tom sunic

anonymous asked:

Doesn't capitalism play a role in moral decay?

Yes, a very significant role. Capitalism is driven by private profit, rather than the public good or the moral health of the nation. Greedy, short-sighted capitalists support libertinism, obesity, mass immigration and economic internationalism because this is good for the bottom-line in the short-run and if they don’t do it, some other capitalist will. They don’t care very much about whether a drug-addicted, obese, sexually degenerate, multiracial, feminist and economically emasculated nation can survive long-term because they figure that they will be dead or can escape before they are affected by the negative results (if they even recognise the publicly destructive implications of their private interests). Capitalism breeds excessive wealth and consumerism, which pacifies the public and breeds misery as people forsake more important things like family or nationalism for questionable material “goods” which do not bring long-term satisfaction. An overfed-consumer is naturally soft and cowardly and a nation cannot bear too many of these but this is what capitalism gives us by the millions. There are no shortage of cynical capitalists who would sell drugs to children or child porn to perverts if they were allowed to but they are prevented from doing so by the state. They try to get us addicted to junk food and drugs because a compulsive consumer is a cash-cow for them. They lobby to import incompatible immigrants because they push down living standards, increase real estate prices and undermine the welfare state & regulations. They export manufacturing jobs to the third world because this also allows them to lower their labour costs. They destroy the traditional division of labour between men and women because that also gives them a larger workforce to exploit and drives down birth-rates (giving them an excuse to import more socially destructive cheap alien labour). They attempt to breed all kinds of social divisions and create new sub-cultures because this gives them new markets for potential products. Capitalists always cater to the lowest common denominator of culture because that’s where the greatest profit lies, even if it breeds a more vapid and ignorant population. As Mises pointed out, capitalism is “economic democracy” and like any form of democracy, it tends toward low-culture rather than high-culture. The instinct toward self-interest is natural and can be beneficial for the community but only if it is restrained by considerations of the long-term ethno-national good. So far as we have it, capitalism must serve the interests of the nation, not short-sighted, treasonous businessmen.

While capitalism is less materially austere for the majority (at least in its regulated, non-libertarian form) it is far more morally, culturally and racially destructive than state socialism. Stalin and Mao were brutal and repressive but they were nationalists and social reactionaries, while Ronnie, Maggie and co. were fake social conservatives & nationalists who were actually social + market liberals & cosmopolitans in practice. China suffered brutally in many respects under socialism but in a generation post-socialism, they have become a rising superpower. Economic socialism clearly didn’t do their nation any lasting damage. Compare this to the capitalist West, which faces permanent annihilation if we do not reverse our racial demographic trends, which in large part are the result of capitalism. Tom Sunic was absolutely correct when he said; “Communism kills the body, but liberalism rots the soul”.