Why has the counter culture now upholding traditional values?

its not the status quo anymore. Social liberalism is

Trying to go back in time is not revolutionary. It is delusional.

reactionaries aren't a counter culture, they are reactionaries. Counter cultures take something old and either create something that goes against it (abstract art against realist art) or remakes it into something new (vaporwave). reactionaries just seek to return to an illusionary past because they are dissatisfied by the inclusion of liberties to new people which removes their monopoly on social and societal influence. by this principle you cannot be both reactionary and communist, communists hold that freedom is merely a privilege unless enjoyed by one and all.

your momma is delusional

looking to an unknown future is just as delusional

conservatism is the new counter culture.

It isn't a rejection of current norms because it doesn't create something new and it doesn't reinterpret the past into a new model, therefor its just reactionary, not a counter culture.

The new right movement is pretty new. So it does create something new

still shilling for capitalism

Why are you guys ignoring my point? the pic in the OP doesn't do a good job implying millenials are conservative to begin with outside of the immigration thing, millenials want free healthcare, to stop US intervention and to stop supporting Israel. How the fuck is this traditional? if you mean the other lifestylism shit about eating healthy, not taking drugs and doing excersive, that's not traditional values, and it wouldn't make millenials more revolutionary than boomers compared to the other shit I mentioned above.

the "new" right movement is just the latest iteration of the exact same ideology that has been losing ground since the First French Republic. Hell, you can see some of the "new right" tactics and arguments as far back as in the Roman Republic and Greek city states, the reactionary right fundamentally doesn't change much throughout history.

Even if Traditionalism was counter-culture, it being so wouldn't suddenly validate it. If there is anything I hate more, it's this Western idea that if suddenly you're the "victim" or not accepted by most people, then you are correct. Ideas are true based on the ideas themselves, not by their relation to others.

so? its not like its going anywhere anytime soon lmao

the left is dying and you can't do shit about it

how is fighting wars for israel traditional?

Like in the early 20th century

That would be a question for you, what does it mean if boomers support Israel and millenials don't? why did you think this would be a good example of a generation being more traditional than the other?

Except it has evolved over time like all ideologies and what is being theorized now is new

Because Europeans have a long history of jew hatred Christian zionism is a recent development

Attached: 1509141792739.png (2000x1000, 1.31M)

At base, society has never moved beyond the progressives who want to try new things and become more liberated and peaceful, and the reactionaries who want to go back to an idealised past and be more controlled and aggressive.

Calling anti Israel 'jew hating' is just buying into their narrative, you know that right?

Nothing has inflected more damage to the left than communists, unleash the power of anarchy

most right wing theory is justification for existing systems of power or the expansion or social monopolization thereof, not actually independent and objective (or really even idealistic most of the time) theory. For example the subjective theory of value, it was largely created as a justification for the market systems to secure what little was left of the societal monopoly that was held on by the old aristocracy throughout the 19th century, even though it was extremely easy to prove objectively wrong. But it didn't need to be "correct" or even internally coherent (which is what disqualifies it from even being idealistic), it just needed to protect power itself.

and what you have like 50 years of analysis?
please

The narrative supports israel

Because liberalism is the hegemonic order and anything that deviates from it is considered "revolutionary".

The problem is in the human DNA, we are built so that the few may domesticate the many.

yeah this is not a topic of interest to the new right really.

what does this have to do with the movement not being new?

OP is a retard and an obnoxious faggot.

no u

Anyone seen Ben Shapiro get fucked by an 85 year old bbc journalist the other day?

lad they are all apologists for capitalism and corporate control of society as it exists now, they just want white people to have that role exclusively. If you are lucky, they might do minor socdem policies like healthcare for white people to improve birthrates or whatever, but they will always work within the framework of existing power because they are ultimately beholden to it. A classic example is the Nazis and their relation to corporate power from Blackshirts and Reds:
What happened to the U.S. businesses that collaborated with fascism.

"The Rockefeller family's Chase National Bank used its Paris office in Vichy France to help launder German money to facilitate Nazi international trade during the war, and did so with complete impunity. Corporations like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, and ITT owned factories in enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason, ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by Allied bombings. General Motors collected over $33 million. Pilots were given instructions not to hit factories in Germany that were owned by U.S. firms. Thus Cologne was leveled by Allied bombing but its Ford plant, providing military equipment for the Nazi army, was untouched; indeed, German civilians began using the plant as an air raid shelter."

It is predicated on the protection of old power structures, not on the creation of a new societal mode or norms.

No, I'm talking even back thousands of years ago, there were liberal reforming emperors and conservative insular paranoid ones, you can basically sort people into ones who wanted to progress and try to make things better, and people who wanted to stay still or go backwards and just focus on their personal power.

Their main focus is demographics not economics so much

what old power structures are they protecting?

progressivism started last century liberalism is an enlightenment ideology

Yeah for gods sake, of course they wouldn't have called it liberal back then, English didn't exist back then, I'm using terminology in the modern sense - the root thoughts and emotions behind it haven't really changed though.

you're taking an ideology that came about a few hundred years ago and retroactively labeling people of a few thousand years ago that ideology because of some minor similarities

Why means that he doesn't really understand liberalism

Which*

For lacking a focus on demographics they are very quick to ally with capitalists against their wealth being distributed. Lets not forget that Hitler was appointed by liberal capitalists because of the utility of the Nazi party against the Spartacus Rebellion and their ability to generally suppress communists. The same is true now, a lot of alt-righties are keen to jump to the aid of capitalism at even socdem policies that were in place in their prophesied "golden era", which is quite telling that they only use the ideas of promoting the fundamentalism or traditionalism or the ethics of the past is not actually done in the name of the preservation of that era, but to adopt the exclusionary social principles of that time in order to reinforce the existing systems by excluding marginalized people that might want to seek some kind of reform of the system or the overthrow of the system.

Principally capitalism, but generally the socio-economic apartheid, the monopoly of political power by rich people, the continued caste-ification of capitalism and destroying social mobility, so on and so forth.

Also to add, they largely do not exist in the sense of an ideology, reactionaries exist nearly wholly culturally. Any ideological aspect they have is just reinforcing the existing ideology.

I'm not saying Alexander was liberal in the sense of he would drive a Prius today, I'm saying he's liberal in the sense of open to new ideas, a reformer, a builder, rather than a law and order crackdown type of leader, which is basically a conservative.

I guess 'progressive' and 'regressive' fit better than liberal and conservative but you know what I'm saying so don't even trip.

Yeah like I said its not really an economics movement.

the entire economy is not a single power structure but alright.

ehh its really the opposite of what is going on. There are complaints of over bureaucracy but then complaints of democracy in general.

So you agree that new right movements are revolutionary against the established liberal social order

but aren't those "people" that you mentioned responsible for a lot of the evil in the world today?

I think it might be best to do away with them, get it out the way and focus or other things

so you're just throwing around terminology now.
You're associating generic terms with recent political ideologies.
These people contort language to assign good words with their ideology and bad words with the opponent. Its the same mode of thinking that pigeon holes people into thinking there are only 2 solutions.
new ideas, reforms. building, law and order are all ancient. the liberal conservative dichotomy is an enlightenment creation.

...

Except it is because it reinforces the existing economic system? Just because it is the norm doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Capitalism isn't a single power structure, it is a singular mode of commodity production, a la Marx's theories. Everyone ultimately abides by the rules of capitalism, it infiltrates every aspect of your life and how you conduct yourself, see pic related.

No, because they are reactionary. Reactionary movements are perhaps the literal opposite of revolutionary movements, since it isn't a new system but an old system reinstated even if you took them at their word. But even then a lot of the time they ultimately fuck up because they are psueds like Trump who end up selling out his base for economic interests and have their dumbass social crusades stay unresolved to use for further political rhetoric so they can further enrich capitalists.

If by people you mean capitalists then yes.

Attached: capitalist collective dick in your mouth.png (1268x463, 127.87K)

the concepts of left and right are transhistorical though: left is for abolishing hierarchy while the right is for upholding it. feodal christian slavery abolitionists are to the left of slavers, liberals are to the left of supporters of divine right, liberals are to the right of those who wish to abolish private property and so on. the new right reheats arguments about racial hierarchy they claim is natural, in this they are to the right of the liberals who believe in extending bourgeois rights to all ethnicities.

anti-hegemonic is not the same as revolutionary: Hungary's Orban is in opposition to the social-liberal hegemony of EU but has absolutely no qualms deepening the slavery of "his people" to capital with the overtime law for example. He works for the capital and entrenches the hierarchy. Hungary is still fundamentally ruled by the same forces as before his coming to political power.

no its not they care more for demographics

ok this isn't really a counter or anything.

they are revolutionary against the current liberal social order

Regular Trump supporters are not "new right" they're just regular republicans this isn't who is being discussed
The new right people support trump in so much as he is the most anti immigration candidate but everyone acknowledges that "electing a good president" isn't the end all be all.

No they're not. That is just a retro actively added description of people thousands of years ago based on terminology that is a recent development.

Anti capitalism movements do not have a monopoly on revolutionary.
Any movement that opposes the current social order is a revolutionary movement.

yea well that's how the study of history works in general. equivalences between modern states and greek city-states for example are also anachronical and yet are useful to understanding history.
if you want to define revolutionary in your own special snowflake way sure, but revolutions mean the overthrow of power structures. capitalism with fewer niggers is no more revolutionary than capitalism with more niggers. the mainstream civil rights movement in america wasn't revolutionary, though many of its key actors like BPP and King (increasingly towards his death) were

It doesn't matter, they still reinforce the existing economic system regardless of if they want it controlled by whites or whatever. That makes them actors within the economic system.

No, it expands on the point of the influence of capitalism and introduces a further point about the nature of the right, which I will delve into later.

Trump supporters constituted a large portion of the "new right" and he was considered a catalyst for a new age of American reactionary thought. You could see it in 4/pol/ and 8/pol/, and many of the recent far-right shooters had inspiration from Trump or Trump-related movements. Not to mention shit like Qanon, which is also popular among the far-right types.
He ran and was elected on a lot more than "anti immigration". And even disregarding all the stuff he went back on and betrayed the principles of (like the expansion of the MIC and America's involvement in foreign wars, expansion of aid to Israel, so on), the only way he pushes the "anti-immigrant" cause is by expanding the prison-industrial complex. The employment of immigrants in businesses to be used as cheap labor and thus denying Americans jobs goes on unopposed, because the right dares not oppose the interests of capitalists that fund them. Ultimately their anti-immigrant movement is just to further police immigrants so that they can be another slave-caste to use for capitalist interests.

Ultimately, all right movements exist as a tool for the existing economic and institutional interests in replicating and preserving the existing systems by policing disenfranchised groups that might challenge it, as well as further militarizing the state that it can protect itself more. The people responsible for the police getting APCs and automatic rifles was the "new right", because it both forces disenfranchised people to stop protesting for a change in the existing systems by overwhelming force or the threat thereof, and further serves capitalists in the MIC by extending the sales of military equipment to the police forces. There are countless other examples of this both currently and throughout history, but I've already made the point well enough I think.

If you don't have anything substantive to bring up, I think we are done here.

Only a movement that proposes a new order is a revolutionary movement. A movement that advocates a return to an old order is by definition reactionary, not revolutionary.

Because the world has gone mad….

It doesn't work well when you're using ideologies that have come about recently to describe people from thousands of years ago

What I described was the actual definition of revolution.
What you are describing is your special snowflake marxist definition

Yeah like I keep saying they don't care too much about economics as much as demographics.

go on..

True. However not all trump supports are part of the new right movement just most of the new right supports trump as he is the most anti immigration candidate. No one in the new right sees electing a good president as the final solution

Yeah obviously. The anti immigration aspect is what separated him from the herd. That is what is important here when discussing Trump and the new right.

And? like I said only moderates think electing a good president will fix things.

Actually no it doesn't we have stopped more immigrants than any other candidate would have.

yes this would be preferable to what is going on now.

Dude how many times do I have to tell you. The new right cares more about demographics and not too much about economics I don't see what you don't get about this.

The new right seeks a remove of the current liberal social order so they are revolutionary in that regard

the left and the right as transhistorical concepts aren't ideologies, that's the point. they are the descriptors of an ideology's relative position to the status quo. calling an ancient anti-slavery advocate a liberal would be anachronistic, calling them leftist - as opposed to the status quo of slave society - would not.
so was the civil rights movement revolutionary? was the passing of the civil rights act of 1964 a revolution? pick your answer carefully
by your definitions what do the words counter-revolutionary and reactionary mean?
why are you so hell-bent on calling your little pet reaction revolutionary anyway? trying to fool people into entrenching their own slavery again?

Attached: political spectrum.jpg (728x546, 128.16K)

[pic related] is pretty lib but the best I could find for now

They are not though just calling people of the past concepts that originated thousands of years later is poor discourse

It would be equally retarded. The left right paradigm did not exist back then so you have to do mental gymnastics to make sense of it

That pic reinforces how retarded your point is

they are though you fucking retard
how do you think liberals have moved from being leftist in rebelling against divine right monarchists to now being right wing in defending property rights against socialists? if the left and the right were fixed in time this would not be possible
there was no concept of the international system and yet it is possible to analyse the ancient world based on the interaction between sovereign political powers as a system. how dense are you?

I didn't say they were fixed. However they're ideologies of the enlightenment and trying to related them to people thousands of years ago is just inaccurate

what "international system" are you talking about?

the left and the right are not ideologies
get this in your thick goddamn skull
liberalism is an ideology
conservatism (in the political science sense) is an ideology
socialism is an ideology
the theoretical concept that can be used to analyse international politics. you can analyse medieval politics with it too, because as an analytical tool it is not tied to a specific point in history, much like the concepts of left and right can be used to analyse pre-enlightenment political movements.

I never said they were ideologies genius

Something tells me you just made that up