How can someone be a nationalist (of any stripe, civic, ethnic, or religious) and simultaneously a capitalist...

How can someone be a nationalist (of any stripe, civic, ethnic, or religious) and simultaneously a capitalist? You can't have capitalism without selling out your people and their traditions in the name of Porkies and consumerism.

cognitive dissonance is the essence of the right

— Slavoj Žižek in The Pervert's Guide to Ideology

Because patriotism/nationalism means worshipping the fictional concept called "nation" (not those who are supposed to be part of it) and fascism is a perfect expression of it. Capitalism is the only choice for a nationalist, communism will dissolve all nations and religions.

It's all the same reactionary shit.

Nationalism is a bourgeois concept that played the historical role of reorganizing society to suit the needs of capital while providing a justification for the state despite the withering power and legitimacy of the aristocracy and church, and eventually as an inoculation against worker solidarity across "racial" and "national" lines.

You're seeing that sort of reorganization in developing economies where the national bourgeoisie, in the absence of sufficiently concentrated capital, try to organize to either compete with or integrate into the ranks of international bourgeoisie (international corporations, world bank, etc). For example, you can look at Bangladesh and the upheaval and abuses going on there as they try to become the next "workshop of the world." Shockingly(!), national bourgeoisie don't mind hundreds of their supposed fellow nationals getting crushed to death beneath faultily constructed buildings, or burning alive after being locked into their work areas, or sending thugs to intimidate and murder workers trying to organize for better working conditions.

For proles lacking class consciousness, the "nation" spook can be a potent coercive tool, especially for the hopeless and miserable. Of course they want to believe that they aren't just sewing shitty clothing for rich Westerners, or that their 14 hour workdays are useless. The siren song of "national progress" or "economic development" calls to people with no future, because then the "nation's" future, accomplishments, and so on, in their minds become their own. In reality, all substantial gains are monopolized by the bourgeoisie and the various layers of the ruling class(es), such that they are.

In developed economies we observe a sort of reaction from below where the predations of international capital have left large swathes of the working class hostile to what they perceive as "globalization," the international character of capitalism, and subsequently the return to the 19th century idea of the closed, protectionist "nation state." What they fail to realize is that innovations in the concept of the corporation have rendered that almost completely obsolete and we can see the evidence of international capital trying to dismantle such currently existing states, except for the purposes of military organization, legislative control, and judicial arbitration between competing firms.

That's a very good point and illustrates one of the major contradictions of the "ethno state" vis a vis the capitalist production process. Assuming for an moment that such an impossible thing as a country of ethnically or racially homogeneous people exist, it wouldn't eliminate the need for the bourgeoisie of that country to extract surplus value from somewhere. If the ethno state is economically segregated from the rest of the world, meaning that only members of that country can hold jobs within it and that provide for its needs, then that value is going to come either from the native working class or some sort of exploited minority within the state.

In the first instance, the contradiction between bourgeois and travaileur will lead to either authoritarianism as the moneyed classes force the workers to accept increasingly worse conditions as profit gradually falls, or revolution as the working class dispenses with the parasite class. In the second, the whole point of an ethnostate is undone as it's either no longer homogeneous (and along the lines of such thinking experiences the social problems commensurate with a poor, under-educated, and under served minority), or no longer providing for the "state's people," as some arbitrary standard is erected to create such a minority from the existing population.

With all of that in mind, in my opinion, the whole concept of a nation/ethno state or whatever is historically obsolete and at the moment, generally speaking, a theoretical and political dead end.

Which is why most nationalists are becoming Not Socialists.

hmmm…

My favorite nazi meme

wtf is happening in the background of that image?

That's a sourceless quote, by the way. However, Hitler's conversations with his associates and meetings with big business, coupled with the fact that he did not even implement elementary Fascist corporatism and instead kept capitalism not only unmolested, but empowered by state violence shows it to be true.

It's funny, Fascists were absolutely cucked by their leaders, as the entire idea of the Fascist corporate state was never implemented on any significant scale in any Fascist society, yet the modern followers are on their knees begging for it to happen again, rather than even bothering to read their own source material.