White men need to be a Boss, not a bitch-for-hire ...
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Capitalism turned America from nothing (1976) the most powerful and wealthy nation in human history within 140 years.
((( 1913 Income tax ))) and ((( 1913 Federal Reserve ))) subverted us from a trajectory of pure White greatness, down into a slow dive into ((( inflationary usury debt slavery ))).
No economic system can survive jwish subversion.
The jwish central bank Ponzi suicide scheme is vastly different to White Christian capitalism.
Judging White Christian capitalism based on an economy that's been gang raped to death by jews is like judging a novel based on your experience being gang raped to death by jews.
The southerners fought against this jewish capitalist system tooth and nail for many years. If capitalism were natural to America, why did the Civil war largely occur over this issue?
What we have now is industrial + finance capitalism. It is an entirely jewish system. Hitler spoke of this. The procurement of a man's labor for profit without regard to welfare is jewry in its finest form.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Capitalism is older than than farming, as old as trading.
It's natural law to trade to the highest bidder and keep the profit.
Even animals like cats engage in capitalism when they choose new owners who feed them more or better food.
Kikes scam people under all economic systems that tolerate ((( them ))) : it's ludicrous to blame capitalism for that.
Without kikes and ZOG, White Christians resolve trade injustice with competition or the courts or lynchings.
I believe that where you're getting mixed up is what capitalism means as a word. There are lots of different things that can be considered capitalistic. By your definition, yes, selling to the highest bidder is "capitalist", but capitalism as a cohesive economic theory is much more recent and much more complex.
Capitalism is when there is a dominant mode of production of private owners of capital (means of production, transportation, necessary items for production) extract the labour of workers operating on that capital.
How can a mode of production be dominant? Only if the state apparatus is run and set up in the interests of that mode of production. In this example, it would be a state of the capitalist class, which uses its monopoly on violence to coerce the working class into working for a small minority of capitalists.
The class of capitalists consists of those who would have been considered middle class before the French revolution. They uprooted the old economic system of feudalism/mercantilism and started to implement capitalism. The first place where this socioeconomic theory became mature was the Netherlands, and this was done by jews. Followed shortly after by England, also by jews there. Then followed by France. The United states is a bizarre case where it was partly settled by people entirely reactionary towards the new order (particularly in the south) and partly settled by its biggest advocates (particularly in the north). The current system was, in fact, created by Dutch and english jews. Not Adam Smith, who simply wrote about how it worked 100 years later. It was picked up by the bourgeoisie of Europe, but they knew from what people it came from, which is why in almost every case, after overthrowing the old order, the capitalist class gave emancipation to jewry as a token thank you for their theories.
Capitalism took a back seat to marxism as being the most named jewish economic theory, largely because marx slapped his name on it, but don't let that fool you. It's all made by the same people.
And, moreover, capitalism is a deceptive word. Capital always exists no matter what system is in place. So do profit motives. Whether that profit goes to one person, to the workers who own the capital, or to an aristocrat is the issue. Capitalism is a question of who *owns* the capital. Is it the state? Is it gentry? Is it democratically owned? Is it owned by slavers? If none of these, it is privately owned, and thus capitalism.
Capitalism is a complex creature. This does not even scrape the surface of the more modern, and much worse, finance capitalism.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
You need to link me to PRECISELY what variant of capitalism you are arguing against.
I can't discuss this with you when you're feeding me fragments of your subjective version of capitalism, one shard at a time.
I'm arguing classic capitalism in it's most fundamental form.
>Capitalism is a complex creature
No it isn't.
I have no clue what bells and whistles and agents and mechanisms your variant includes to make it such a complex creature... but it does make me wonder if your criticism of capitalism variant #76523 is really a criticism of all the vestigial shit you've chosen to include.
>vestigial shit you've chosen to include
That's literally just capitalism. You're describing vagueness that can be applied to every economic theory that has ever existed, even communism.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
... Which falsely pretends CEOs are less prone to the corruption of wealth and power than Congressmen are.
This is like filling your car's gas tank with water to prevent the low-gas-light from being lit.
Moving the problem is not solving the problem.
You think wage labor was invented int he 17th century?
Capitalism wasn't invented. It's the natural order. You give me goods, I give you goods. Do you think we should all be serfs or something?