You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] collegetoker ago 

Capitalism doesn't care about the preservation of culture and nation and inevitably destroys both as it needs to infinitely grow to be sustainable.

0
0

[–] 10470130? ago 

Capitalism is purely an economic model, so I doubt it has feelings of any kind. But hey, maybe panpsychism is real.

That being said, it's a system ultimately devised by and perpetuated by human beings who, as far as we know, can think and feel, so if capitalism is "unfeeling" it's because the humans practicing it are behaving in unethical/immoral ways.

Ultimately what is causing the crisis of the western world and its economy is the lack of ethics and morality. Nietzsche said "God is dead, and we have killed him" not in the sense that he was happy about this. Though a huge critic of Christianity and religion in general, he saw that western civilization had been successful in stripping away its underlying moral foundation. Without such a foundation, it leaves populations wide open for rule by despots. Which interestingly enough, is precisely what happened.

Whether people like it or not, western civilization was indeed built upon a Christian foundation. It dictated the morals and ethics by which a population was expected to live by. Enter postmodern thought, whose proponents claim that such a morality was like a chain on the human mind and will. Now they state that the mind and will don't exist at all. You see it everywhere, from the justice system ("if determinism is true, can you punish someone for stealing, since it was predetermined that they were going to steal from birth onward?") to fat acceptance ("I cannot be held accountable for my fatness, since I was born this way"). Born this way. Sound familiar?

Decades upon decades later, there still is no gay gene, no transgender gene (or mechanism of action for that matter) no fat gene. Yet, we were born this way.

The way I see it, it's an offshoot of Behaviorism. The notion within psychology that humans are big organic machines, nothing more. And as such, if science can find the mechanism, they can exploit that mechanism toward ones own ends.

This idea that we have no free will, no self determinism, that we are hostages to our biology is so endemic to western society, most people don't realize they actually think this way.

Further research has shown that behaviorism was highly flawed, and an incomplete model of the human psyche. But it's just so damned convenient to have your populace believe they are organic automatons. Let Daddy Government tell you what to be, how to be and why to be.

This is why western civilization is in chaos. We have lost our moral foundation, and are desperately clinging to whatever snake oil is being sold.

Marxism, socialism, postmodernism are all snake oil. Postmodernism is absurd to any thinking individual and Marxism and socialism have failed anywhere they've been tried.

While capitalism, and religion for that matter, have their faults, the capitalist society with underlying Christian moral roots has done more to lift the most people out of poverty than any other system ever devised by man.

Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I say this all as a non-Christian, btw (agnostic).

0
0

[–] White-Supremacist ago 

I think this is a modern day misunderstanding to the source of certain issues. Many of these issues can be solved without the need for a dictator.

The prime issue today, this exists in most nations, is the federal reserve. http://i.imgur.com/eoChcXj.pngPNG This is the illegal usury that enslaves and oppressed all Americans. This stolen wealth (well over a trillion a year) goes directly to the owners of the federal reserve. This makes them the unseen oligarchy of the USA. This is why the .1% are so insanely wealthy and have more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.

This tiny group of people do not give a shit about you, nationalism or your people. A lot of people today see issues with their nation and economy and believe that the problem is a lack of communism or socialism. Really the issue is the federal reserve owners stealing immense amounts of wealth and inacting policies which undermine the value of the people.

It's true there is work needed to be done to solve these issues, but I believe it can be done without the need for a dictator. Maybe I am wrong, I ask myself this question daily. The only reference I have is commies versus nazis 1920s-1940s.

What I want to do is unify everyone in the USA and on Earth focused against the world bankers. There is an absurd amount of benefit to this idea that isn't trivial to explain. We want the majority of hispanics out of the USA, fair enough right? So the idea is to aid them with their tyranny and corruption once ours is dealt with. Not only will they happily go, nobody can shame you in the process. This is vital. It would also lay the ground work for proceeding towards other nations on Earth, Europe, South America, Africa (blacks) and so on.

The things I fear losing in the USA seem likely to be lost in course of a dictator rising to power. Dictators aren't trivial business once they come to power. The subject of the world bankers might be the most important subject on Earth, sadly so few seem to appreciate the gravity. What happened to Nazi Germany? I suppose Hitler kicked out the world bankers, guess what the world bankers did afterwards? If you don't take away their power globally, educate the fuck out of everyone on the topic on Earth, they will just fuck up the world and your nation no matter what you do.

Those who do not learn from histories mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

0
1

[–] 10469895? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I agree with you to a point. A "benevolent dictatorship" is certainly not the answer, not to mention nothing more than a wet dream.

Where I differ is your assessment of the .1% versus the rest of us. Your forgetting something called the Pareto principe. It's basically a mathematical economic model that predicts that all of the money automatically flows to a smaller and smaller percentage as time goes on. This has been born out by observation of real life economic history.

Its basically this: obtaining wealth is very difficult, but once you have wealth, it's easier to become even more wealthy. An example would be in business, it's hard to start a business and make it successful. But once that business is successful, more people are more likely to buy your product/services, invest capital, etc.

Look at celebrities as another example, it's hard to become A-list. But once you do, your income grows exponentially, almost without even trying. People bend over backward to give them free products and services, that would cost the rest of us a hell of a lot of money, in the hopes that they drive up business. Which it actually does, so it's a win/win, and such opportunities are far, far more likely to present themselves once you are already wealthy and successful.

This Pareto principle also applies to productivity. Out of roughly 100 employees, about 20 of them are going to produce about 80% of the company product/service. As the company gets larger, the number of high producers in relation to number of employees gets even smaller.

Play a game of monopoly to see this principle in action.

Think of it as a form of evolution. Economically speaking, it's the survival, and thriving, of the fittest. Note: this is why communism and socialism ultimately fail. It's basically humans trying to circumvent the laws of nature, which might work for a time, but entropy gets its way in the end.

And there is no answer to the Pareto principle problem. Even when you try to redistribute from the top to stratify the wealth, production, etc. it just goes right back to the top.

I despise Wikipedia, but it provides a decent explanation of the principle, go to the Applications tab to slip the mathematical jargon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution