Quote: (08-08-2015 01:16 PM)Saga Wrote:
Quote: (08-08-2015 12:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:
You don't need mass immigration to atomize individuals for consumption practices.
I agree, but it certainly magnifies the process. Mass immigration is probably the surest way to ensure that a people are unable to even call their own country a home. Deny a person a home and homeland, and he ceases to be a citizen or a family member, he exists only as a consumer. Could there be anything more desirable from a capitalist-globalist point of view?
No, because it destroys the ability for the Capitalist to make money. No more nation-states = no more money. The only way to rule in a world without nation-states is by brute force. This is the communist state, not the capitalist state.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Moreover, mass immigration impoverishes economies by destroying the amount of wages workers earn which means less money for workers to spend for consumption.
A problem solved in the immediate short term by depleted family savings and more debt.
But ends in bankruptcy and destruction of the currency that the capitalist uses for power.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Again, if capitalism, or globalism, were actual forces with power you'd see the return of slavery and colonialism. You'd see corporations build armies, invade poor shitholes, and plunder every drop of wealth out of it to be resold in richer European markets. You'd see 19th century stuff. Right now we have exactly the opposite, so it's obvious that money just isn't the motivational force.
In the 19th Century capitalism was subservient to the nation-state; in the 21st that's no longer the rule. Corporations are non-national entities, and so ransacking one country to enrich another makes little sense from that perspective. Economic plunder goes on constantly through free trade agreements, loans, privitization and so on. When forceful means are needed, nation states do the dirty work, which is more expedient given that it's easier to motivate men to fight and die for ostensibly patriotic purposes rather than the truth of the matter.
All that's happening is some capitalists sell out their countries in the short term for a bit of money. In the longer term the money ceases to hold value once the nation dissolves and the K-selected population organize under a new banner and currency (one that the capitalists will not be part of).
Quote:Quote:
However, it would be complete nonsense if I said that capitalism must act in this way, or that it is acting alone in this (socialistic institutions in western Europe are one example). We know there are alternatives: capitalism in Japan, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland and other countries still serves the national interest to a large extent. However, it seems plain that capitalism in the west serves to undermine not just the national interest but the nation herself.
Capitalism is incredibly useful because of its powers of economic growth and innovation, but it must be balanced with the unselfish motives that live in civil society, else the former may devour the latter.
You're confusing capitalist with love of money. Love of money is not capitalism. Money represents confidence in a currency which can be exchanged for things of value. Capitalists want the power of their money to grow so they can control more and more things with their money.
Hence, when we see people today sell out their countries for money (such as Apple and other corporations who move overseas to make stuff to be resold in Europe or America) they are being capitalist because they are increasing the amount of product per dollar they own.
But when you see capitalists support things that destroy the family or security of the very markets they depend upon to make money, then it's something else going on. Supporting gay marriage so they can be popular and sell more shit is a love of money, but from a capital POV they are undermining the markets they need to make money and will eventually find themselves without customers if people aren't reproducing or if everyone is taxed to death to support third-world hordes. In this case, it's simply a love of money which makes people betray their country and homeland for short-term gain.
A good capitalist thinks in the long term, for his family, whereas an evil capitalist only cares for himself. The evil capitalist really isn't a capitalist at all, and would gladly support a communist takeover by brute force even if it means the impoverishment of his country as long as he can be at the top when it happens.
So the the illegal immigration thing is explicitly anti-capitalist, and destroys the markets which the capital depends upon.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can
follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.