The trend of capitalism is not toward free markets and private property but to monopolies and concentration of wealth and property. In that, it resembles its old antagonist socialism. It is more productive than socialism because it still has some reliance on markets to set prices and provide incentives to produce. Capitalism is also addicted to cheap labor, which means mass immigration. In the present context, that means mass entry of non-white, Third World labor. It also means feminism, to maximize female workplace presence. Socially, the ideal citizen is the consumer of the most goods and services who also works cheap. That means childlessness (children are expensive). Capitalism ultimately leads to democide, with the disappearance of the original population corrected by importing a new, Third World people. This pattern is not unique to the USA but is being played out all over the capitalist world.
There's an ironic and disturbing aspect to all of this which is that the Western white masses, while enjoying the prosperity brought by capitalism, have also become hopelessly addicted to various aspects of socialism such as "free" health care and college, government retirement programs like Social Security, generous unemployment benefits, and even things like government backed home loans.
Most of these programs were either created or at least massively expanded at the end of WWII at a time when white birth rates were still quite high. As a result few bothered to note that all of these programs implicitly rely on a large group of productive young taxpayers to support them.
The ironic aspect to this is that the native born whites who support sharp immigration restrictions are also effectively calling for the defunding of the social programs they themselves rely on and tend to support. Capitalists can make use of this tension, also quite ironically, by styling themselves as the saviors of modern mass democratic socialism.
The only solution that could save the West culturally is to radically re-evaluate the whole post-war social and cultural consensus. Most notably, feminism and mass female employment (which suppresses white birth rates) as well as "sacred" programs like Social Security.
First World Third World immigrants tend to be a net fiscal cost from the get-go. First World transfer payment programs can't propped up simply by importing them
I didn't make this very clear in my post but I actually agree with you. I think the plan the elites had was that somehow, eventually, the third world trash would stop being useless burdens on society and start contributing. Some of the ordinary white people definitely believe this too, hence my comment about how they ironically oppose immigration but support the idea of finding someone, anyone, to keep the transfer payments going. Whether this plan was ever realistic is not something I addressed and indeed, I don't think it is in general.
There are some groups though, notably Indians, who actually are fairly productive in Western countries. I don't want them here either though. They don't belong in our countries anymore than the more obviously worthless ones who show up and proceed to have 8 kids, get on welfare, and start demanding Sharia law.
The ultimate purpose was, as you say, political. The elites want to replace whites with groups they think will be easier to control or simply out of anti-white hatred.
I don't agree that free markets tend toward monopolies and wealth concentration. That's what Marx predicted, but he was wrong. And capitalism existed for a long time but mass Third World immigration is a post World War II phenemenon. It's political, not economic.
It's possible for immigration to be a net loss for society as a whole, but for the capitalists to still support it and benefit from it. This is what externalizing the costs and privatizing the benefits means. A lot of modern business seems to prefer this kind of arrangement to honest competition. Sadly, this does seem to bolster Marx's argument that free markets tend towards monopoly and wealth concentration. You just need to see the capitalist pursuit of things like government cheap immigrant labor policies and regulatory capture as an extension of their pursuit of monopoly.
Before you know it you'll be making alliances with Catholic integralists with all this talk of the "common good" as the Thomists of the world always viewed with skepticism the individualist approach to salvation, or I mean economics, that came from the Reformation.
The “common good” is a Greek natural law ethics idea. And from that perspective, I reject the idea that we can have a decent society simply by allowing individuals to pursue their own self-interest.
Of course! Now, I don't claim to have read the Summa in it's entirety, but famously Aquinas did a systematic reworking of Greek philosophy, mostly Aristotle, to integrate it into Catholic thought.
“..liberal individualism is itself a collective thing: it arises only in specific racial and cultural collectives, and it can be preserved only by preserving those collectives from rival collectives by erecting political barriers.”
This seems right, but would you agree that the single biggest obstacle to erecting the necessary barriers is, in fact, a liberal individualist mindset?
Yes and no. There's a great deal of moralism that goes along with liberal individualism mindset. Liberals are highly punitive toward white "defectors" from their ethos, i.e., "racists," who don't want to embrace everyone. The problem with liberals is that they think that the whole world wants to be like them, and can be like them, and only refuses to play their game if they are evil. It is highly grandiose. If, however, they can be convinced that their moral system has been hacked by collectivist cheats (other groups), their punitiveness can be turned on outsiders. The key is getting them to abandon a naive, high-minded universalism.
Thank you for providing an insightful and interesting review and analysis of the book and author.
You have also provided and interesting insight into yourself and your views and opinions. Which others may share in part with yourself.
It's always interesting to discover other people's journeys on life and politics.
Many thanks once again, and keep up the good work.
The trend of capitalism is not toward free markets and private property but to monopolies and concentration of wealth and property. In that, it resembles its old antagonist socialism. It is more productive than socialism because it still has some reliance on markets to set prices and provide incentives to produce. Capitalism is also addicted to cheap labor, which means mass immigration. In the present context, that means mass entry of non-white, Third World labor. It also means feminism, to maximize female workplace presence. Socially, the ideal citizen is the consumer of the most goods and services who also works cheap. That means childlessness (children are expensive). Capitalism ultimately leads to democide, with the disappearance of the original population corrected by importing a new, Third World people. This pattern is not unique to the USA but is being played out all over the capitalist world.
There's an ironic and disturbing aspect to all of this which is that the Western white masses, while enjoying the prosperity brought by capitalism, have also become hopelessly addicted to various aspects of socialism such as "free" health care and college, government retirement programs like Social Security, generous unemployment benefits, and even things like government backed home loans.
Most of these programs were either created or at least massively expanded at the end of WWII at a time when white birth rates were still quite high. As a result few bothered to note that all of these programs implicitly rely on a large group of productive young taxpayers to support them.
The ironic aspect to this is that the native born whites who support sharp immigration restrictions are also effectively calling for the defunding of the social programs they themselves rely on and tend to support. Capitalists can make use of this tension, also quite ironically, by styling themselves as the saviors of modern mass democratic socialism.
The only solution that could save the West culturally is to radically re-evaluate the whole post-war social and cultural consensus. Most notably, feminism and mass female employment (which suppresses white birth rates) as well as "sacred" programs like Social Security.
First World Third World immigrants tend to be a net fiscal cost from the get-go. First World transfer payment programs can't propped up simply by importing them
I didn't make this very clear in my post but I actually agree with you. I think the plan the elites had was that somehow, eventually, the third world trash would stop being useless burdens on society and start contributing. Some of the ordinary white people definitely believe this too, hence my comment about how they ironically oppose immigration but support the idea of finding someone, anyone, to keep the transfer payments going. Whether this plan was ever realistic is not something I addressed and indeed, I don't think it is in general.
There are some groups though, notably Indians, who actually are fairly productive in Western countries. I don't want them here either though. They don't belong in our countries anymore than the more obviously worthless ones who show up and proceed to have 8 kids, get on welfare, and start demanding Sharia law.
The ultimate purpose was, as you say, political. The elites want to replace whites with groups they think will be easier to control or simply out of anti-white hatred.
I don't agree that free markets tend toward monopolies and wealth concentration. That's what Marx predicted, but he was wrong. And capitalism existed for a long time but mass Third World immigration is a post World War II phenemenon. It's political, not economic.
You have conflated free markets and capitalism. There is scarcely anything a capitalist hates worse than free markets and competition.
It's possible for immigration to be a net loss for society as a whole, but for the capitalists to still support it and benefit from it. This is what externalizing the costs and privatizing the benefits means. A lot of modern business seems to prefer this kind of arrangement to honest competition. Sadly, this does seem to bolster Marx's argument that free markets tend towards monopoly and wealth concentration. You just need to see the capitalist pursuit of things like government cheap immigrant labor policies and regulatory capture as an extension of their pursuit of monopoly.
Before you know it you'll be making alliances with Catholic integralists with all this talk of the "common good" as the Thomists of the world always viewed with skepticism the individualist approach to salvation, or I mean economics, that came from the Reformation.
The “common good” is a Greek natural law ethics idea. And from that perspective, I reject the idea that we can have a decent society simply by allowing individuals to pursue their own self-interest.
Of course! Now, I don't claim to have read the Summa in it's entirety, but famously Aquinas did a systematic reworking of Greek philosophy, mostly Aristotle, to integrate it into Catholic thought.
“..liberal individualism is itself a collective thing: it arises only in specific racial and cultural collectives, and it can be preserved only by preserving those collectives from rival collectives by erecting political barriers.”
This seems right, but would you agree that the single biggest obstacle to erecting the necessary barriers is, in fact, a liberal individualist mindset?
Yes and no. There's a great deal of moralism that goes along with liberal individualism mindset. Liberals are highly punitive toward white "defectors" from their ethos, i.e., "racists," who don't want to embrace everyone. The problem with liberals is that they think that the whole world wants to be like them, and can be like them, and only refuses to play their game if they are evil. It is highly grandiose. If, however, they can be convinced that their moral system has been hacked by collectivist cheats (other groups), their punitiveness can be turned on outsiders. The key is getting them to abandon a naive, high-minded universalism.