On the Subject of Progressivism and Conservatism

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Socialism has also failed in every nation it's been tried.

And that is why I rolled my eyes.

[Emulation White]

A simple question has been on my mind for some time now, and I feel a great need to understand the rationale behind it. The forum may not be the best place to seek such understandimg, but it is the most relevent nevertheless.

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

Fellow Monarchists, Republicans, Traditionalists and advocates of all that is tried, true, and of the Natural Law and Heavenly Order. What are your individual reasons for standing with the foundation of Western society? Elaborate, if you will, on what draws you to the morals and virtues that have stood true for centuries, and how you feel we could benefit best by returning to such noble principles.

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

[West Leas Oros 2]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

Do you really support socialism though? You strike me more as a liberal who calls themselves socialist and votes Democrat even though they're a non-socialist party.

[Nakena]

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

Oh this post is very right. Most "traditionalists" wish to go back to the 1950s or the maybe the 19th century. Thats about their scope of their ideas and horizon. As for the rest is indeed obsessive romanticism, humanism and the idea of a comfy and bearable, predictable "good ole times" world.

And of course, many nobles were originally descended from bullies with swords. Or Baristas with Swords. Some people here would know...

*Bullies with sword and coffee*

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

Do you really support socialism though? You strike me more as a liberal who calls themselves socialist and votes Democrat even though they're a non-socialist party.

A Socialist voting for the further left of two parties in a two-party system doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Kowani]

A simple question has been on my mind for some time now, and I feel a great need to understand the rationale behind it. The forum may not be the best place to seek such understandimg, but it is the most relevent nevertheless.

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

Fellow Monarchists, Republicans, Traditionalists and advocates of all that is tried, true, and of the Natural Law and Heavenly Order. What are your individual reasons for standing with the foundation of Western society? Elaborate, if you will, on what draws you to the morals and virtues that have stood true for centuries, and how you feel we could benefit best by returning to such noble principles.

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

Give this man a medal.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Do you really support socialism though? You strike me more as a liberal who calls themselves socialist and votes Democrat even though they're a non-socialist party.

A Socialist voting for the further left of two parties in a two-party system doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Sure, but I'm not certain US-SSR is a socialist to begin with. None of what they've said strikes me as socialist. Social-democratic, maybe, but I can't be too sure. IC, the nation is essentially a "Strawman Trump", I'd say, and OOC, Well i'm not too entirely sure. Again, most of it comes off as typical Democrat, not even of the "reformist" variety ala Sanders.

[Strahcoin]

I would generally consider myself a constitutional capitalist conservative.

I believe in moral absolutism because disregarding it justifies evil crimes (such as murder, rape, and slavery) by stating that "their moral code didn't forbid it" or "it's not immoral to them".
I believe in (mostly) free-market capitalism because it tends to make most, if not everyone wealthier and more productive. That being said, I believe that the government should impose tariffs in trading with unfriendly/hostile nations to incentivize those nations to adopt the American values.
I believe in traditional values because they are secure and have worked for a long time; it would be dangerous to abandon them without proper consideration of the consequences. That being said, I also believe in separation of church and state - because "Congress shall make no law promoting the exercise of a specific religion" - as well as scientific/technological innovation - because they improve the standards of living.
I believe in the constitution because it is the founding document of the United States of America, and it is the shield that protects the people from tyranny of the government as well as tyranny of the majority.
I believe in a strong military because I believe that the United States is the "last beacon of hope" in this world, and it needs to be protected from outside forces.
I believe in the freedom of speech because that's how new ideas are formed and their merits debated - allowing the nation to continue improving - and how important information flows amongst the people - reducing the risks of corruption and despotism. That being said, I believe in a strong police force and upholding the rule of law because for all their flaws, they are essential in keeping us safe and the nation orderly.
I believe in a border wall because such will be effective in preventing illegal immigration, which is harmful to the American people and the nation. That being said, I believe in legal immigration because legal immigrants tend to work hard and benefit the country.

I OPPOSE socialism because of what happened to Jamestown, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Nordic countries (BEFORE they started cutting back and converting into social democracies), and it's also immoral to seize the properties of others without due process or eminent domain (but only in national emergencies).
I OPPOSE abortion because it infringes upon the lives of the unborn.
I OPPOSE slavery because it infringes upon the liberty of the minority.
I OPPOSE affirmative action because it unfairly discriminates on the basis of skin color AND it is legislated by the government, meaning it is unconstitutional.
I OPPOSE anarchism because the preservation of the nation-state keeps us united against outside threats.
I OPPOSE tyranny because tyranny is immoral and unconstitutional.
I OPPOSE modern-day "progressivism" because based on my knowledge, such ideals are actually regressive.
I OPPOSE LBGT+ privileges because they are privileges, not "rights", and granting privilege such as same-sex marriage and gender reassignment will mean drastically changing definitions and causing confusion amongst the general populace. That being said, I also OPPOSE all forms of lynching and physically assaulting innocents.

Finally (unless if I forgot something):
I support civil debate and polite discussion because they are helpful in exchanging ideas. I oppose attacking someone's character merely because he/she disagrees with you.

[True Refuge]

I OPPOSE socialism because of what happened to Jamestown, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Nordic countries (BEFORE they started cutting back and converting into social democracies), and it's also immoral to seize the properties of others without due process or eminent domain (but only in national emergencies).

Of the Scandinavian/Nordic model countries, only Norway was actually socialist at any point (that being the period of Labour Party majority in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s).Even then, it wasn’t really a planned economy, since the Labour Party prioritized Keynesian economics over the pursuit of a completely socialist system, and the party distanced itself from the more radical communists of the time.

I OPPOSE modern-day "progressivism" because based on my knowledge, such ideals are actually regressive.

How so?

I OPPOSE LBGT+ privileges because they are privileges, not "rights", and granting privilege such as same-sex marriage and gender reassignment will mean drastically changing definitions and causing confusion amongst the general populace.

Do you oppose discrimination based on the parts of a person's identity that person cannot choose or change (e.g sex, race, etc.)?

Definitions? What definitions?

How would it confuse the populace?

[Plzen]

Of the Scandinavian/Nordic model countries, only Norway was actually socialist at any point (that being the period of Labour Party majority in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s. Even then, it wasnt not really a planned economy, since the Labour Party prioritized Keynesian economics over the pursuit of a completely socialist system, and the party distanced itself from the more radical communists of the time.

Furthermore, considering what developmental statistics look like for Sweden in 1976, at the end of the folkhemmet era, I find it difficult to accept the claim that the social-democratic regimes of Cold War Scandinavia were all that incompetent.

[True Refuge]

I’d also like Strahcoin’s response to this:

A simple question has been on my mind for some time now, and I feel a great need to understand the rationale behind it. The forum may not be the best place to seek such understandimg, but it is the most relevent nevertheless.

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

Fellow Monarchists, Republicans, Traditionalists and advocates of all that is tried, true, and of the Natural Law and Heavenly Order. What are your individual reasons for standing with the foundation of Western society? Elaborate, if you will, on what draws you to the morals and virtues that have stood true for centuries, and how you feel we could benefit best by returning to such noble principles.

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

[Strahcoin]

I OPPOSE socialism because of what happened to Jamestown, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Nordic countries (BEFORE they started cutting back and converting into social democracies), and it's also immoral to seize the properties of others without due process or eminent domain (but only in national emergencies).

Of the Scandinavian/Nordic model countries, only Norway was actually socialist at any point (that being the period of Labour Party majority in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s. Even then, it wasnt not really a planned economy, since the Labour Party prioritized Keynesian economics over the pursuit of a completely socialist system, and the party distanced itself from the more radical communists of the time.

I OPPOSE modern-day "progressivism" because based on my knowledge, such ideals are actually regressive.

How so?

I OPPOSE LBGT+ privileges because they are privileges, not "rights", and granting privilege such as same-sex marriage and gender reassignment will mean drastically changing definitions and causing confusion amongst the general populace.

Do you oppose discrimination based on the parts of a person's identity that person cannot choose or change (e.g sex, race, etc.)?

Definitions? What definitions?

How would it confuse the populace?

1. Interesting. It still caused a significant drop in their economy, however, so my point still stands.
2. For one, social justice promotes the idea that justice is based on immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Another is the idea of legal abortion on request - killing the unborn doesn't seem at all like progress. Moreover, modern-day "progressivism" tends to come with heavy regulations on businesses, which curb technological innovation and progress.
3. Yes. I generally oppose discrimination based on immutable characteristics. Exceptions include when a business has to choose between two individuals to hire, with one - by no fault of his/her own - has a birth defect that significantly hinders his/her productivity.
4. Marriage, for example, implies a relationship between a man and a woman. Gender, similarly, has been synonymous with sex. Making gender fluid and non-binary implies that a man can be a woman; or someone can be 87% female, 12% male, and 1% neither; or whether one is a boy or a girl depends on whether one feels like a boy or a girl (which, by the way, enforces gender stereotypes); or one can identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter (which is a joke often expressed by those opposing transgenderism).

I’d also like Strahcoin’s response to this:

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

I'll do my best.

"Western traditionalism" now closely resembles a mixture of family values; pride for one's nation-state and sovereignty; and the classical liberal ideals of individualism, inherent rights, equality under the law, and due process. We believe in keeping values that work and carefully changing values that don't.
EDIT: Also, we believe the nation should achieve a balance of Judeo-Christian and secular values.

And I'm not a monarchist. I prefer a constitutional republic because I believe the people should have a say in who leads them, and the government should serve the people (not the other way around).

[Czechostan]

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

Moreover, other traditions abandoned by contemporary conservatives include homosexuality, public nudity, "the natural order of slavery"... Hell, today's conception of "individualism" is entirely a product of capitalism and at odds with the communitarianism of traditional communities.

[Czechostan]

I believe in (mostly) free-market capitalism because it tends to make most, if not everyone wealthier and more productive. That being said, I believe that the government should impose tariffs in trading with unfriendly/hostile nations to incentivize those nations to adopt the American values.

Capitalism and traditionalism are irreconciliable. Capitalism erases and commodifies tradition--which you yourself tacitly acknowledge with the latter sentence I quote. You need only look at far at African and Asian societies, where traditional economies have been destroyed by multinational corporations which can produce and export goods at cheaper costs, and employ the locals at miserable rates in miserable conditions. Or look to the fact that capitalism encourage individuals to look out for their own interests, not those of the community or the family.

[True Refuge]

1. Interesting. It still caused a significant drop in their economy, however, so my point still stands.

By what metric?

The years from 1950 to 1973 are often called the golden era of the Norwegian economy. (graphs and sources available in linked page).

Figure 2 shows annual development in GDP by expenditure (in fixed 2000 prices) from 1830 to 2003. The series, with few exceptions, reveal steady growth rates with few huge fluctuations. However, economic growth as a more or less continuous process started in the 1840s. We can also conclude that the growth process slowed down during the last three decades of the nineteenth century. The years 1914-1945 were more volatile than any other period in question, while there was an impressive and steady rate of growth until the mid 1970s and from then on slower growth.
(Image)
...

GDP per capita showed an annual growth rate of 3.3 percent. Foreign trade stepped up even more, unemployment barely existed and the inflation rate was stable. This has often been explained by the large public sector and good economic planning. The Nordic model, with its huge public sector, has been said to be a success in this period. If one takes a closer look into the situation, one will, nevertheless, find that the Norwegian growth rate in the period was lower than that for most western nations. The same is true for Sweden and Denmark. The Nordic model delivered social security and evenly-distributed wealth, but it did not necessarily give very high economic growth.

Not really a drop at all.

2. For one, social justice promotes the idea that justice is based on immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Another is the idea of legal abortion on request - killing the unborn doesn't seem at all like progress. Moreover, modern-day "progressivism" tends to come with heavy regulations on businesses, which curb technological innovation and progress.

You'll need to elaborate on the bolded. It's extremely broad and I'm not sure what you mean by it, or why opposing discrimination based on immutable characteristics is inherently a bad thing.

I can't respond to the comment on abortion. It'd certainly appear that way from a perspective such as yours, and I'm not going to bother dealing with it.

Regulations like what? Again, so broad I can barely comment on it.

3. Yes. I generally oppose discrimination based on immutable characteristics. Exceptions include when a business has to choose between two individuals to hire, with one - by no fault of his/her own - has a birth defect that significantly hinders his/her productivity.

Very odd, considering that you believe that the privileges awarded to cishet people should not be awarded to members of the GSRM on the basis of immutable characteristics.

4. Marriage, for example, implies a relationship between a man and a woman. Gender, similarly, has been synonymous with sex. Making gender fluid and non-binary implies that a man can be a woman; or someone can be 87% female, 12% male, and 1% neither; or whether one is a boy or a girl depends on whether one feels like a boy or a girl (which, by the way, enforces gender stereotypes); or one can identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter (which is a joke often expressed by those opposing transgenderism).

Marriage is what society says it is. To most people, the sole factor in marrying someone is not "I wanna make kids with them", it is "i want to spend my life with them". That doesn't exclude GSRM people.

Gender has not been synonymous with sex for a while now, and for good reason. They cover entirely different concepts.

Yes, gender and masculinity/femininity exists on a spectrum, and trans people exist.

Your perception of gender dysphoria and trans activism is extremely reductive. Gender dysphoria is not just a superficial feeling of "maybe it'd be cool being <opposite sex>". It's not based on gender stereotypes either. Public perception of the trans experience and the activism has been subject to transphobes poisoning the well for an extremely long time. You should ask about these things in the Trans Discussion thread.

The state has no business interfering with who people marry or what they identify as.

[True Refuge]

I believe in (mostly) free-market capitalism because it tends to make most, if not everyone wealthier and more productive. That being said, I believe that the government should impose tariffs in trading with unfriendly/hostile nations to incentivize those nations to adopt the American values.

Capitalism and traditionalism are irreconciliable. Capitalism erases and commodifies tradition--which you yourself tacitly acknowledge with the latter sentence I quote. You need only look at far at African and Asian societies, where traditional economies have been destroyed by multinational corporations which can produce and export goods at cheaper costs, and employ the locals at miserable rates in miserable conditions. Or look to the fact that capitalism encourage individuals to look out for their own interests, not those of the community or the family.

A significant amount of American cultural traditions are creations of corporate ad campaigns.

Diamond wedding rings, Christmas consumerism, and bacon are notable examples.

[Lamoni]

Strahcoin:

Use of the attack helicopter meme is not kosher on these boards. Unofficial warning for trolling.

[Bear Stearns]

A lot of neoliberals are neoliberals because they personally benefit from being so.

[Emulation White]

Of the Scandinavian/Nordic model countries, only Norway was actually socialist at any point (that being the period of Labour Party majority in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s. Even then, it wasnt not really a planned economy, since the Labour Party prioritized Keynesian economics over the pursuit of a completely socialist system, and the party distanced itself from the more radical communists of the time.


How so?



Do you oppose discrimination based on the parts of a person's identity that person cannot choose or change (e.g sex, race, etc.)?

Definitions? What definitions?

How would it confuse the populace?

1. Interesting. It still caused a significant drop in their economy, however, so my point still stands.
2. For one, social justice promotes the idea that justice is based on immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Another is the idea of legal abortion on request - killing the unborn doesn't seem at all like progress. Moreover, modern-day "progressivism" tends to come with heavy regulations on businesses, which curb technological innovation and progress.
3. Yes. I generally oppose discrimination based on immutable characteristics. Exceptions include when a business has to choose between two individuals to hire, with one - by no fault of his/her own - has a birth defect that significantly hinders his/her productivity.
4. Marriage, for example, implies a relationship between a man and a woman. Gender, similarly, has been synonymous with sex. Making gender fluid and non-binary implies that a man can be a woman; or someone can be 87% female, 12% male, and 1% neither; or whether one is a boy or a girl depends on whether one feels like a boy or a girl (which, by the way, enforces gender stereotypes); or one can identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter (which is a joke often expressed by those opposing transgenderism).

I’d also like Strahcoin’s response to this:

I'll do my best.

"Western traditionalism" now closely resembles a mixture of family values; pride for one's nation-state and sovereignty; and the classical liberal ideals of individualism, inherent rights, equality under the law, and due process. We believe in keeping values that work and carefully changing values that don't.
EDIT: Also, we believe the nation should achieve a balance of Judeo-Christian and secular values.

And I'm not a monarchist. I prefer a constitutional republic because I believe the people should have a say in who leads them, and the government should serve the people (not the other way around).

So, do you still feel justified and intellectually honest terming your beliefs as "Traditionalism"? I don't mean that in a contentious way, just your honest opinion. Nothing about your beliefs strikes me as being from Tradition since they are relatively recent introductions stemming from modernity. Why not just disassociate from the term since it's neither accurate or productive?

[Emulation White]

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

Moreover, other traditions abandoned by contemporary conservatives include homosexuality, public nudity, "the natural order of slavery"... Hell, today's conception of "individualism" is entirely a product of capitalism and at odds with the communitarianism of traditional communities.

Certainly; it could've been a longer post, but I respect brevity. "Traditionalism" seems to be a funny term and quite oxymoronic. It's a fetishized ideal that's not actually implemented or strove towards. I don't concur that individualism is totally a product of capitalism, I am confident biology is a prime determinant. Capitalism could certainly exacerbate it in cultures without firm collective identities, whereas it's used for communal benefit in cultures that do possess it, such as the Zakat Charity in Islam or Jewish use of capital for Jewish interests and welfare.

[Cekoviu]

A lot of neoliberals are neoliberals because they personally benefit from being so.

Feel the Stirn.

[Chernoslavia]

I'm a religious populist progressive because I protect what I see as human rights after studying the holocaust when young which robbed people of their rights and had people choose who can be born.

Human rights determines all my domestic views and understanding reality shapes my foreign policy views.

Atleast the rights you are okay with...

[Vesistan]

I can't speak for your first question, but I can offer this; there is no such thing as (Western) Traditionalism. The current perception of Western Traditionalism is illusory and a construction. Let's get into it...

•The illusion of Nobility associated with Monarchism: Instead of the rosy view currently propagated; Monarchism is the result of political and economic exploitation, deception, nepotism and force. Monarchism is not the result of Divine and Just leaders assuming their rightful throne; it is the result of ambition and cunning, like organized crime.

•The way you and most others percieve Traditionalism is not accurate because social mores have constantly changed: "Traditionalists" support Law and Order, but have conveniently turned their backs on their ancestors who survived through brutal murder, stealing, raiding and cannibalism after stepping out of the primordial soup. "Traditionalists" support family values, yet do not practice the time honored tradition of honor killing. How about dueling? When a man disrespects you, do you believe in the right in fighting him to the death? If not, once again, where is the tradition? What about bride kidnapping? Where is its renaissance? Human sacrifice, ritual scarring, prostitution, hello, are you there?

So, what masquerades as "Traditionalism" today is merely moral posturing born from the West's obsession with humanism and comfort. Natural Law? More like cherry picked conveniences expediant to one's world view...

You are not incorrect, but I think you misunderstand the concept of a traditionalist ideal in relation to a traditionalist reality. It is true, that in its worst form modern traditionalism is, as you said, simply moral posturing from the high ground provided by modern extreme material well-being. But likewise, there can be heard (less on the internet) a more calm and reserved traditionalism, that has respect for modern plentitude as the fruits of a noble tree, but which knows that without its healthy roots, the tree will wither and die.

And when traditionalism is specified as opposed to a tradition what is not meant is a singular practise, traditional or not, such as dueling, stoning or human sacrifice. What is meant is thinking that is subject to a timeless ideal. It is from men that have held such high ideals that all the fruits of modernity have originated.

There has not existed in history a civilization which neglected the importance of maintaining healthy traditions, as such civilizations die off relatively quickly. To truly progress, and not regress, a civilization needs to orient itself towards a timeless, or eternal, ideal.

[New Bremerton]

If I believe that liberal traditions should be defended at all costs, what does that make me? Liberal or conservative?

[True Refuge]

If I believe that liberal traditions should be defended at all costs, what does that make me? Liberal or conservative?

Progressivism doesn’t really have traditions. It’s kind of inherent to the movement.

If you’re talking about actual liberalism, that’s more concerned with economic freedom or universal rights than traditions.