect to interact with others, but whatever). For that reason, community cannot be considered a spook.

Not related to the post above, but go kill yourself, edgy teenager.

>If you destroy other cultures, you're giving up yours

meant for

>Is it possible to be a traditionalist and support industrial capitalism?
nope. What a terrible pic, though.
commie-chan

>What would a neo-reactionary economic ideology look like?

Maybe try reading some neoreaction.

Yes.
Having traditional morality and enforcing it upon others are two different things.

Lmao, you can see the picture was made from a Nazi clearly, stating as an important point that the girl is from your race/nationality

And even then, Commie chan is the best girl

when the fuck did Durkheim ever say this, and community in the sense you perceive isn't the same thing that the spookposting user was replying to

Holy shit that pic is so retarded

Not really

>Give up your culture
>Give up your land
Sounds like Nazism

>the people's community
Meme.

>the nation defends the welfare of your own people.
At the expense of other people.

>I'd rather live under a gaudy, tacky authoritarian dictatorship where you get thrown into camps for perceived 'degeneracy' or holding dissenting opinions
Good untermensch

>Those were the good old days before SJWs and feminist hags ruined society.

>culture
Totalitarian one that reconstructs the traditional one and suppresses the modern one.

>land
Kewl, wery unique, no regime ever had land.

>The nation defends the welfare of your own people
From history we've seen it's more about welfare and survival of the state and especially the war machine.

>HURR KEKS FUCKING DEGENERATES FEMINAZIS REEEEEE
Lmaoing at your life

Are you baiting or just underage?

right militaries in modern countries are "sissified"

you're definitely baiting

>Is it possible to be a traditionalist and support industrial capitalism?
Yes. Absolute Christian Monarchy > any fascist/socialist ideology

>Skyrim, WoW, Final Fantasy

Fascist

>neo-reactionary

Do you realize what a complete oxymoron this is?
Is this a meme?

Not seeing the issue here. Are you against gender dysmorphic roles?

Like Vietnam and Afghanistan, right?

If you think about, the fact it is an oxymoron actually perfectly desribes these kids.

>y-your spooked
*kills himself in existential depression*
kek

Fuck off soyboy, nobody wants to be pathetic.

Of course not, but between being pathetic and being a school shooter I'd take the former over the latter.

Post your wrist, manlyman. I bet they are like 5cm.

>if your enemy kills you, you win

Ultimately no. Bad example anyways because school shooting is done by pathetic soyboys, not men. The retard
is actually on to something. He just doesn't quite know how to express it yet.
Modern man is getting really fucking sick of the current social order. He's getting sick of the rules, of the restraints placed upon his masculinity. He's been domesticated by society and I think that sometime in the future he's collectively going to realize that these rules are just spooks.
I think it was Evola who talked about a return to true masculinity, not
>hurr durr i got some pusssy bro
but
>i'm going to counquer your nation, enslave your men and rape your women because I can
Men used to be like that and it was completely normal. Honestly I'd rather be a Genghis Khan that an a beta soyboy, and I think deep down most men do too.
>gif related

>Bad example anyways because school shooting is done by pathetic soyboys, not men
Well that explains quite a lot about Dirlewanger, then.

>Men used to be like that and it was completely normal. Honestly I'd rather be a Genghis Khan that an a beta soyboy, and I think deep down most men do too.
Too bad you are soipucci, then.

>projecting
I don't know why you have a hard on for domesticating yourself to the world, but you might want to get that looked at.

See:
I know your kind, bucko. Tough lads on the net, submissive androgyns IRL.

Actually why don't you post yours? I'll give you this last (you) before I go on my merry way though.

As expected. You are a pussy.

If I do not have the right to point out weakness on account of my alleged weakness, then to be consistent neither do you unless you prove otherwise. You won't though.

Too bad you are the one with masculinity crisis.

>when the fuck did Durkheim ever say this
Community falls under his definition of social fact. I was not using him in that way, though, as I only mentioned him due to the way he uses the term "objective".
>community in the sense you perceive isn't the same thing that the spookposting user was replying to
A form of order is immanent to the term of community. Otherwise it would have been an aggregate. Again, since that order exists outside of the individual consciousness (is not simply internal, as with Stirner's spooks) and coerces externally (again, unlike Stirner's spooks), it cannot be a spook in the same way that a man holding a gun to your head isn't a spook, since it has objective existence outside of your consciousness.

All men ultimately have a masculinity crisis, some more than others. It's inherent in the current state and social system. I don't know anything about you except you seem hostile to the idea of men trying to be Genghis Khans again, why is that? Do you deny the ultimately savage nature of man, the will to power, etc?

Nope, I just think you are having issues and compensating your lack of masculinity by internet toughguying. That's all, feel free to prove me wrong though.

In other words you don't actually have an argument?
If you unironically think I'm being a le internet tough guy then maybe it's actually you that's projecting. Only someone who was triggered by my posts would be this persistent t b h.
But this is just going to be
>no u
back and forth so have this last (you) and spend it wisely friend.

>In other words you don't actually have an argument?
Your arguments were nothing but
>They sent boys, young boys no more than 12 to fight for their country. That's manliness, that's strength
>militaries in most modern countries are fucking pathetic, weak, sissified, and girly shit
>least Islam didn't dominate Germany and at least Hitler was a man and allowed men to be men and women to be women
>Those were the good old days before SJWs and feminist hags ruined society.
>I'd rather live under Nazi Germany than live in Europe because Europe is cucked
There's nothing to argue against, it's just your average rambling of unsuccesful American teenager (Or is it you, Loys Lelievre?). You even maneuvered away when I asked you to show us your masculinity.

>back and forth so have this last (you) and spend it wisely friend.
You gave me ultimatum four posts ago. Only someone who was triggered by my posts would be this persistent.

Desu not him but I’d rather be a “mass murdering psychopath” than a gothic nu male. At least there’s primal elements of the human experience there. Power, violence, adrenaline, etc.

How about neither? Those two extremes are one gun away.

Wtf I love my secular, nihilistic, androgynous, consumerist, liberal capitalist technocracy now

Those are not "primal elements of the human experience"

Maybe not in an air conditioned office in America in 2018 but yes, they are.

No, they are not, not even in early human civilization, and especially not in the civilizations that managed to spread and be successful.

This. Androgyny is subhumanity.

This. I go the fourth way, Monarch-chan.

>power and violence are not integral parts of human society


You never got into a fight as a kid?

Yes, but I never killed anyone. The vast majority of humans throughout history have never killed anyone and never held serious power of any kind.

Third position should be monarchism

Monarchist is just a political position, it doesn't say much about economics.

>Being a national conservative who is ok with capitalism
>having a commie waifu.

>t. cuck.

>Hitler was a man
Just a reminder that this is what Adolf Hitler really was

>third position
>just creates another materialistic world view
there is a reason it failed

>Is it possible to be a traditionalist and support industrial capitalism?
>
>What would a neo-reactionary economic ideology look like?

The kind of militarism advocated for in fascist ideology necessarily requires exactly the kind of large scale industrialization seen in capitalist societies