Weak Anti-Capitalist Arguments From Nazboltards

Here’s a few shoddy arguments I hear them make.

“But but capitalists will pander to queers/trannies because they want profit!”

By this same logic, capitalists have an interest to pander to straights and normal people who are by far a larger demographic than queers/trannies who are a small proportion of the population. Trannies are demographically irrelevant for any business consideration. Companies that are pandering to queers/trannies are clearly not doing so out of a profit motive, but out of some deranged ideological imperative that throws profits out the window. Companies like Gillette are willing to alienate their main base of customers, straight men, to pander to feminists in commercials and risk all the monetary losses that might come of it. This is clearly not “pure capitalist greed” at work here but infiltration by ideological leftists who are pursuing an agenda of social engineering, profits be damned.

By the same logic, certain capitalists have an interest in supporting large families & a baby boom as this would be a boon to the industry of baby products (baby clothes, baby formula, diapers, cribs, children’s tv shows, children’s books, children’s toys, etc.) Many companies make a lot of money selling baby products and children’s entertainment products to families. An entire industry is centered around producing and selling these types of products and would go out of business if people stopped having kids. The video game and board game industry would go bust if not for kids and teenagers existing. That example alone is proof that capitalism is not inherently aligned against our values.

What could capitalists “sell” to queers or trannies that they couldn’t also sell to straights? Butt plugs and dildos? Degenerate straights use that shit too. Leather straps? Straights wear that shit too. M-T-F or F-T-M trannies just buy the products that already exist for the opposite gender. There’s really no new “market” to corner for these freaks. The whole queer/tranny agenda is an ideological war being pushed by the queer/tranny lobbies themselves and by politicians who sympathize with them. There’s no huge market monetary incentive to spread this. The only market beneficiaries from the trans phenomenon would I guess be some very specialized plastic surgeons who do the mutilation rituals, but a beneficiary is not the cause. There will always be beneficiaries to certain phenomenon.

By the same logic, there’s also a “market” for anti-gay or anti-trans. Christian gay conversion therapists could make money off their practice. Detransitioning services could be offered to trannies with buyer’s regret. Surgeons could specialize in reversing or revising the surgeries. There’s a big market for right-wing conservative males, even Nazis. Guns, hunting gear, cook-out barbecues, pick-up trucks, off-road vehicles, White Power/It’s Ok to Be White t-shirts, fishing rods, bibles and Christian crosses, “capitalists” have an interest in selling certain products tailored to these right-wing demographics as well, which are much larger than queers. So whatever miniscule exclusively queer market exists out there, there’s a much larger market for stuff normal people want and need.

“But but capitalists/corporations are funding BLM so that’s proof capitalism is inherently anti-White!”

So are the Marxists, so are the socialist parties and activist groups, so are the unions. How many millions of dollars was donated to BLM by these unions, charities, NGOs and individuals on the political Left? Plenty. Singling out only the “capitalists” doing this is clearly a dishonest attempt by Nazbol soycialists to push the fallacy of single causes on a gullible audience thirsty to blame all societal ills on wealthy people. BLM was started by anti-capitalist Marxist negroes who were mentored by jewish socialist-unionist Eric Mann. The whole movement emerged from the socialist Bus Riders Union and every major union in the West supports BLM.

The corporate motive to pander to BLM is multi-faceted. One reason is that they want to get on the good side of blacks so that blacks don’t sue them for “racism”. “Civil rights laws” (government policy, not market forces) is what created that quagmire. Another is they don’t want blacks to burn down or loot their businesses, causing major losses. Another is that the CEOs of these companies have genuine ideological leftoid affinities for the movement. Another is that other larger outfits like jew-run Blackrock are blackmailing them with ESG ratings scores to get them in line with all the woke/globalist causes. Many of these companies are not even run by White people but by leftoid jews and non-Whites.

Blaming rioting race-hustling niggers exclusively on sell-out cuckolds in the corporate world is a Marxoid tactic to appeal for economic socialist solutions to complicated social problems that more so involve government policy than market economics. And it’s designed to excuse all the enablers on the Left who share their enthusiasm for soycialism, including BLM itself. We don’t excuse the corporate sell-outs, we call them out, shame them and advocate for boycotts of their companies. Take your dollars away from them and give it to pro-White businesses who deserve it. That’s power you actually have as a consumer in a market economy, power you wouldn’t have in a socialist command economy where the only producer of goods and services is the state, which is currently controlled by anti-White globalists. But socialists are full of excuses for the anti-Whites on their side of things.

If capitalists are only out for profit, then it would logically follow that demonizing/attacking White people would not be a good business decision in a society where Whites are the demographic majority and therefore the majority of consumers. So the fact that these big companies are attacking White people is not proof that “capitalism is inherently anti-White” but that they’re going against their own interests to appease ideological leftists. These anti-White leftists (sourced from academia) have infiltrated the business world and convinced them that ethnically “diversifying” their staff is some kind of boon for business when there’s no serious evidence that’s the case. Chalk it up to the success of the Critical Race Theory cottage industry, brought to you by Marxist academia.

But again, I can point to all the anti-White unions, government agencies, and socialized industries (like NHS in UK) who push all the same woke, anti-White crap. So does that prove socialism and government is inherently anti-White? I guess so.

“But but capitalism is individualism so it can’t work with White Nationalism!”

Of course it can work and has worked in the past, so long as government policies put White racial interests above any economic considerations. If you don’t allow business to control the state but have the state set the parameters for business without hindering too much the ability to conduct business, then a nationalist-oriented capitalism is perfectly possible. Apartheid South Africa, the pre-1960s US, UK, Canada and Australia were all more or less regulated free market economies that paired it with White in-group preference and preferential immigration polices to keep the country White. The idea that this “can’t” be done is a Nazbol psyop to sell you their snakeoil command economy. Then you have examples of socialist command economies, like the USSR and Eastern Bloc, who totally rejected White nationalism and embraced anti-White Third Worldism. So where’s this magical connection between economic socialism and White nationalism? If socialism and White nationalism go hand-in-glove, then why were all these socialist societies opposed to it?

The assumption about “individualism” and capitalism is a bit off. Every company is effectively a collective. It’s comprised of a group of people who are all working on the same team to make the ship sail. Every individual has his/her particular role to play in that effort, but it’s ultimately a team effort. Where is the radical individualism in that? A free market is just a collection of these collectives competing against each other for market share but also working with each other in an ecosystem of voluntary exchange. Many companies rely on other companies in the market to sell their products, deliver their products to customers, transport their products to other cities or countries, etc., so they must work together too. This isn’t “every man out for himself” cutthroat fantasy that socialists tell you that it is. Moreover, regulation and taxation is how government moves the economy towards the collective goals of the state and to patch up any holes that a market can’t handle on its own.

Every society will have some level of individualism unless you outright ban all personal preferences and have government bureaucrats regulate the most mundane decisions people make and habits people have. We’re not all factory-built psyborg carbon copies of each other. The goal of nationalism is not to eliminate all difference between us but to instill a sense of collective group spirit and identity for the whole. Patriotism and nationalism does not have to entail erasing the individual personalities or preferences of a nation’s members. In an ethno-state, some habits and preferences of individuals will be off the table, such as race-traitor Whites who wish to enter into inter-racial relationships or Whites who partake in degenerate lifestyles like homosexuality. Government should be there to prevent that on a large scale. But besides those main social points, Billy preferring rock music over jazz and Bob preferring medium rare steak over well-done, is not really an affair of the state. With the exception of rap music, that will be banned for obvious reasons.

In any case, I don’t even advocate for a total free market, more like a mixed market with a gold-backed currency. I’d be more than willing to shut down and prohibit degenerate businesses that harm our people or undermine our values (porn companies, sex shops, drugs, etc.). I’ve even flirted with the idea of banning alcohol outright. I’d definitely ban nightclubs. But that doesn’t necessitate abolishing the rest of the market economy to achieve some impossible equality of outcome that socialist egalitarians yearn for.

That said, a pro-White state should be willing to intervene in an economy when necessary to nullify any threat by businesses that are not putting our people first. I’ve never said anything different. You don’t have to embrace full-Bolshevism to do that.


TIPS

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

MEMBER LOG-IN

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

CLICK HERE TO BECOME A MEMBER

Archives

Alex Jones Alt-Right Australia Blacks BLM Brandon Martinez Canada China Communism Coronavirus Dugin Europe Fags feminism Germany Globalism Immigration Islam Israel Jews Jordan Peterson Kalergi Kalergi plan Leftism Migrants Muslims nationalism Palestine Politics Power Putin Race Richard Spencer Russia Spain Trump UK Ukraine US USA White genocide White Nationalism Whites Women Zionism

Categories

PRIVACY POLICY
TERMS OF USE POLICY

Martinez Perspective