Capitalism is demonstrably shown to work. However, the attempt to intertwine the success of capitalism with the dildo granted Western society a short lived euphoria before becoming a threat to itself. I’m stating this now because for some reason, possibly to do classical conditioning, many immediately make the leap from anti-cultural dildo to inefficient economic concepts that attempt to turn the market into the church. Fascism was a demonstrable economic failure, as was communism. I know many listeners get their stupid economic information from watching hours of amateur YouTube videos praising hitlernomics (such videos may include Greatest Story Never Told, National Alliance videos, etc). We could maybe address why in fact Hitlernomics were piss poor in disective detail on another podcast, but long story short, Hitler ultimately did nothing but create a massive martial economic bubble. The economy was not built for long lasting purposes. It was built for starting a war, and winning a war. Perhaps some might argue that the Germans could maintain stability post-war by basically holding a gun to the head of the world, but that’s ultimately a ridiculous assertion. Again, topic for another time.
Classical liberalism’s champion, John Locke, was an idiot. He makes a very false assumption of humanity and Western peoples. To Locke, human and market interaction is a completely voluntary phenomenon, due to the high intellectual capacity of humans* to desire a more prosperous society through logical and peaceful evaluation. Because of this, he believed a government ought to be small, and strictly serve the whims of the populace to achieve the most prosperous and free society. He also believed all people where born into a morally equal blank state, and that all people have intrinsic value.
It sounds nice because it’s completely self-empowering. When libertarians/liberals make claims of human importance, it’s a self-valuing claim with a collective cushion; basically saying “I am very important” with safe language. Continue reading →
It never ceases to amaze me to see the lengths women will go to signal status and achieve what they believe to be a higher place in feminism’s trivial pecking order.
The CNN article begins with Mrs. Theresa Corbin’s early life, being totally repulsed by the intellectual barrenness and sexism of Catholicism (lol cool story). The author would spend four years “poking and prodding at world religions and their adherents”(READ: drum circles and exotic boyfriends), before settling for the hijab.
She is vague on specifics, but ultimately converted to Islam two months after 9/11… For reasons totally unrelated to politics I’m sure.
So yesterday with a snicker-snack! the Supreme Court delivered a terrible blow to women’s rights or something with a split decision in favor of businesses refusing to cover contraception on the basis of religious beliefs.
Behold, America’s impending theocratic oppression. Or something.
Let me start by saying not everything in this essay is directly from my mind alone. I received much inspiration from history, Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, and Erik Leddihn’s The Menace of the Herd. I’m not sure anyone can make the claim their thoughts are without influence. I would also like to state that I have not always been anti-democracy. I was raised an all-American catholic boy, passionate about my “freedom” and “individuality”. Like most kids, I didn’t stick with the political influence of my parents. I bounced around ideology to ideology, reading manifestos, novels, and articles. Conservative schools of thought, Neo-liberalism, communism, national socialism, libertarianism, and anarchism (and its capitalistic sub-schools). Being young and naive, I was trying to discover the Holy Grail of politics. A perfect system, a world of pros without cons. While I now firmly believe that to be an impossibility, I believe specific forms of government are far more efficient for all of man, and man would do well to remove comforting lies of “equality” and “self empowerment” from his mind, less they corrupt the potential of mankind.
It is a good idea when analyzing any social phenomenon or institution to look at how it is viewed in the present context by various groups in society and ask why they hold the view that they do. This can be a revealing exercise. If we know about the ideology of a certain group, and we know their general opinion of a certain institution, we can put them together and perhaps see something in that institution that we may have missed if we were to rely entirely on our own reactions, perspectives and prejudices. (MFW Standpoint theory.)
When it comes to capitalism today in the West, we can safely say that it is viewed in a poor light by the liberal intellectual establishment, commonly referred to as the Brahmins. If you are a former libertarian turned reactionary, I urge you to put aside whatever perspective bias you may be suffering from after years of imbibing Rothbard and living inside the libertarian echo-chamber. Pick up the NY Times and see what people with actual power in society today think of capitalism. It’s an interesting contrast from the endless praise and even outright worship it gets from the bow-tie/fedora sect.
Q: Why are the liquor store, projects, and quickie loans on the Republican side?
A: The negroes can’t afford to live in the white Democrat side. LOL when you realize that the Democrats achieve what white racial separatists desire, and with efficient cars to boot!
The Caucasian ethnic group has long amused itself with creative story telling, a habit forever immortalized by the countless religions, epics, novels and plays put down to paper by creative light skinned humans over the years. The art of the narrative is so ingrained in white culture that virtually any situation, no matter how trivial, becomes a riveting drama in the hands of whites. (Try turning on the television, for example.)
Formerly the white man was emotionally invested in his various Abrahamic religions and pursued all manner of heroic, imminently entertaining conflicts in the name of self validation in the face of God. Unfortunately this show was cancelled because a handful of frumpy atheists thought it was too violent for young audiences. Thankfully, another story had been put down to paper long before the death of God: This one was called “The Struggle Against Tyranny” and it found a very large audience. But after a couple centuries or so of defeating all the Evil Bad Guys, this tale had begun to grow rather stale. After all, one could not very well rail against tyrannical despots while living comfortably in a Democracy™ where the individual himself was theoretically responsible for public policy in some fashion or other. The fact that Democracy™, cast as the most moral system of government ever devised, played the role of hero in the story of The Struggle Against Tyranny further complicated matters.
It is a popular argument among the “classical” liberals that theirs is the correct strain of liberal thought, that the popular leftism of today has deviated too far from its roots and is no longer viable.
The classical liberal types argue that their differences in application of liberal ideals are profound; we argue that they are superficial.
That is why, in this short article, we will compare the modern liberal’s infamous “Life Of Julia” with the classical liberal’s threadbare “Free Market.”
Three cheers for democracy in action!–yes, that’s what they called it. I recently received a letter in the mail from my credit union informing me that elections for the board of directors are coming up, and that it is very important for me to carefully screen the candidates and to ponder–with fear and trembling–the most suitable ones. They even had a list of recommended candidates–candidates that are on the cutting edge of faggotry advocacy, and so on. Of course, we all know that democracy is supposed to be an impartial process by which the originator of the election is not at all supposed to be involved in the process due to conflicts of interest, but I guess there’s an exception for everything. “I MEAN, THESE CANDIDATES WERE JUST SU GUD WE HAD TO STRONGLY, STRONGLY RECOMMEND THEM.”