Consume Product

It's marxism. And marxism is retarded on so many levels. It's all based on post-modernism, which is the idea that nothing good or worthy or beautiful exists so we should just tear everything down and burn it and rape little babies.

The left (in the US) are focused on destroying everything. In order to do so, they must remove the individual from the equation, since all of their policies end up hurting everyone. They must pit groups of people against each other and force them to fight so that they can lord over everything. And when they are successful, they set up more groups to fight each other so they can seize more power. I think that's called the Hegelian dialectet or something.

They have seized control of the corporations, the churches, every institution you can imagine through this process. Corporations are now focused on trying to destroy as many lives as possible. They don't even try to make money anymore. It's ridiculous.

The important thing to remember is that they don't want a race fight. If whites rise up, then they will remove leftists from everything and reset the culture and the economy and the government. It's not that they don't want fighting, they just don't want the fighting to end. Which is why they are fine with asians fighting blacks or whatever, but not whites. They genuinely fear us because we possess actual power to actually change things. See, other groups of people, when they see their elite are looting and pillaging and raping, want to join the elite so they can do the same. Whites, on the other hand, when they see that, they go berserk and start slaughtering their elite.

The way you defeat marxism and post-modernism is not to engage at their level at all. Don't even pretend like they have anything worthwhile to say. Mock them mercilessly, and when they cry, mock them crying. Grind them into dust. Give them free helicopter rides. Don't treat them like humans or like a worthy adversary. They are ridiculously incompetent and childish and so deserve not even our respect as proper enemies.

Instead, identify real debate or sparring partners, and actual people who have real power, and treat them with the respect they deserve.

You got elaborate answers, so I'll keep it short:

It is an ideological term that isn't even relevant.

> a minority of wealthy capitalists are against the workers

This is just self-interest. If you are wealthy, you don't want to spend too much money on workers, and if you are a worker, you want to get as much as possible. This conflict is subject to negotiation. Also many of those wealthy were "workers" themselves, or are still working and getting wealthy off of it. To divide people up into such groups is unreasonable, because on one hand it is rather a gradient, and on the other subject to change in time.

> Conpro seems to think these capitalists are (((capitalists)))

Well, it's a bit more complicated. Do you know who the most fervent leftist-communists are? Rich jews and their offspring. Those who believe they are too smart and elevated to work a singular day in their lives. They consider themselves superior, in the sense that they believe they are intellectual leaders of the oppressed (which once were workers, today are niggers and imported 3rd world scum).

On one hand they want to "atone" for the sin of their existence as rich, on the other they want to destroy our people through various means.

> But it seems like successful gentile capitalists or corporations may tend to act like (((capitalists)))

Yes, there are brainwashed idiots who bought into their ideology. And it doesn't matter if they set fire for a good purpose or if they are passionate arsonists - the fire is the same.

> So is "class consciousness" something the right-wing is generally lacking, while "race consciousness" may be something the left-wing is lacking?

It is clear that there are differences between individuals and groups. For one, groups exist BECAUSE there are so many differences that it constitutes a group on its own. For example men and women - clearly massive differences. Individuals can also vary a lot, for example there are individuals who are unique and known world-wide. You could also subdivide them into their own groups, where out of a pool of 1000000, 900000 are similar in one aspect, 10000 are similar in another aspect, 100 are truly unique, different from all others.

So it's clear for example that programmers will be similar to some degree. Or that construction workers will be similar. Or that teachers will be similar. The conditions that lead a person to become either of those require the same traits, and also the same limitations.

It makes no sense to see groups as "classes" or "races" only. But be assured that different "races" ARE one of those significant differences, like blacks killing 20+ times as many Whites as vice versa, or being given permission to declare terrorism and violence against Whites, but vice versa it's criminal "hate speech" (call for violence).

This is something most people on both isles are (willfully) ignorant about. Then there is the jewish problem even more people are ignorant about.

> Class consciousness

That is, to repurpose a Marxist term, false consciousness. Only a moron completely bereft of a moral compass and filiality would side with a Nigerian against his own brother if, and just because, the former is a proletarian and the latter is bourgeois. However, that is what Marxism demands.

It's no different to nutters with false religious ideas who insist, for instance, that you should side with a Nigerian against your own brother if, and just because, the former is a Christian and the latter is an atheist or of some other religion.

Any political ideology or religion that doesn't harmonize with filiality is false.

> Capitalism

The things that drive 'capitalism', e.g. benefit- and profit-seeking, do not require yids. The French counter-revolutionaries were good examples of anti-capitalist Rightists. In generally being closer to them than to any other Western political movement, I am also anti-capitalist, but for different reasons than the Left, such as that capitalism doesn't equalize people enough, a concern with which I have zero sympathy.

Capitalism is actually very good for the Left: Leftists are just too dumb to see it. Capitalism benefits from globalization, because capitalists ideally like to move capital and labour across borders as interchangeable cogs in a world marketplace without restriction. Capitalism benefits from social liberalism and social excess, because you sell more when people have licentious rather than austere attitudes. Capitalism benefits from feminism, because women become economically productive assets and are no longer merely economic consumers. Capitalism drives people away from *Gemeinschaften* and what Marx called the 'idiocy of rural life', because the city is where such things as employment and private property are found. Capitalism destroys spiritualism because many people, sufficiently contented by the abundance of material objects, no longer seek contentment from other, non-material means. These are just the points that have came to mind without putting much effort into it.

Thus, everywhere you look, capitalism and Leftism are co-constitutive, fitting together like hand in glove. The Left's only complaints, ultimately, are those of the extreme and impatient, that capitalism hasn't been faster and more intense in its effects: not enough equality, not enough freedom, not enough individualism, not enough materialism. Not enough of what they want fast enough.

You'll find plenty of apologists for capitalism outside of the Left for the simple reason that they see the Left opposing it and therefore think that it must be theirs to defend. For the Centre, fair enough. It is yours to defend. The reality is that people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were very bad for the Right, very good for the Centre, and, in the long-term, very good for the Left.

For which president was it that brought in Martin Luther King Day and amnestied three million illegal immigrants? Surely a Democratic one, right? Wrong! It was Reagan. In 1983 and 1986, respectively.

Which British Prime Ministers said that they would lower immigration? Technically, just about all of them. But that includes most or all of those considered Rightists: Thatcher, Cameron, and Johnson chief among them.

Why would any non-Rightist dislike such heads of state and government, then? It is only because they falsely believe that these people are all 'nationalists' and 'racists' and the like, when it couldn't be further from the truth. Look at how many 'conservative' yids surrounded Thatcher: Leon Brittan, Michael Howard (Hecht), Keith Joseph, Nigel Lawson, Oliver Letwin, Malcolm Rifkind, Stephen Sherbourne (also homosexual), Alfred Sherman, David Wolfson, and Britain's Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits.

Thatcher knew that they were all yids, but simply didn't care because, far from being a 'racist', she was a filthy philo-semite who believed that yids were superior and thus well deserved such extreme over-representation. Around a quarter of her cabinet was yiddish at one point, in a country from which almost every kike was expelled in 1290 but which is now around 0.4% yiddish. 0.4% of the inhabitants were around 25% of cabinet members? Possibly more disproportionately yiddish even than the Biden Administration.

David Cameron, who himself has yid ancestry, even joked that the Tory Party was now the Torah Party, in reference to the sheer yiddishness of the Tories in his own time. A new generation of yids, such as Stanley Fink; Andrew Feldman; Richard Harrington; Howard Leigh; Ian Livingston, of 'Polish-Lithuanian Jewish' descent; and Grant Shapps had come to dominate the party.

Then people wonder why the Tories have since become so comical as to be more completely dominated by Indians, Pakistanis, and niggers than the more Leftist Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and has sunk to such lows that an unsightly Nigerian Yoruba negress is now in charge, expelling all of her main rivals - most notably, deputy leader Robert 'Jew-Wife' Jenrick - from the party, and running this once-behemoth of British politics into the ground.

But what do people expect? Given that it was dominated by yids decades earlier, the party's eventual capture by all kinds of other nons seems inevitable. It's like South Africa: they captured it from the Whites and are losing it to the niggers, leading them to emigrate *en masse*. The yid is good at capturing but not so good at managing and maintaining what he has already captured: he has a tendency to later lose his grip on what he has captured, and thus his control has never been permanent.

ln conclusion, as someone most in the vein of the counter-revolutionary Rightists, defending capitalism and the likes of Adam Smith against the Left isn't my fight. At the same time, attacking capitalism by sympathizing with such Left-Wing concepts as 'class consciousness', 'class struggle', and 'class war' also isn't my fight. I don't need Marx's pseudoscientific paradigm or other any Left-Wing nonsense to see capitalism for what it is. As for capitalism and what was once more openly labelled Judeo-Capitalism, capitalism minus kikes is bad enough; capitalism plus kikes gives you the bageller-dominated clownshows that were the Thatcher, Cameron, and Biden governments.

"Class" is a red herring and perpetuated by academian (((Marxists.))) Aristocracies were always known by bloodlines.