What is the endgame of traditionalism?

What is the endgame of traditionalism?

Other urls found in this thread:


The beginninggame

puritan society with qt catholic meido nigger slaves picking cotton white men with guns sitting in armchair and sipping pint lager and public entertainment like witch burning slut shaming beating children and arosticratic meetups where mental incels can larp as "great people of historic value" and write state bible fanfics about themselves

they want to larp as feudal aristocrats i've never heard one say they want to become a peasant

Become history

Literally this, they can deny it all they want but it's the only possible motivation that makes sense.

Pointless virtue signalling. History is a one-way street.

Trad wife and perpetual wandering in wheat fields I think

Living happily ever after with a traditional lifestyle with modern technology. Somehow. Traditionalists are doomed to die every generation in which they appear, which seems to be every single one, so don't worry.

That doesn't explain why they support hereditary monarchy/aristocracy and sometimes feudal economics. They never explain why you can't have a traditional family alongside liberal representative democracy and capitalist economics despite the fact that was the case for centuries.

Class collaboration under God

Read growth of the soil


Freigruntars are not serfs. And living like Kaczynski has never been traditional.

Of course yeomen aren't serfs, you were talking about people larping as nobles. Anyway I'm mostly shitposting because OP is ridiculously vague. If Traditionalism encompasses everything from Sindicatos Libres to Maurras, to Evola and to NRx, their endgames are so vastly different you can't really generalize anything except a big attachment to religion and some form of class collaboration.

The only way genuine reaction can achieve its goal is to be destroy Western civilization. I'm not joking.

If you read reactionary intellectuals, you know they're obsessed with the etiology of liberalism and socialism. De Maistre traced the roots of the French Revolution back to Protestantism. Others went further and blamed everything and everyone from the Renaissance to William of Ockam and Joachim of Fiore.

Nietzsche took this to the logical conclusion and blamed Christianity itself for planting the seeds of liberalism and egalitarianism.

Then Weimar right-wingers went even further. Heidegger and Ludwig Klages blamed the Greek philosophers for planting the seeds of liberalism, rationalism, and modernity. Then you have the cranks the Rene Guenon who abandoned the West, moved to Egypt, and converted to Islam.

If you read racialists and White Nationalists, they have many of the same obsessions.

The Nazis named Christianity, along with Liberalism, Marxism, and the Jews as their main ideological enemies for all promoting the the equality of the races:


William Pierce went even further and blamed Alexander the Great for embracing cosmopolitanism and not committing genocide:

The thing is all of these are CORRECT to some extent. The values which form the bedrock of both liberalism and socialism – a commitment to equality, fairness, liberty, individualism, reason, cosmopolitanism, and tolerance, are deeply suffused throughout Western culture, including the ancient Greeks/Romans and Christianity. But if you remove the Greeks, Romans, and Christianity, there isn't that much left of Western civilization. So if you're a committed reactionary who wants to obliterate any trace of progressivism, the logical endpoint is a rejection of the West altogether.

Good thing Russia isn’t part of the West.

Seriously though. The problem is cities. Cities must be destroyed and burnt to the ground.

Holy fuck this is unbridled autism.

17th century, but with modern technology.

Haha, except that cities/large urban centers are one of the foundations of any kind of complex civilization. There's not a single civilization worthy of the name – Mesopotamia, China, India, the Greeks, Romans, the Aztecs, etc – without large urban center. They're also the engine of any kind of economic prosperity. So unless you want your country to forever remain a rural backwater, you need cities.

But yes, historically reactionaries and fascists do hate cities and romanticize the rural life. This is just further evidence that reactionaries hate civilization.

Yep, reactionary ideology carried to its conclusion is a mix of utopianism and sociopathy. I'm just reporting what reactionaries over the centuries have thought.

Real traditionalism has never been tried

as I've always said - (anarcho-)primitivists are the logical conclusion and the most extreme reactionary position

Exactly all the European right wing intellectuals of the early 20th century basically discovered that knowledge is part of a long line of ideas refined and developed over time and then ==reeee=='d about it.

*blocks your path*

Wrong. Factories, Power Plans, Mines, Refineries, Scientific Labs, and Government Legislatures can all operate in Rural areas just as well as in Urban ones as long as the infrastructure is good. Also direct democracy is easer in rural areas due to smaller populations per municipality.

lmfao, how do you even get to the point where you have this shit without cities?

Again, name a single complex civilization that emerged without the presence of large urban centers/cities. You can't.

And given the abysmally-low birth-rates within cities, the only way that they have ever survived is by a constant influx of rural workers (and later immigrants from less developed countries).

Seriously, what do most Western cities produce now anyway? Minwage McJobs? Financiers shuffling imaginary billions on spreadsheets? Soy-addled bugmen?

yes, civilizations always end

t. butthurt rural retard

Cities account for much of any country's economic productivity and innovation.

The fact that you couldn't name a single complex civilization that arose without cities tells you all you need to know.

burger brainlet detected

disregarding the Nordic meme there is nothing wrong with what he said there. Homogeneous strong and united societies always win out against degenerate cosmopolitan empires in the long run. That's why China will cuck America and there is nothing that America will be able to do about it.

Glad that our Nutzis admit they support genocide.

t. nu-male that would otherwise laugh at Holla Forums for claiming the achievements of their nation as their own, but believes he is somehow part of his city's accomplishments because he shares an apartment with three other bugmen


The difference being that those cities actually produced things, instead of now when most cities comprise a tiny minority shuffling figures on spreadsheets, a slightly larger class of professionals catering to these shufflers, and a massive underclass providing unskilled labour/services to the above two classes

oy vey genocide!

Nobody wants Christianity the Greeks and the Romans removed Western civilization is the greatest thing that ever happened to the human species reactionaries actually don't want Western civilization to end and prefer that it go on forever while at the same time recognizing that there is a lot of wisdom to be learned from our ancestors and that too much egalitarianism (which is a recent innovation in Western civilization) will kill Western civilization.

itt: people who haven't read a single Guenon or Evola book to completion

Why do right-wingers suck at logic so much?

Pointing out the incontrovertible fact that cities are a prerequisite for any complex civilization is not "taking credit" for anyone's accomplishments. It's just a statement of fact.

Cities still produce things. You're just an angry rural retard who knows that you'd be living in a third world shithole without the prosperity and technological innovation coming from cities.

Idealism is a joke though. There is little point in reading what reactionaries say about their ideology. It's far more important to analyze what they actually do.

Marxist ideology is idealism. The distinction between utopian socialists of the 19th Century and marxist socialist muhterialists is that utopian socialists thought they would get their utopia through faith in human progress, humanism and technology while muhterialists thought the realistic and grimdark way to get to the utopia was through a violent uprising

I mentioned Guenon above. He abandoned the West, moved to Egypt, and converted to Islam.

Really activates the almonds.

Consistent reactionaries do. After all, can't eradicate the disease if the germs are still present.

I mean, the Enlightenment was pretty much the result of the Renaissance (the rediscovery of Greek/Roman philosophy), the Reformation (the end of the Church's grip on truth and authority) and the printing press which allowed the former two to spread across Europe.

All the ideas were already percolating; they just needed the technology to transmit them without the authorities being to suppress them.

Most of the hollowed-out, post-industrial rural areas are approaching Third World shithole status thanks to our urban lords and masters exporting any and every manufacturing job they could to the Third World.

Given that birth-rates are negatively correlated with urbanisation and prosperity, exactly what is the end-game of endless urbanism, user? "Just keep bringing over people from the Third World until even they get so atomised and alienated that they'd much rather die childless and alone than have a family"?

Your posts amply demonstrates that you have no idea what idealism, utopian socialism or marxist socialism is.

Why are urban people your lords and masters in the first place? Why has that been true throughout history? Why are cities always the centers of cultural and technological advancement? Maybe they're just smarter and more capable than you rural yokels?

Don't talk to me or my wife's son ever again.

You're missing the point it's not that anyone want's these removed or that reactionaries believe that they can remove them or that they will be removing them. The will never be a reactionary revolution at best reactionaries try to slow down the inevitable degeneration of society. Reactionaries are like Batman and Western civilization is like Gotham city technically Gotham city does not want to be saved it's full of degenerates and it would be better if Ras Al Ghoul and Bane nuke all those fucking degenerates tbh but Batman will quixotically struggle for the people that don't want him. Reactionaries know that nothing lasts forever and that mission creep will inevitably lead to collapse through regression to the lowest common denominator so they diagnose the symptoms and causes and try to slow it down until the bubble pops and the cycle re-starts

Because excessive population density inevitably creates a class of elites that move (if they don't already live in) to centers of power.

If urbanites are so smart, why can't they solve the birth-rate crisis? Why can cities only survive by an endless braindrain from rural counties where people actually have children?

Yes, yes, I know, Holla Forums, having children is so bourgeois

Nope. Reactionaries often seek to lead revolutionary upheavals of their own, just in a different and much dumber direction than the left. This is a common trope in reactionary thought. That's why I said they're utopian.

I mean, just read Evola and Guenon and try to claim that those guys were not delusional right-wing utopians.

i dunno what standards i expected, considering the post and the flag

this whole post
I love our nazi friends

They were hopeless romantics and it's not a political platform, it's not a manifesto and it's not an ideology or call to action.

Yes as REACTION hence they are reacting to something they want to stabilize and normalize a situation and the established order what they are reacting against wants to destroy and overturn the current order it's a defensive move

So you're saying that smart people either live in cities or wish to move to the cities because they know that's where the other smart people live?

Why, it's almost as if cities are a magnet for the people who build and maintain civilizations!

Because children are a substantial time/resource investment that becomes more difficult to make when you're not at home or on the farm all day and when life expectancy is much higher and longer than it was a century+ ago.

You sound like liberals with their references to Harry Potter and modern day politics, pathetic.

92 % of China are Han Chinese you are a homogeneous country if your ethnicity is over 90%

I was trying to use an analogy brainlets could understand

I don't think anyone needs any help in order to see how ridiculous that entire post was.

Game Over.

brainlet it's not as if I invented the analogy:






Getting stuck in an elevator tbh (both figuratively and literally)

user if you're living in a city and still posting on an imageboard, you're not one of the smart ones…

Urbanisation at our current levels has been historically unprecedented (and given catastrophically low birth-rates and resource consumption is also unsustainable). Given that, it seems like the people "building and maintaining" civilisation were the rural inhabitants whose offspring wandered off into the hives of civilisation - not the hives endlessly consuming more human capital than it could ever hope to create.

This is just another way of saying that the smarter people from agricultural societies eventually founded cities where they continued to live for generations and created civilization. I'm sorry if the truth hurts but facts don't care about your feelings.


I can tell you don't have any children if you think it's just a matter of having "some free time" like walking your dog or some shit.

But I'd expect nothing less from a right-wing rural retard.

Read this

By the way, fascists/reactionaries were obsessed with the "fertility rate" back during the 1920s/30s as well. Weird how civilization didn't collapse like they predicted, and how right-wing solutions to the issue proved to be failures!


Mussloini wanted more births to rebuild the Roman empire and conquer and colonize new territory not to stave off civilization collapse nice context denial cuck.

Soviet civilization did collapse as predicted tho

That wasn't because of the birthrate though.

Well no, given the mortality rates of pre-modern urbanism and lack of childbirth they died off, and were generally replaced by the next generation of "right-wing rural retards drifting into the urban hives"

t. the person autistically reducing child rearing to BEEP BOOP COSTS > BENEFITS, START BIRTH_CONTROL.EXE Y/N?

Given that the populations of Japan and Western Europe are expected to decline for the first time in centuries without the movement of millions of foreigners into those countries, I wouldn't exactly call them wrong.

A lot of "French" population growth in the postwar period - again - was due to the mass movement of various foreign nationalists into le metropole (Poles/Spaniards/Italians, followed by North African/West African and other colonials, and THEN the Pied Noirs fleeing Algeria…), with similar things happening in the UK and Germany (i.e. a post-war baby boom followed by endless tides of guest workers from - you guessed it! - less developed nations).

Which - given that the only thing holding those nations together is the unsustainable prosperity of an oil age with no easy replacement for oil - is anyone's guess how long things will remain.

To be fair those fascists and reactionaries probably didn't expect that jihadists mowing down people in trucks would be considered "the new normal" for Europe either

Mortality rates in general were very high until around a century ago with the onset of modern medicine and vaccines. It was one reason people had a lot more kids back then: you needed able bodies to help with chores and put food on the table and you couldn't be certain that any given child would even make it to 15 years, so you needed to have ten children just to be secure.

That said, elite bloodlines generally did persist much longer. There's a reason many people find out when they get an ancestry test that they had a distant ancestor who was was some 12th century noble or something.

What are you going to do when the rest of your right-wing retard predictions don't pan out, as is the tendency when it comes to right-wing retard predictions?

I never claim you did. I merely pointed out how cringy it was for you to invoke a work of fiction wherein you envision superheros (you) struggling against the villains (degenerates) as do the liberals with their Harry Potter. As for your examples:

If you bothered to read your own link, you'd see that it paints Bane as the voice of the people against the establishment and compares Batman to a neocon. So right away, this one doesn't make much sense when the rest of your post is taken into context.

Again, read your links, this isn't consistent with your whole "Batman saving Gotham from themselves" crap.

Why did you find it relevant to post links to articles like this that share no resemblance to your initial stupid analogy?

See above.

The only article you posted which had anything remotely to do with your analogy was the one from Forbes and it's coming from the perspective of a neo-con, so take that whatever way you'd like. Next time, don't post a bunch of links as some "gothca" unless you've actually read them.

yeah they used to do that shit themselves, like in Bologna
along with some left groups one must not forget to add, many sides after all!!! many sides!

" On the other hand, we have a slate of heroes straight out of a Glenn Beck novel: an eccentric billionaire recluse who becomes a vigilante to save the wayward people of Gotham from themselves; a police commissioner who lies to the people to preserve ‘order’; a petty cat-burglar who only becomes a hero by renouncing class warfare and hooking up with the lead male; and an incorruptible rookie cop whose Boy Scout-demeanor would make Captain America blush. Bane may have a mob army, but Batman has an army of cops, who march into battle to put down the malevolent…people of Gotham?"


It's literally right there faggot.

You are assuming that reactionaries want their own alarmist predictions to come true. It's like asking what are you gonna do when we reach peak oil when the environment is destroyed and when robots take all the working class jobs it hasn't happened yet has it faggot? You actually want ti to happen so you can have a prole revolt right wingers don't actually want it happen (except for some happening fags on Holla Forums who eagerly await nuclear war) and are making these predictions so people won't go there. Also leftists have a predictive success rate of literally zero percent when it comes to the future.

lmao, have you ever been on Holla Forums? They can barely contain their giddiness whenever there's a "Happening."

That article is heavily critical of the whole "hero saving them from themselves" narrative.

Like i said, the only article you posted which is the most consistent with your analogy is the Forbes article written by a neo-con. Oddly enough, the article you brought up just now describes the heroes as neocons, but that's not really important, i just find it funny is all.

Either you're pretending to be retarded on purpose or you're incredibly fucking autistic. you silly cunt obviously an entire article is gonna be more detailed than a fucking shitpost. Now off yourself you fucking piece of shit cherry picking faggot you want to have the last word don't ya cunt well fuck you you're gonna have to work harder for it

Holla Forums Happenings are any newsworthy event

also fuck off as if Holla Forums is not authority on reactionary or right wing things Holla Forums is a fucking shithole and is not an authority on anything just like this place is not an authority on leftism anywhere and nobody even on Holla Forums wants to actually live out the alarmist prediction of white demographic replacement for example

Holla Forums are a bunch of nihilists who want the world to end, they'd excitedly fill up happening threads about nuclear armageddon until the bombs obliterated them.

Why bring it up when it's clear as day it is not pertinent to your analogy, especially when with more context it goes against it? I gave you the Forbes article where the neo-con openly embraces something akin to your analogy of Batman. You could have saved yourself the aneurysm you're having now by just posting that one article alone rather than spamming unrelated links to articles which don't uphold your analogy.

Not the person you responded to but that's exactly what it is.

My analogy is clearly present within the general contextual gist of all the articles which are there to illustarte not a precise analogy but simply that the analogy I used was already discussed before and I simply condescend the whole thing into a short shitpostable format.

Here's another one in Jacobinmag: jacobinmag.com/2012/07/the-dark-knight-is-no-capitalist

" Wayne has no interest in profit, in accumulation, in investing his wealth to produce more wealth. If you don’t see M-C-M' you don’t have capitalism. Now, the character of Bruce Wayne has always been imbued with noblesse oblige, but let’s not get that confused with what a capitalist does. Wayne funds orphanages and renewable energy in distinction to the actual capitalist, Daggett, who is trying to pillage Wayne Enterprises, Bain-Capital-style. Daggett is pointedly dissed at a party full of rich people because he’s only interested in money. Those silly noveau-riche, so gauche, am I right?

So this is a class struggle all right, but it’s not between Bane’s pseudo-proles and Gotham’s elite with their cop army. That’s a sideshow. The struggle is within the ruling class itself, between the capitalist Daggett and the aristocratic Wayne. Wayne is far more feudalism than finance: heir to a manor complete with fawning manservant, unconcerned with business or money-making, bound by duty and honor even if it makes him a recluse.

Meanwhile, Daggett represents the rapaciousness and self-destructiveness of unfettered acquisition, stooping to working with terrorists to edge out Wayne’s position on the board of directors. And so we’re presented with a choice, which like with so much ideology is a false one: be ruled by the chaotic profit motive who holds out empty promises of liberation, or by an unaccountable violent lord who nevertheless promises to look out for our best interests. Using the French Revolution for inspiration, the Nolans have restaged the question of bourgeois revolution, but in reverse. They want you to stand with the monarchists.

Here’s where the renewable energy plot comes in. Wayne invested heavily in fusion power, which was apparently successful. However, he shuttered the project at great personal cost because he was worried about it being weaponized. This is why we can’t have nice things, world! Your betters have constructed cheap, clean, renewable energy, but it could be turned into a weapon by evil people (Russians of course, those reliable tragic mullatoes of global cinema — so white and so good at science, yet so ethnically other that things always go badly). So Wayne mothballs it “to keep it out of the wrong hands.” He alone determines the fate of the realm — in the name of the people, of course — as he hobbles around his mansion."

So Batman is a reactionary he is struggling to save Gotham when he doesn't have to he knows that to salvage the existing order the rules of that order need to be broken to save it.

And when order collapses the entire society degenerates like in the third film with the fake courts held by the scarecrow and the masses raiding private property and where anarchy reigns. Bane is the nihilistic anarchist terrorist leading the mob to storm the Bastille The Joker is the psychopath who wants society to collapse and create anarchy and chaos. R'as Al Ghoul however is a reactionary who took the acceleration pill he believes he is righteous cosmic justice coming for Gotham and wants a clean slate he and Batman are cut from the same cloth he taught Batman everything he knows and he wants to destroy the old order completely because he sees it as beyond redemption Batman has to stop him because he has a stake in preserving the old order it's his city his people his manor and his Wayne enterprises and he has to protect it and save his own people because that is his duty

He unironically said on Holla Forums

Still waiting on that glorious socialist future, aren't we?

Which is why fertility in most Western nations is most strongly correlated with low income/educational attainment, declining precipitously as income/educational attainment rises?

No, all you're doing is stretching the points in those articles save for the Forbes article to back up your analogy.

The only resemblance those articles had to your analogy was that they discussed political matters within the context of the Batman film, you're just reaching by saying this.

leftypol has many old screenshots that become more true with time. Lurk more.

Wrong they discussed the right wing political mottiffs surrounding the Batman films specifically that Batman is either a conservative a capitalist a reactionary reading all those shitlibby articles should have shed some light on reactionary thinking when using Batman as an example of a reactionary which these articles did Batman is a reactionary fighting to preserve the order against various threats he is a quintessential reactionary in fact he's literally a Dark Knight he does it out of duty (to the peasants and his property and his country) hence the themes of Chivalry and noblesse oblige

You originally likened Batman to your cause now you're associating him with more mainstream conservatives which an article brings up in Daggett for instance, again you're being very loose with your interpretation of most of the articles.

So does Holla Forums, I suspect both share the same quality
>SEE?! WE CALLED IT! Just…ignore all those other thousands of failed predictions we make in a month

Got any of those screenshots bucko?

There's a Corbyn one floating around that the writer started taking the piss with towards the end that has been on point so far, some of the others have been pretty accurate. People on leftypol generally make more precise predictions but put them in the ballpark of year quarters, or don't date them and order them chronologically, like the Corbyn one. Corbyn is notable because it was written when he was a literally who and it's pretty long and about half way through so far.

I don't save them because I have one folder that is a total mess. But there's a Corbyn one, a collapse of the alt-right one, Trump's presidency and a fate of the right wing in Europe (now finished). If someone sees this post they may post them, since quite a few people used to have them saved.

the protection of private property

Jesus christ she is hot…

And there it is

you cheeky motherucker the Jacobin article literally says that Nolan wants you to cheer for the monarchist counter-revolution

The endgame is to reboot society's developments back to the Fordist era, so that the female liberation movement can be born again, hopefully winning this time and getting rid of men all together. Full 4D chess dialectics.

Underated bost

A number of your articles liken Batman to conservatives like Romney. Are you not a nazi, why interpret the article's association of cuckservatives with Batman as having resemblance to your wish of purging degenerates?

They want to build a time machine and go back in time to stone age.

Why because I have the meme flag ? I mean I am a little old fashioned but I'm really just an average guy with a big dick. I'm just explaining reactionary thought in a neutral and objective fashion is all. Reactionaries are a very broad spectrum Romney may be a cuck when it comes to the alt-right and neo-nazis but he's still closer to the right wing reactionary spectrum as opposed to the left.

As far as I remember your fucking problem with me started when you said I made a ridiculous analogy I posted the articles to demonstrate that reactionary themes in Batman is something that was widely discussed in mainstream publications and you latched on to cherry picking and trying to strawman my original intention when all I wanted to say was that Nolan's Batman is a reactionary character and you conveniently left out the themes of nobility and monarchism and latched on to mainstream American conservatism which is reactionary but not as reactionary as what you specifically want to talk about because you are a maniac who want's to score reddit upboats and not actually discuss or criticize reactionaries and traditionalists.

this is literally what Batman does Gotham is a crime ridden bleak shithole and Batman is literally a vigilante who purges criminals, terrorists and other scum if you extrapolate that to reactionaries in general who want to purge "undesirable" elements from society.

Guys, guys. I don't think anyone is denying that Batman is a turbo reactionary here. I don't know if he's a knight though. Outside his class interests and the movie title, he doesn't want to do actual knight things like conquering or go on a crusade. I wouldn't even go so far as to say he even has values, he's just purely reactionary against any change what so ever. The only ones that actually want to conquer (or blow up stuff or perform any action at all that might change things) are the villains. It's these villains that we are first supposed to be lured into identify with before ultimately denouncing. So it's basically a tale about the dangers of being seduced by the thought of radical change (i.e purely reactionary)

Not the guy you're responding to but Batman doesn't really want to purge criminal elements, since without them he has no reason to exist. Just a side note though, in general you're right

Anybody have that picture about Evola's conception of history? Where prehistory is "muh Spirit" and everything that happens after is decadence

Batman wants to purge the criminal elements but he knows that it's ultimately impossible he is just fighting to preserve the order and stability by playing whack a mole with criminals and villains.

You can extrapolate that to reactionaries in general of all stripes Churchill says that democracy is the worst form of government but all the others are just worse he said the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter he was a reactionary right wing imperialist this sort of resignation characterizes reactionary thought it is impossible to purge the criminals and the degenerates you can only hold them off and hopefully delay a collapse to maintain order and stability in any system even the Soviet Union had it's own reactionaries who quixotically resisted Perstroika and Glasnost because they knew that too much change would lead to the collapse of the system and chaos

Yes, a ridiculously cringy analogy akin to liberals and their Harry Potter shit and since then you've only double-downed with your shit.

That's not what you did, you specifically made it a point to compare yourself and your intentions with that of Batman not general right wing reactionaries, with whom your ideas are not exactly popular with today.

As I've said, there were articles you linked me to which compared batman to basic conservatives and even then with your bringing up of monarchists, while you certainly share some characteristics, judging from your posts you're not them. This is also the case with conservatives yet you insist on desperately reaching in order attempt remain consistent with your original claim when it's obvious you've failed in doing so, partly because you didn't read your own links and are now backpedaling.

What are you talking about, this was never about me even attacking traditionalism itself, I'm simply pointing out the holes in your silly analogy.

Faggot plz you have a problem with me and me making this analogy you don't want to actually talk about the analogy itself but point out that it's faggy Harry Potter shit so I'm sorry if political analogies that are associated with popular culture make you so fucking mad but the analogy is valid and making Bataman a reactionary was intentional Nolan himself is a monarchist so take it up with him also Imo opinion Harry Potter themes are much more conservative than liberal but I'll leave that for another episode

You seem to think that I see myself as Batman, you seem to think that I see myself as a heroic vigilante executing criminals

You think I see myself akin to Batman doing fantasy #resistance against the evils of the establishment and fantasizing about removing degenerates and you have a problem with that in your mind I get it faggot but it doesn't have anything to do with what I was originally trying to say you seem to have created a whole little universe of problems associated with me personally and not the shitpost itself therefore I think you are a fucking maniac or just extremely autistic.

the articles are perfectly consistent with my original claim which was that Batman is a reactionary who wants purge Gotham, all the articles are from liberals who are complaining that the enemy of the third Batman are akin to the OWS protesters and that Batman is a conservative force, a capitalist force or a counter-revolutionary aristocratic force. You don't even fucking know what you're trying to latch on to at this point since you cannot refute that Batman is a reactionary character and that the villains of the third film are supposed to be a revolutionary force and Batman is supposed to be a force of order there are litteraly no fucking holes at first you just some shit about muh Harry Potter then you the analogy that Batman is a reactionary is ridiculous then when I provided evidence that it is in fact a widely used analogy you started to look for straws to grasp in the articles I posted claiming that Batman was in fact reactionary but not a far right reactionary Nazi enough to be good enough for me to make the analogy because you found examples that include neocons and Mitt Romney who are not reactionaries am I rite then you latched on to Mitt Romney and the Nazis like a fucking faggot and we are back to square one where you are still being a fucking faggot

to be spooked out of their minds

I couldn't care less about you, user. I mostly just continued engaging you because I find your frustration amusing

Except that's all I've been doing.

I never once said he isn't or rather that it he can't be interpreted as just that, I only brought up how pathetic it was/is to ascribe something like your Nazi masturbation fantasy to a fictional superhero.

You're again implying I give a fuck about the inane thoughts which go on in your head, I don't.

As if it wasn't already clear that you haven't read your own links.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word you so desperately crave as evidenced in

So service sector bullshit that doesn’t help rural people at all. Yet rural areas produce food, minerals, and have lot’s of factories. Cities in America produce littery nothing useful. Seriously if most cities in America disaperd rural areas would be better off.


Most of those people come from rural areas start inventing in rural areas move to cities and become Zuckenburg tier assholes. Also it’s the cities people’s fault for passing laws which favored big farms over small farms for lower food prices. This is what devastated most rural communities in America. This new big agriculture is also unsustainable when you account for fertility loss.

You clearly do you sick fuck you wouldn't have spent over 13 hours on this if you weren't heavily invested in it you fucking actually took the time to read all the fucking articles I posted to find flaws in my shitpost you are a fucking insane autistic cunt

No because if they were smart they’d care about passing down there genes which is harder in cities.

From what I've read on traditionalism, most advocates seem to believe that after some sort of transitional period between present society and a more traditional society, they'll either end up as members of the landed gentry or middle-class artisans. They believe that even if they were to end up as a member of the peasantry, the upper classes would take pity on them in accordance to classic paternalism. Traditionalists seem to forget however that it was the charitable element of paternalist thought that lead to the development of the 'progressive' Liberalism of the 19th century and that in real terms society would just come full circle again.

Exactly, they have no comprehension of materialism and think that "feels" and "honor" and other nonsense drive history.

dying from global warming like retarded peasants

To be fair I don't believe tradfags (the non retarded ones at least) even expect to live to see a full trad society, just as commies don't expect to live to see to each according to his need

That, and some trads don't even want there to be an artisan caste, since artisans poke-evolve into merchants who poke-evolve into the bourgeoisie.


if tradfags were capable of anticipating the future they wouldn't be tradfags to begin with

award winning post

wtf i hate the French Revolution now

its the humans vs orcs post, but with batman


is this the the new "humans vs orcs"?

Also it's Ra's Al Ghul, its arabic for the demons head, and its pretty fucking clear in the comics that the Lazurus Pit has drove him batshit insane, therefore he wants to wipe out humanity, not just gotham

This is so strange, so traditionalist thinkers do not actually care about material and inmaterial traditions like traditional cousin, dress, housing, medicine etc but for them traditionalism is an ideology that opposes kindness and friendship.
That's fucking wicked.

but having friends and being kind is a jewish plot to make people into betas
-probably some Holla Forums user, who unironicly believes that


Somebody screencap this shit.

lmao someone is analbuttblasted

That is a point. Some are Nazbol, some are Ancaps.

Someone didn't know how the fuck warfare worked. Even Yockey never mentioned total extermination. Dugin is laughing at Pierce's grave.

Is batman posting the new orc posting?

This is a map showing China's ethnic makeup, but only for the 59 ethnic groups they recognise - in truth they have over 200 distinct ethnic groups in their countries borders.

You're a retard.


The right is a reaction to modernity and modernity is an epochal feature of capitalism. Or capitalism was prerequisite for modernity. Capitalism is a disintegrating force ("all that's solid melts into air") and traditionalism gets caught in the blast wave. The right/reaction tries to restore traditional order but in doing so reifies the conditions of that disintegration.

Basically they have no endgame because they are undialectical as fuck.

If reactionaries weren't such brainlets, they'd have read Land and embraced accelerationism.

I fixed the text, sorry about that

set the social a few years back, thye just pussy primitivists tho

How is rationalism involved in any of this? The scientific revolution is based around rationalism, I don't understand why that's a bad thing. The concept is fine, maybe the people who used it 'erroneously' are to blame, but traditionalism or some kind of value you prescribe to a social framework doesn't have to be related (in opposition or in agreement) to 'rationalism'. Odd.



I was a Holla Forumstard and I read evola in 2013. he is fucking spooked beyond relief. le ride the tiger, le wait for the tiger.

you will die waiting. but thats good fuck off with traditionalist ways, it's just idealization of mythological theores and a bunch of other spooks, "enlightment" too but based on religion and the imaginary not on your own. Back when I was "Völkisch" I was the saddest loneliest piece of shit. Now 4 years later I have a lot of friends.

So the world should be just one slurb?

You've never read many of the major reactionary thinkers then. Burke and Maistre and many others blame the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries for leading to the materialism of the Enlightenment, and they're not entirely wrong. Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, et al all idolized figures like Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton. They saw themselves as applying the scientific method to the political sphere, which in turn meant constitutional government, the rule of law, equal rights, openness to other cultures, etc.




This tbh.
Every traditionalist I've spoken with has seemed utterly unwilling to consider any kind of hypothetical future possibilities. The last one I argued with actually rejected the usefulness of counterfactuals in general.

Then that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Absolutely, if they ideologically disagree with the extension of rationalist thought to other spheres of thought, that's their thing. But the whole scientific method standalone is something civilizations around the world should admire, it is a really great litmus test at determining what is valid and what isn't valid (or falsifiable).
Extending it to the political sphere can be bad, I guess. You don't have to go full-on rationalist about literally everything, I'm just talking about rationalism in the sphere of scientific discourse.
They would be using faulty reasoning to take from rationalist concepts and push for political agendas: science is supposed to be politically neutral, that's the point of not being biased.


Let's be honest most if not all leftist ideologies seem helpessly stuck in the late 19th early 20th century.

when you have a harem anime girl for a wife and literally nothing else is different


I always knew that Bane was /ourguy/.

Okay, but as the populace becomes more educated, religious belief tends to decline. And without religious belief, you're left with materialism. That's not a problem for the liberal or leftist, but it is for the reactionary.

And even among those moderns who are religious, there are many factional and denominational squabbles which can't ever be satisfactorily resolved. This is why the Protestant Reformation was often considered a precursor to individualism and liberalism. It forever broke the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on the truth, which in turn led to political pluralism and tolerance of different viewpoints once people got tired of petty conflicts over different interpretations of the Bible.

screencaped for prosperity

Sorry lad, dialectics is our game. Your vision is essentially perennial because you conceive of some "natural state of things" and "human nature" and that is what you're trying to achieve.