Forums / Discussion / General

Yes. Although it's multi-faceted, and not entirely just one explanation. One can make the case that the traditional base that was anti-consumerist (tends to be left-leaning) abandoned the idea for identity politics leaving anti-consumerism to be a growing staple of alt-right culture.
Many view that consumerist culture is hollow, subversive to traditional cultural values, and is degenerative towards moral standards – replacing meaningful things with obsession over things that they view is worthless or meaningless.
Rants about Jews is because Jews are overwhelmingly represented in Hollywood, and are responsible for a lot of the media culture that focuses overwhelmingly on what, they view, as anti-white attitude, blinding would be race-concious people into a state of perpetual nostalgia lull. Soyboys are a reflection of this culture, that instead of focusing on traditional things like getting a good job, starting a family, they exist in a perpetual cycle of adolescence, obsessing over the newest gadgets or piece of media.
By the way, Jews being over-represented in Hollywood is due to several things. 1) Historically, Hollywood was primarily built by Jews, the first original studios were founded by Jewish Americans. 2) It's an industry that any entry requires deep connections, and it's just simply easier to get connected via family, religious organization, or ethnicity. (By the way, this is not unique to Jews either, there are a hell of a lot of industries that are predominately dominated by certain ethnicities, but because they ain't the Jews, they ain't the News).

Not quite sure what you mean by anti-consumerism. Do you mean people who are against ingesting mass media aimed at the most consumers or people who advocate for policies harmful to consumers? I'm guessing the former, but feel free to correct me.

Media has been attempting to expand the demographics they appeal to to generate more revenue. As the average income of various demographics, especially China over the past decade, has increased the desire to capitalize off of those markets has increased. There are more genuine motives to increase representation of various minorities given that a majority of media in the US comes from Californian studios, but the real reason is to capitalize off of demographics that are gaining more disposable income and expanding the customer base.

The problem is that this approach is driven by shallow profit and ideological motives rather than inspired narrative design. It leads to representations that are often unflattering (see Finn's role in the Star Wars films) or extremely token (Phasma being the first female trooper). To fans of these media franchises this is often a very notable bullet on the list of complaints in these films, but it's also an opportunity for those on the complete opposite end of the ideological spectrum to gain a platform. They don't care about the story being good, they care about the story having too many minorities. So they think they'll find friends in bashing the media in question and embed themselves there. You'll find the opposite happens too with people who have no interest in a piece of media defending it with their life just because it promotes representation they agree with; not gonna argue that that's not a good thing but just illustrating it as an example.

The conversation is so dominated by these two extreme ends ("you just hate minorities so that means this property is great", "you put minorities in this so that's why it's bad") that it's incredibly distracting from any rational discussion. One of the better ways I've seen to combat people on this is to just call them out on whether they actually watch/play media or if they're just there to shitstir/complain. It drives a lot of the people that would waste their time and attention on these bigots/ideological crusaders away and lets their threads die out quicker. Wojak posters are usually those types of shitstirrers, just there to revel in people getting in flamewars.

Contarianism, mainly. Popular thing is bad because it's popular and so they need to associate said thing with whatever likeminded contrarians think are "bad people" so more people hate it.

To quote the Communist Manifesto, under capitalism "all fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned."

The anti-consumerist right blames capitalism (and Jews, of course) for the destruction of the nuclear family, loosening of sexual norms, social atomization, immigration, and so on.

Really depends
nazis are anti consumerism, but so are socialsits, and many other groups as well

I can feel someone giving an excuse by quoting a verse from Revelations that warns us about fake Jews who are part of synagouge of Satan.

Interestingly, from my personal experience, the "fake Jews" thing tends to stem primarily from 2 places:
far-left anti-Zionists, who frequently say that Jews who are against Zionism are the real Jews, and Afrocentrism manifested in Nation of Islam, and people like Farakhan. Many in the latter describe themselves as the real descendants of the Israelites, and that modern – read primarily Ashkenazi – Jews are fake.

False.
1. National "socialism" isn't socialism.
2. They are anti-cosumerism when there are Jews, until it's run by white people.

How do you define "socialism"?

Nazis are corporatists, not capitalists

Kenetic Kups, is absolutely, 100% right.

Corporatism is defined "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups."

Corporatism by it's definition is inherently a collectivist ideology, that is, it prioritizes groups of people's interests versus individualist views. It was developed in the 19th century as a "third" way between classic liberalism (laissez-faire) and marxism, and is far-far closer to Syndicalism. "According to corporatist theory , workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction." This is done for the greater good of societies. In layman's terms, think of it rather than individual workers, professionals, companies, etc having some sort of say in the political decision making, it's an entire industry that represents a certain sector; say farmers, or miners, or manufacturers.

It was largely adopted by Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany, and still adopted by European countries post WW2. However, Nazi Germany generally converted the focus of their economy more and more into war-production. Privatization was a means for the Nazis to finance the war-effort.

But they were anti-consumerist not because of the Jews. They were anti-consumerist because the Nazis wanted to, and did, convert the majority of industries from developing consumer goods, to military goods. Consumerism demands industries focus on consumer goods which went against the goals of Nazi Germany's military rearmament.

They were cool with private enterpries – as long as the goal of the enterprise matched that of the State – i.e. if you decide to open up a Shtrudel shop, they would come and say "nein", but if you decide to open up a tank-parts factory or convert your shtrudel shop into a tank parts factory, then you get subsidies, tax breaks, etc.

The reason I asked "how do you define socialism" is that it's a broad economic ideology, and if we are to generalize all those variants of the ideology under a single concept is prioritization of the collection rather than the individual, then Nazis would fit under that umbrella, as they were still, in many ways, collectivist. Indeed Nazis wanted to redefine traditional socialism from Marxist bent of international socialism and class conflict with the idea that all of German society should replace their personal interests to the "common good", which tended to reflect collectivization.

I dont think Fascism could be considered corporatism, the dynamic was more a reversal of corporatism; the state was the absolute authority; when it said "jump" the corporations had to ask "how high" and any who refused were replaced.

Corporatism doesnt really fit unless you count the party itself as the sole large interest group, and even then that party's will is in practice subject to the dictator overruling it.

I believe that there is nothing more just than anti-consumerism. Ever since the beginning of the new world order and destruction of the 2nd world the civilised planet has fallen hostage to globalism and the consumer mindset.

We are made to think that we need useless novelties and rubbish, it is "influenced" into us, advertised to us and shouted at us everyday through the tv and radio. We buy this junk we don't need and within only a few years it is disposed of, buried in the ground or burnt for electricity production. I have seen it all first hand and it won't be long before we have nothing but a polluted, barren and ravaged Earth.

Consumerism is the quick-burn ending of the human race and is the ultimate enemy of our survival.