Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory Why billionaires finance the left? Are they retarded?

nessahan alita

nessahan alita

Banned
-
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
36
Online
2d 18h 19m
These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics” (Frederick Howe, The Confessions of a Monopolist, 1906)

Last week, in a WhatsApp group, I talked with some old friends from school days, almost all classic liberal entrepreneurs, about the following dilemma: how is it possible that a successful businessman like Jorge Paulo Lemann — “forged in the purest capitalism”, as summed up one of my friends — finance, for example, an education magazine like Nova Escola, perhaps the most influential publication in the area, whose content is radically leftist and anti-capitalist, and for which Marxist Paulo Freire is “the greatest Brazilian educator"? For what reason does a guy who made a fortune in capitalism — and who, therefore, can be considered a representative of that system — promote the dissemination of socialist ideas within schools?

It is clear that the dilemma can only exist if the two concrete facts that make it up are known: that Lemann is a prominent capitalist businessman and that, at the same time, institutionally promotes education with a strong Marxist and neo-Marxist bias. My friends knew the first one well. That is why, being classic liberal, they admired Lemann and saw him as an emblem of the market economy. But they ignored the second entirely. They had no idea that the Lemann Foundation would house the Nova Escola, and even less of the importance of this magazine (which, since it was founded by another capitalist entrepreneur, Victor Civita, promotes all sorts of “progressive” agendas in classrooms, radical feminism to third world anti-Americanism) for left-wing ideologues of education. That is why they cannot even conceive, and tend to ridicule as fanciful, that apparent paradox, that of a notorious capitalist fostering a socialist political culture.

The owners of the greatest fortunes in the world, and especially those who have big foundations in their name, use their large capital to promote leftist agendas, which are often radical
Mutatis mutandis, this inability to understand is structurally similar to that of the well-known journalist according to which there is no left in the USA because, after all, the country is "the mecca of capitalism". Naturally, like me, my friends laugh at such an opinion, not realizing that their astonishment at the mere possibility of a great capitalist helping to spread far-left ideas is just a more subtle version of that piece of involuntary humor.

But if, in the case of the journalist, the misunderstanding may be due to a certain intellectual destitution, I can guarantee that these friends of mine are intelligent people. No, the problem here is not one of intelligence, but of habit. It resides in an addiction of reasoning, acquired in our elementary education, which consists of analyzing the political reality based on merely encyclopedic definitions, resulting in factually absurd syllogisms like this: if socialism is synonymous with the left, then capitalism can only be right; and therefore, a capitalist businessman would never be an objective ally of leftist radicals.

Curiously, that reasoning defect is itself contaminated with elements of Marxism, starting with the theory of the material determination of consciousness. Thus, a person's ideas would be determined by their respective position in class society. A capitalist entrepreneur — or bourgeois, in classical terminology — would necessarily espouse capitalist ideas and values. A proletarian, in turn, would necessarily defend socialist ideas and values. All of this enshrines in the national imagination a cliché as ridiculous and denied by the facts as difficult to eradicate, even in intelligences above average: the suggestion that employers are (or should be) always on the right; employees, always on the left. Or, in an even more burlesque version, that the rich are on the right; poor, left. The former, to maintain the status quo and guarantee their privileges; the latter, to revolutionize the social structure and improve their living conditions.

Now, reality shows precisely the opposite. It is enough to note that, today, the owners of the greatest fortunes in the world, and especially those who have large foundations in their name, use their large capital to promote leftist agendas (euphemistically called “progressives”), often radical. Perhaps the most striking example is that of George Soros, one of the main financiers of extremist movements such as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and Antifa. There is no need to make much speculation about the reason for this to see the fact that things are really like that.

Therefore, when asked by one of those friends about what my hypothesis would be to explain the dilemma with which I opened this article, I replied that I did not have a fully elaborated one, limiting myself to verifying the objective existence of apparently paradoxical facts. One possible explanation, however, is that, contrary to the materialist axiom, the great capitalist entrepreneurs, holders of economic power, no longer have a bourgeois-capitalist mentality, but, on the contrary, aristocratic and dynastic, wishing to protect themselves from fluctuations of the market through association with political-military power. In that sense, although they have become richer in the market economy, they would no longer consider it conducive to their interests, seeing in the capitalist order a danger rather than an opportunity. Tired of adventures and risks, the former entrepreneur then becomes a new aristocrat.

This hypothesis is reinforced, for example, by the confession of George Soros himself, who, in a significantly article entitled “The Capitalist Threat”, published in The Atlantic in February 1997, writes with all the lyrics, and without an ounce of shame: “Although I made a fortune in the financial market, today I fear that the unrestricted strengthening of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values to all walks of life are threatening our open and democratic society. The main enemy of open society, I believe, is no longer the communist threat, but the capitalist threat”.

The idea that left-wing wealthy people are an impossibility is an addiction of reasoning contaminated with elements of Marxism, starting with the theory of material determination of conscience
The hypothesis summarized above is not mine, but that of the philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. Almost two decades ago, Olavo was already reflecting on the theme, which even today sounds far-fetched to our provincial speaking class. To qualify types like Soros, Rockefeller, Ford — and, to a lesser extent, perhaps even our Lemann —, the philosopher coined the term metacapitalists. In the article “History of fifteen centuries”, published in the Jornal da Tarde in 2004, metacapitalists are defined as “the class that transcended capitalism and transformed it into the only socialism that ever existed or will exist: the socialism of the grand masters and social engineers at their service”. According to Olavo, unlike the classic capitalist bourgeois, who had accumulated fortune as the sole basis of their power, metacapitalists also base their power on the control of the political, bureaucratic and military apparatus, resembling, in this sense, the old European aristocracies, just that, unlike them — whose power was socially legitimized by the prestige gained thanks to military triumphs against the barbarian invaders, at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire —, the new metacapitalist aristocracy has a power as substantial as it is illegitimate, based solely on self-interest and in the formation of financial and political oligopolies.

In comparison with the long duration of the medieval and absolutist orders — which together amount to almost 15 centuries — the liberal-bourgeois order itself, founded on the free market, would have been an ephemeral episode in human history. Seeming to describe precisely the current scenario of the year 2021, in which the owners of the greatest Western fortunes invest heavily in fostering leftist radicalism and in the procession of the Chinese communist dictatorship, Olavo explains: “A century of economic and political freedom is enough to make some capitalists so formidably wealthy that they no longer want to submit to the whims of the market that enriched them. They want to control it, and the instruments for that are three: the domain of the State, for the implantation of the statist policies necessary for the eternalization of the oligopoly; stimulating socialist and communist movements that invariably favor the growth of state power; and the regimentation of an army of intellectuals who prepare public opinion to say goodbye to bourgeois freedoms and enter happily into a world of omnipresent and obsessive repression (extending to the last details of private life and everyday language), presented as a paradise adorned at the same time with the abundance of capitalism and the 'social justice' of communism. In this new world, the economic freedom essential to the functioning of the system is preserved to the strict extent necessary to enable it to subsidize the extinction of freedom in the political, social, moral, educational, cultural and religious domains. With this, the megacapitalists change the very basis of their power. They no longer rely on wealth as such, but on the control of the political-social process. Control that, freeing them from adventurous exposure to market fluctuations, makes them a durable dynastic power, a neoaristocracy capable of crossing through the variations of fortune and the succession of generations, sheltered in the stronghold of the State and international organizations... The new aristocracy is not born, like the previous one, from military heroism rewarded by the people and blessed by the Church. It is born out of the Machiavellian premeditation based on self-interest and, through a false clergy of subsidized intellectuals, it blesses itself”.

Also in 2004, in a lecture given at the OAB in São Paulo, Olavo explains the problem even more clearly, clarifying why the world financial establishment (Wall Street, Davos, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation etc.) supports invariably movements and organizations with a statist and socialist bias. “To understand this” — says Olavo — “it is necessary to investigate a mechanism that is generated by capitalism itself, and that works like this: the subject, within the market economy, thrives and enriches in such a way that, when he reaches a point, he perceives that he has no more reason to continue subjected to market fluctuations. The market that produced him, from then on, becomes a threat. So it is necessary to fall outside the laws of the market to guarantee the continuation of the great fortune for the following generations. The individual, then, enters with a type of consideration that is no longer capitalist, but that is of a dynastic order… From that moment on, the approach that these people take of society no longer corresponds to a capitalist perspective, but to a perspective of aristocratic type... When these great fortunes start to reason in dynastic terms, they have to overcome the market economy mechanism that constituted them, and there is only one way to do that: you have to dominate the state. This means that the power of these large organizations is economic to a certain extent, but then it becomes a political-military power that is independent of the course of economic affairs because it has the means to direct, dominate and strangle the mechanism of the market. These people [owners of great fortunes] I call metacapitalists. Metacapitalists are those who started out as capitalists, but have already transcended this condition and become a kind of new aristocratic caste”.

Now, if the objective is no longer just to enrich, but to dominate the State, and, more broadly, consciences, which model of political regime took this domain to the verge of perfection, developing a technology to control society never seen in other historical contexts? The socialist model, of course. And it is also obvious that metacapitalists only support socializing measures because they know that, in strictly economic terms, a full socialist regime is a logical and practical impossibility. They know this, moreover, as the Bolshevik Nomenklatura has always known, at least since Lenin launched the New Economic Policy. Complete nationalization of the economy is not feasible, and in order to remain standing, any socialist-type government must tolerate some degree of market economy, albeit in a clandestine manner (see, on this, USSR: The Corrupt Society — The Secret World of Soviet Capitalism, by Konstantin Simis).

It is precisely this mix of capitalist economics and socialist government that has underpinned the new world order that emerged with the end of the Cold War. In a kind of tacit agreement with the communists, the Western meta-capitalists came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create some form of synthesis between the economic dynamism of liberal capitalism and the efficient technology of social control and the imposition of consensus managed by socialist regimes. It is no wonder that, as a prototype of this synthesis, China is rising to the position of hegemonic power in the contemporary world order. With the tolerance, if not the endorsement, of the metacapitalists. As the Chinese intellectual Di Dongsheng, whom I mentioned in a previous article, suggested that Beijing has always had a strong influence on Wall Street, and will again do so after Joe Biden took office. And although all of this still sounds inconceivable to most people (like my liberal friends), the truth is the one that, 100 years ago, the great British novelist HG Wells (a notorious social democrat) wrote: “The big business is by no means antipathetic to communism. The more it grows, the closer it gets to collectivism”. Bingo!
 
Mountainbikecel

Mountainbikecel

Genetiker und Evolutionspsychologe.
★★★
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Posts
1,784
Online
66d 18h 58m
((()))
they hate proud white societies more than they love money
 
R

RollD20

I just want handholding
-
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Posts
13,852
Online
105d 1h 54m
Most are socially liberal while economical right. Media only shows the part where they agree with the left on social issues mostly.
 
Hail The Bloatlord

Hail The Bloatlord

What joy we had in the locust summer
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
Posts
5,543
Online
108d 19h 31m
didn't read, I'm just here to say that the left, at this point in history, is the best ally of capitalism, as without it, it loses meaning.
 
radishman

radishman

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Posts
9,118
Online
144d 7h 49m
Left sucks their dicks just as hard honestly.
 
Mainländer

Mainländer

Songwritercel
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
37,502
Online
159d 22h 5m
Around the mid 20th century, the left/communists changed their strategy. Instead of trying to attack capitalism directly, they decided to attack the structure that would be the foundation of capitalism: the nuclear family, religious values, etc.

So they largely abandoned the proletarians as the chosen class to lead the revolution with and changed it to classes of supposedly "opressed" people with subjective dissatisfactions; feminists, gayzists, "anti-racist" racist blacks, etc.

Since such subjectively dissatisfied groups can only exist in the middle classes and above (no one who's really poor and has to work as a proletarian the whole day has time to care about feminist or LGBT garbage, for instance), businessmen see it as an opportunity to earn money. Also, keep in mind big businesses ally themselves with state power, driving smaller competition off in such process. So they don't want more capitalism in that sense, they want more socialism.

The ultimate goal is turning the whole world into a Chinese model where only really big corporations allied with the dictatorial state power that controls everything thrive while the rest of the population are basically slaves.

Yes, people who sincerely adhere to feminism, LGBT shit, BLM shit, etc, are all tools of the elites. They are being fooled.
 
Gyros_Pretcel

Gyros_Pretcel

19th c. Church of Hamlossus high priest contender
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Posts
9,396
Online
333d 23h 48m
 
Deleted member 15088

Deleted member 15088

卐 卍࿕࿖࿗࿘ꖦ
-
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
22,116
Online
311d 21h 16m
Progressives don’t target the billionaires financing it. They target the people below them, the actual hard working business owners and landlords and lucky entrepreneurs. The left doesn’t target the people at the top in any form. Look what BLM did. They burned down whos shops? Random locally owned businesses and shop owners’s shops. Who is the mask mandate and curfew that progressives love so much hurting? The little business owners and not the big corps, they’re just gaining money.

Progressives: “it’s the rich it’s the rich!” But ironically they are literally the militant arm of the most rich, and their end goal is complete corporate autocracy. 6 companies own EVERYTHING.

That’s why communists suck. They don’t name the jew. They name random people with some cash, but not the ones with enough money to feed everyone on earth forever.
 
5

50ChadsOfGrey

Officer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Posts
507
Online
9d 16h 32m
Mountainbikecel said:
((()))
they hate proud white societies more than they love money
oy vey the goyim know
 
G

GermaniaIncelia

incel vortex
-
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Posts
2,802
Online
23d 14h 10m
BummerDrummer said:
Progressives don’t target the billionaires financing it. They target the people below them, the actual hard working business owners and landlords and lucky entrepreneurs. The left doesn’t target the people at the top in any form. Look what BLM did. They burned down whos shops? Random locally owned businesses and shop owners’s shops.

Progressives: “it’s the rich it’s the rich!” But ironically they are literally the militant arm of the most rich, and their end goal is complete corporate autocracy.

That’s why communists suck. They don’t name the jew. They name random people with some cash, but not the ones with enough money to feed everyone on earth forever.

this. but there is also the other side of the coin. that the conservative side is also on the side of the rich. neither political side really helps with anything and will always be a cuck to jews.
 
nessahan alita

nessahan alita

Banned
-
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
36
Online
2d 18h 19m
Hail The Bloatlord said:
didn't read, I'm just here to say that the left, at this point in history, is the best ally of capitalism, as without it, it loses meaning.

Stalin was and still is, for almost a century, the most influential man in the world. For Americans, recognizing the power of Stalin’s influence over their entire society is very humiliating. They prefer to explain everything to perfectly secondary local causes. All this murderous fury of the BLM has its origins in the instruction of the Soviet dictator who, in the 1930s, ordered to give any racial conflict the meaning of an class struggle. When he instructed American communists to put aside the proletarians and instead try to win the support of the rich and the beautiful people, he created the world we live in today.
Making the old KGB jealous, the mega-entrepreneurs have become the most devoted and strict inspectors of communist orthodoxy in the media, on the internet and even in private conversations. Once you have escaped the "fair line", they deny you the services of their companies and make you a renegade, a non-person. Stalin was the greatest revolutionary strategist of all time. The effects of his creative action reached America and are still with us. All the national political panorama is today set up according to the scheme he outlined in the 1930s. But of the few who have the intellectual scope to see this, how many are interested in discuss it in public? Communists DOMINATE the world mentality today, except in the Islamic world and in some rare areas of resistance in Eastern Europe. Where are those imbeciles that says that "communism is over"?

The open persecution that big media and internet companies move towards Christian and conservative publications is the integral and definitive proof that the left has already lost all legitimacy as a spokesman for the poor and oppressed and has become the instrument of psychosocial control with which the elite enslaves the herd mentality.

Take for instance the sporadic concessions to the demands of the “politically correct” - as in the past to those of the Party's “fair line”, which is exactly the same thing - are not enough to completely ruin a novel, a film, a play; but when these demands become mandatory and ubiquitous, they end up violating the most elementary laws of verisimilitude and thus destroy the very possibility of narrative art. That is why today's cinema mainly seeks an audience of teenagers, in which the demand for verisimilitude yields easily to the urge for strong sensations. The verisimilitude judgment depends essentially on maturity, on the “experience of life”.

Since the extreme left has left economic discourse for "diversity" - gayzism, abortion, feminism, etc. - it has become dominant and mandatory in virtually all Western nations. Soon there will not be a single media body that dares to oppose it. And there are still con artists who deny there is a leftist hegemony of the media.
 
Deleted member 15088

Deleted member 15088

卐 卍࿕࿖࿗࿘ꖦ
-
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
22,116
Online
311d 21h 16m
GermaniaIncelia said:
this. but there is also the other side of the coin. that the conservative side is also on the side of the rich. neither political side really helps with anything and will always be a cuck to jews.
The conservative side gives more freedoms to smaller businesses and entrepreneurs because they are more capitalist but not capitalist to the point of autocracy. Under conservative rule antitrust can happen which destroys corporate monopolies (or did).

Im no pro capitalist, but I’d rather have conservative capitalism with the antitrust than progressive capitalism where 6 rich Jews own literally the entire world. Fuck that.
 
G

GermaniaIncelia

incel vortex
-
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Posts
2,802
Online
23d 14h 10m
BummerDrummer said:
The conservative side gives more freedoms to smaller businesses and entrepreneurs because they are more capitalist but not capitalist to the point of autocracy. Under conservative rule antitrust can happen which destroys corporate monopolies (or did).

Im no pro capitalist, but I’d rather have conservative capitalism with the antitrust than progressive capitalism where 6 rich Jews own literally the entire world. Fuck that.
there is no way not to concentrate power in the hands of an increasingly few number of people as time goes further by.
why do you want to delay the process? i can understand that the thought may make anyone mad but you can just as well focus your mind on other things.
 
Deleted member 15088

Deleted member 15088

卐 卍࿕࿖࿗࿘ꖦ
-
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
22,116
Online
311d 21h 16m
GermaniaIncelia said:
there is no way not to concentrate power in the hands of an increasingly few number of people as time goes further by.
why do you want to delay the process? i can understand that the thought may make anyone mad but you can just as well focus your mind on other things.
There’s a way by stopping globalism and restricting technology, but it’s more that the people concentrating the power are shit than the fact that an increasing number of individuals are getting more period. My opinions would change ofc if the 6 people who control the world or whatever weren’t baby blood ritual having nation ruiners
 
Mountainbikecel

Mountainbikecel

Genetiker und Evolutionspsychologe.
★★★
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Posts
1,784
Online
66d 18h 58m

For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs. The left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation whilst simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization, whilst offering no true solution to either issue.
There is no Green future with never ending population growth.
Deleted member 15088 @BummerDrummer


And guess what. Whoever has invested capital in a country has a interest in immigration, because it means more workers and more consumers and a rise in the prices of land.
 
Last edited:
Emba

Emba

Jarjar Sphinx
★★★★★
Joined
May 19, 2019
Posts
33,761
Online
130d 13h 21m
#1 get monopoly
#2 keep monopoly
 
starcrapoo

starcrapoo

Foids are extremely racist Its a preference sweety
★★★
Joined
Mar 8, 2020
Posts
2,786
Online
78d 23h 47m
Thats because the left consist of mostly women, simps, and normies who are dumber and easier to control.

In addition to being retarded, they are also incredibly materialistic, selfish, and shallow. That is their very nature.

If you look at advertisements wherever it may be, it targets mostly women.

The left is undoing itself as well as the billionaires (and the politicians that they've bribed). Its simply all unsustainable.

We are in the end times for sure. and I don't just say that for no reason. Western civilization is in rapid decline because it is collapsing in on itself.
 
nessahan alita

nessahan alita

Banned
-
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
36
Online
2d 18h 19m
starcrapoo said:
We are in the end times for sure. and I don't just say that for no reason. Western civilization is in rapid decline because it is collapsing in on itself.
Get ready. In the coming years, the world's disorder will reach the level of permanent hallucination and everywhere lies and insanity will reign without restraint. I don't say this because of any prophecy, but because I studied the plans of the three global empires and I know that none of them has the slightest respect for the structure of reality. Each is possessed by what Eric Voegelin called "metastatic faith", the crazy belief in a sudden saving transformation that will free humanity from everything that constitutes the very logic of the earthly condition. In war or in peace, fighting to the death or reconciling themselves in a macabre agreement, each one will promise the impossible and narrow the margin of the possible ever further. The Catholic Church is the only force that could, in the midst of that, restore a minimum of balance and sanity, but, led by insane, sold and traitorous prelates, it seems more committed to surrender to the spirit of chaos and to make a good stand before the disaster helmsmen.

However, in the depth of the confusion many souls will be miraculously awakened to the vision of the deep and comprehensive order that continues to reign, ignored by the world. Many consciences will wake up to the fact that the historical scenario does not have its own ordering principle and only makes sense when seen on the scale of infinity, heaven and hell. These creatures will feel the ignored force of a superhuman faith born within them and nothing will frighten them.
 
G

GermaniaIncelia

incel vortex
-
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Posts
2,802
Online
23d 14h 10m
BummerDrummer said:
There’s a way by stopping globalism and restricting technology
even if both of those happened they are temporary solutions. you can't keep tech restricted forever just like you can't keep people from wanting to eat tasty food forever.

i doubt you have kids so why would it matter to you if kikes make the lives of future generations more miserable? or is the impact on your personal life the big factor for you to care?

BummerDrummer said:
My opinions would change ofc if the 6 people who control the world or whatever weren’t baby blood ritual having nation ruiners
that's easy to say without being in their shoes.
 
tulasdanslos

tulasdanslos

Vocaloidcel
★★★★★
Joined
May 30, 2018
Posts
2,964
Online
100d 16h 46m
Mildly unrelated but anything after 18th century was a mistake.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
12,002
Online
152d 18h 24m
High IQ and read every letter. Metacapitalism really is the game the ultra rich are playing on another level, and yes, China is absolutely the model the globalists want to adopt for world government.

But what does any of this have anything to do with inceldom?
 
starcrapoo

starcrapoo

Foids are extremely racist Its a preference sweety
★★★
Joined
Mar 8, 2020
Posts
2,786
Online
78d 23h 47m
based_meme said:
High IQ and read every letter. Metacapitalism really is the game the ultra rich are playing on another level, and yes, China is absolutely the model the globalists want to adopt for world government.

But what does any of this have anything to do with inceldom?
It has absolutely everything to do with inceldom. Before civilizations collapsed, there was always immorality, hedonism, and debauchery going on in a massive scale.

Just before the pandemic, you could see it in plainsight in SF and LA. All you had was the insanely rich, mass inceldom, feminism, poverty, and homelessness.

Revolutions happen when people decide that they've had enough. In whatever context it doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
12,002
Online
152d 18h 24m
starcrapoo said:
It has absolutely everything to do with inceldom. Before civilizations collapsed, there was always immorality, hedonism, and debauchery going on in a massive scale.

Just before the pandemic, you could see it in plainsight in SF and LA. All you had was the insanely rich, mass inceldom, feminism, poverty, and homelessness.

Revolutions happen when people decide that they've had enough. In whatever context it doesn't matter.
That's really reaching, buddy boyo. Inceldom and its increased prevalence is only a symptom of the disease (decaying civilization). The thesis here is about inceldom as much as it about increased crime rates and gang violence. That is to say, you could find threads to it, but it's not what it's about.

State, clearly and without any missing gaps in logic, how the essay in the OP is about inceldom.
 
nessahan alita

nessahan alita

Banned
-
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
36
Online
2d 18h 19m
tulasdanslos said:
Mildly unrelated but anything after 18th century was a mistake.
*Anything after the 14th century was a mistake.

The Middle Ages were the peak of humanity. It was at this time that St. Thomas Aquinas, Hugh of Saint Victor, Avicena, etc, lived at the same time. The level of discussion at that time was infinitely higher than we have today in universities where academics just pretend to know something to gain a job/piece of paper. It was also at this time that the most beautiful buildings in history were built, the Gothic cathedrals. Slavery had been abolished and the land servant was entitled to inherit the land where he lived, there were city-states and small fiefdoms instead of large empires, that is, power was more decentralized than it is today, materialism was non-existent, people were God-fearing, etc.
 
LOLI BREEDING

LOLI BREEDING

when your life is not your own
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Posts
6,874
Online
195d 11h 37m
didn't read

but great question. leftist dogma is perfect to turn people into low T cucks
 
A

agingmentalcel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Posts
194
Online
1d 10h 27m
OK, I didn't read your whole post but I could tell from the beginning you understand some things like "classical liberal." not sure from your use of the left in title if you really "get it," but you seem intelligent so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Most of the wealthy have used government regulation and institutions for their benefit. They are not market capitalists or classical liberals. I don't mean to be pithy, but I think that's all that really needs to be said. Maybe the Kochs were pretty hands-off when it came to using state powers for their enrichment, but I'm not too sure. And for as much as the left hates them, the Kochs funded more civil liberties think tanks than anyone on the left.

Not to pick on Trump too much, but let's use him as an example. At every step of the way he used government favors and intervention to build his businesses. Despite his claim as a "political outsider" he used politicians (mostly NY/NJ and mostly Dems) for 40 plus years. They gave him favorable treatment and literally stole property to hand over for his casino businesses. The Institute for Justice had to sue him to stop him from using eminent domain to steal houses from widows and turn them into casino limo lots. In addition he used bankruptcy laws (government invention) and the courts to avoid paying his contractors and avoid any personal risk for his poor investments. This is all a function of BIG GOVERNMENT, not free markets. Trump, like many billionaires is ideology-free and values-free and believes that the ends justify the means and everything is just business. if you understand that this is how most of the wealthy grow their wealth, then you understand they seek government intervention and they re-invest in maintaining that status quo.
 
R

randomguy1235

Captain
★★
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Posts
1,660
Online
40d 22h 59m
Mountainbikecel said:
((()))
they hate proud white societies more than they love money
Mainländer said:
Around the mid 20th century, the left/communists changed their strategy. Instead of trying to attack capitalism directly, they decided to attack the structure that would be the foundation of capitalism: the nuclear family, religious values, etc.

So they largely abandoned the proletarians as the chosen class to lead the revolution with and changed it to classes of supposedly "opressed" people with subjective dissatisfactions; feminists, gayzists, "anti-racist" racist blacks, etc.

Since such subjectively dissatisfied groups can only exist in the middle classes and above (no one who's really poor and has to work as a proletarian the whole day has time to care about feminist or LGBT garbage, for instance), businessmen see it as an opportunity to earn money. Also, keep in mind big businesses ally themselves with state power, driving smaller competition off in such process. So they don't want more capitalism in that sense, they want more socialism.

The ultimate goal is turning the whole world into a Chinese model where only really big corporations allied with the dictatorial state power that controls everything thrive while the rest of the population are basically slaves.

Yes, people who sincerely adhere to feminism, LGBT shit, BLM shit, etc, are all tools of the elites. They are being fooled.
BummerDrummer said:
Progressives don’t target the billionaires financing it. They target the people below them, the actual hard working business owners and landlords and lucky entrepreneurs. The left doesn’t target the people at the top in any form. Look what BLM did. They burned down whos shops? Random locally owned businesses and shop owners’s shops. Who is the mask mandate and curfew that progressives love so much hurting? The little business owners and not the big corps, they’re just gaining money.

Progressives: “it’s the rich it’s the rich!” But ironically they are literally the militant arm of the most rich, and their end goal is complete corporate autocracy. 6 companies own EVERYTHING.

That’s why communists suck. They don’t name the jew. They name random people with some cash, but not the ones with enough money to feed everyone on earth forever.
Dregster666 said:
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 776

Deleted member 776

Self-banned
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
3,164
Online
20d 4h 31m
Think about it - if you want to rule over a society unchallenged - wouldn't you rather the dominant political force in society were retards?
BummerDrummer said:
Progressives don’t target the billionaires financing it. They target the people below them, the actual hard working business owners and landlords and lucky entrepreneurs. The left doesn’t target the people at the top in any form. Look what BLM did. They burned down whos shops? Random locally owned businesses and shop owners’s shops. Who is the mask mandate and curfew that progressives love so much hurting? The little business owners and not the big corps, they’re just gaining money.

Progressives: “it’s the rich it’s the rich!” But ironically they are literally the militant arm of the most rich, and their end goal is complete corporate autocracy. 6 companies own EVERYTHING.

That’s why communists suck. They don’t name the jew. They name random people with some cash, but not the ones with enough money to feed everyone on earth forever.
It's even more sinister than that - think about it. A lot of the multinationals who had their stores and luxury goods looted. In the middle of a global pandemic what kind of sales did they actually have this year? Funding looters is basically a round about insurance job. Mercedes dealerships, watches of Switzerland, Target - yeah they got all their shit taken. It's not like they were going to sell much. They got an insurance payout for $$$$$ though.

The small businesses on the other hand probably won't see a penny of insurance money for years. It will probably take either an act of congress or a class action lawsuit against insurers to get back what they lost.
 
C

Currycel25

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Posts
677
Online
5d 6h 33m
They want to have the privilege of having moral superiority over you
 
osman27

osman27

Veteran
★★★
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Posts
1,221
Online
19d 19h 3m
They are mainly part of an entho-religous group that wants to bring harm to the host society
 
Capable_Onion

Capable_Onion

Hikikomori/Neet
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
8,942
Online
377d 23h 44m
The elite are anti-human, they just use liberals as a means to an end.
 
D

Deleted member 27204

Self-banned
-
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,280
Online
154d 14h 8m
Currycel25 said:
They want to have the privilege of having moral superiority over you
 
Kurt Gödel

Kurt Gödel

Proud MSTOW
★★★
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
3,226
Online
73d 1h 11m
agingmentalcel said:
OK, I didn't read your whole post but I could tell from the beginning you understand some things like "classical liberal." not sure from your use of the left in title if you really "get it," but you seem intelligent so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Most of the wealthy have used government regulation and institutions for their benefit. They are not market capitalists or classical liberals. I don't mean to be pithy, but I think that's all that really needs to be said. Maybe the Kochs were pretty hands-off when it came to using state powers for their enrichment, but I'm not too sure. And for as much as the left hates them, the Kochs funded more civil liberties think tanks than anyone on the left.

Not to pick on Trump too much, but let's use him as an example. At every step of the way he used government favors and intervention to build his businesses. Despite his claim as a "political outsider" he used politicians (mostly NY/NJ and mostly Dems) for 40 plus years. They gave him favorable treatment and literally stole property to hand over for his casino businesses. The Institute for Justice had to sue him to stop him from using eminent domain to steal houses from widows and turn them into casino limo lots. In addition he used bankruptcy laws (government invention) and the courts to avoid paying his contractors and avoid any personal risk for his poor investments. This is all a function of BIG GOVERNMENT, not free markets. Trump, like many billionaires is ideology-free and values-free and believes that the ends justify the means and everything is just business. if you understand that this is how most of the wealthy grow their wealth, then you understand they seek government intervention and they re-invest in maintaining that status quo.
High IQ tbh ngl ded srs.
 
Blackpill Rage

Blackpill Rage

Ethnic sfcel
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Posts
7,560
Online
201d 13h 50m
They're not retarded. They're just kikes.
 
Deleted member 21752

Deleted member 21752

Requested
-
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Posts
1,720
Online
47d 18h 28m
They don't fucking care
Like the dude with the magazine doesn't give a shit what's in it as long as it sells

Also because of the absolute state of the modern western left there will never be a revolution there, the "revolutionaries" are just a bunch of weak willed soycucks and trannies so there is no danger for billionaires to spread socialist ideas
 
It all fell down

It all fell down

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Posts
703
Online
13d 10h 32m
nessahan alita said:
These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics” (Frederick Howe, The Confessions of a Monopolist, 1906)

Last week, in a WhatsApp group, I talked with some old friends from school days, almost all classic liberal entrepreneurs, about the following dilemma: how is it possible that a successful businessman like Jorge Paulo Lemann — “forged in the purest capitalism”, as summed up one of my friends — finance, for example, an education magazine like Nova Escola, perhaps the most influential publication in the area, whose content is radically leftist and anti-capitalist, and for which Marxist Paulo Freire is “the greatest Brazilian educator"? For what reason does a guy who made a fortune in capitalism — and who, therefore, can be considered a representative of that system — promote the dissemination of socialist ideas within schools?

It is clear that the dilemma can only exist if the two concrete facts that make it up are known: that Lemann is a prominent capitalist businessman and that, at the same time, institutionally promotes education with a strong Marxist and neo-Marxist bias. My friends knew the first one well. That is why, being classic liberal, they admired Lemann and saw him as an emblem of the market economy. But they ignored the second entirely. They had no idea that the Lemann Foundation would house the Nova Escola, and even less of the importance of this magazine (which, since it was founded by another capitalist entrepreneur, Victor Civita, promotes all sorts of “progressive” agendas in classrooms, radical feminism to third world anti-Americanism) for left-wing ideologues of education. That is why they cannot even conceive, and tend to ridicule as fanciful, that apparent paradox, that of a notorious capitalist fostering a socialist political culture.


Mutatis mutandis, this inability to understand is structurally similar to that of the well-known journalist according to which there is no left in the USA because, after all, the country is "the mecca of capitalism". Naturally, like me, my friends laugh at such an opinion, not realizing that their astonishment at the mere possibility of a great capitalist helping to spread far-left ideas is just a more subtle version of that piece of involuntary humor.

But if, in the case of the journalist, the misunderstanding may be due to a certain intellectual destitution, I can guarantee that these friends of mine are intelligent people. No, the problem here is not one of intelligence, but of habit. It resides in an addiction of reasoning, acquired in our elementary education, which consists of analyzing the political reality based on merely encyclopedic definitions, resulting in factually absurd syllogisms like this: if socialism is synonymous with the left, then capitalism can only be right; and therefore, a capitalist businessman would never be an objective ally of leftist radicals.

Curiously, that reasoning defect is itself contaminated with elements of Marxism, starting with the theory of the material determination of consciousness. Thus, a person's ideas would be determined by their respective position in class society. A capitalist entrepreneur — or bourgeois, in classical terminology — would necessarily espouse capitalist ideas and values. A proletarian, in turn, would necessarily defend socialist ideas and values. All of this enshrines in the national imagination a cliché as ridiculous and denied by the facts as difficult to eradicate, even in intelligences above average: the suggestion that employers are (or should be) always on the right; employees, always on the left. Or, in an even more burlesque version, that the rich are on the right; poor, left. The former, to maintain the status quo and guarantee their privileges; the latter, to revolutionize the social structure and improve their living conditions.

Now, reality shows precisely the opposite. It is enough to note that, today, the owners of the greatest fortunes in the world, and especially those who have large foundations in their name, use their large capital to promote leftist agendas (euphemistically called “progressives”), often radical. Perhaps the most striking example is that of George Soros, one of the main financiers of extremist movements such as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and Antifa. There is no need to make much speculation about the reason for this to see the fact that things are really like that.

Therefore, when asked by one of those friends about what my hypothesis would be to explain the dilemma with which I opened this article, I replied that I did not have a fully elaborated one, limiting myself to verifying the objective existence of apparently paradoxical facts. One possible explanation, however, is that, contrary to the materialist axiom, the great capitalist entrepreneurs, holders of economic power, no longer have a bourgeois-capitalist mentality, but, on the contrary, aristocratic and dynastic, wishing to protect themselves from fluctuations of the market through association with political-military power. In that sense, although they have become richer in the market economy, they would no longer consider it conducive to their interests, seeing in the capitalist order a danger rather than an opportunity. Tired of adventures and risks, the former entrepreneur then becomes a new aristocrat.

This hypothesis is reinforced, for example, by the confession of George Soros himself, who, in a significantly article entitled “The Capitalist Threat”, published in The Atlantic in February 1997, writes with all the lyrics, and without an ounce of shame: “Although I made a fortune in the financial market, today I fear that the unrestricted strengthening of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values to all walks of life are threatening our open and democratic society. The main enemy of open society, I believe, is no longer the communist threat, but the capitalist threat”.


The hypothesis summarized above is not mine, but that of the philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. Almost two decades ago, Olavo was already reflecting on the theme, which even today sounds far-fetched to our provincial speaking class. To qualify types like Soros, Rockefeller, Ford — and, to a lesser extent, perhaps even our Lemann —, the philosopher coined the term metacapitalists. In the article “History of fifteen centuries”, published in the Jornal da Tarde in 2004, metacapitalists are defined as “the class that transcended capitalism and transformed it into the only socialism that ever existed or will exist: the socialism of the grand masters and social engineers at their service”. According to Olavo, unlike the classic capitalist bourgeois, who had accumulated fortune as the sole basis of their power, metacapitalists also base their power on the control of the political, bureaucratic and military apparatus, resembling, in this sense, the old European aristocracies, just that, unlike them — whose power was socially legitimized by the prestige gained thanks to military triumphs against the barbarian invaders, at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire —, the new metacapitalist aristocracy has a power as substantial as it is illegitimate, based solely on self-interest and in the formation of financial and political oligopolies.

In comparison with the long duration of the medieval and absolutist orders — which together amount to almost 15 centuries — the liberal-bourgeois order itself, founded on the free market, would have been an ephemeral episode in human history. Seeming to describe precisely the current scenario of the year 2021, in which the owners of the greatest Western fortunes invest heavily in fostering leftist radicalism and in the procession of the Chinese communist dictatorship, Olavo explains: “A century of economic and political freedom is enough to make some capitalists so formidably wealthy that they no longer want to submit to the whims of the market that enriched them. They want to control it, and the instruments for that are three: the domain of the State, for the implantation of the statist policies necessary for the eternalization of the oligopoly; stimulating socialist and communist movements that invariably favor the growth of state power; and the regimentation of an army of intellectuals who prepare public opinion to say goodbye to bourgeois freedoms and enter happily into a world of omnipresent and obsessive repression (extending to the last details of private life and everyday language), presented as a paradise adorned at the same time with the abundance of capitalism and the 'social justice' of communism. In this new world, the economic freedom essential to the functioning of the system is preserved to the strict extent necessary to enable it to subsidize the extinction of freedom in the political, social, moral, educational, cultural and religious domains. With this, the megacapitalists change the very basis of their power. They no longer rely on wealth as such, but on the control of the political-social process. Control that, freeing them from adventurous exposure to market fluctuations, makes them a durable dynastic power, a neoaristocracy capable of crossing through the variations of fortune and the succession of generations, sheltered in the stronghold of the State and international organizations... The new aristocracy is not born, like the previous one, from military heroism rewarded by the people and blessed by the Church. It is born out of the Machiavellian premeditation based on self-interest and, through a false clergy of subsidized intellectuals, it blesses itself”.

Also in 2004, in a lecture given at the OAB in São Paulo, Olavo explains the problem even more clearly, clarifying why the world financial establishment (Wall Street, Davos, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation etc.) supports invariably movements and organizations with a statist and socialist bias. “To understand this” — says Olavo — “it is necessary to investigate a mechanism that is generated by capitalism itself, and that works like this: the subject, within the market economy, thrives and enriches in such a way that, when he reaches a point, he perceives that he has no more reason to continue subjected to market fluctuations. The market that produced him, from then on, becomes a threat. So it is necessary to fall outside the laws of the market to guarantee the continuation of the great fortune for the following generations. The individual, then, enters with a type of consideration that is no longer capitalist, but that is of a dynastic order… From that moment on, the approach that these people take of society no longer corresponds to a capitalist perspective, but to a perspective of aristocratic type... When these great fortunes start to reason in dynastic terms, they have to overcome the market economy mechanism that constituted them, and there is only one way to do that: you have to dominate the state. This means that the power of these large organizations is economic to a certain extent, but then it becomes a political-military power that is independent of the course of economic affairs because it has the means to direct, dominate and strangle the mechanism of the market. These people [owners of great fortunes] I call metacapitalists. Metacapitalists are those who started out as capitalists, but have already transcended this condition and become a kind of new aristocratic caste”.

Now, if the objective is no longer just to enrich, but to dominate the State, and, more broadly, consciences, which model of political regime took this domain to the verge of perfection, developing a technology to control society never seen in other historical contexts? The socialist model, of course. And it is also obvious that metacapitalists only support socializing measures because they know that, in strictly economic terms, a full socialist regime is a logical and practical impossibility. They know this, moreover, as the Bolshevik Nomenklatura has always known, at least since Lenin launched the New Economic Policy. Complete nationalization of the economy is not feasible, and in order to remain standing, any socialist-type government must tolerate some degree of market economy, albeit in a clandestine manner (see, on this, USSR: The Corrupt Society — The Secret World of Soviet Capitalism, by Konstantin Simis).

It is precisely this mix of capitalist economics and socialist government that has underpinned the new world order that emerged with the end of the Cold War. In a kind of tacit agreement with the communists, the Western meta-capitalists came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create some form of synthesis between the economic dynamism of liberal capitalism and the efficient technology of social control and the imposition of consensus managed by socialist regimes. It is no wonder that, as a prototype of this synthesis, China is rising to the position of hegemonic power in the contemporary world order. With the tolerance, if not the endorsement, of the metacapitalists. As the Chinese intellectual Di Dongsheng, whom I mentioned in a previous article, suggested that Beijing has always had a strong influence on Wall Street, and will again do so after Joe Biden took office. And although all of this still sounds inconceivable to most people (like my liberal friends), the truth is the one that, 100 years ago, the great British novelist HG Wells (a notorious social democrat) wrote: “The big business is by no means antipathetic to communism. The more it grows, the closer it gets to collectivism”. Bingo!
In short. Once Big Companies are out of scale they want to consolidate their place in the market through the State and that is the reason of why they support the left.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top