Again, is it greed to want to eat a steak instead of a bowl of rice? Is it greed to want to live in a house instead of a car or tent?

At what point did I propagate the introduction of a “compulsory economic socialist system”? I was only interested in pointing out the dark side of the system in which we in the West now live.

Everything you’ve said thus far would necessitate total top down control of the economy and people’s choices in that economy. In the West now we don’t even live in this wild-west free market you claim, we have plenty of socialism mixed into our economies in the present. But like all communists, you’re not satisfied with the extent of the socialism we have and want more of it until we arrive at the utopia of total Communism.

It is a purely material world in which idealistic goals have no value. If you advocate protectionism, then this is also a form of artificial influence that has “socialist” features.

That’s not totally true, there are plenty of people out there pursuing idealistic goals, I bet you think of yourself as such a person, you just live in an extremely online bubble. But insofar as its partially true, I think this is due to the education system, the media, and the recession of religion in society that instilled better values in people. Unless you want to somehow prove that our Keynesian mixed economic systems produce apathy in people. Would love to see your peer-reviewed paper on that. The US was far more racist and traditional 100 years ago back when it was far LESS socialist in its economic and tax structure, so that seems to blow your theory out of the water. The more socialism we add to the economy each year doesn’t seem to make Whites more right-wing and racist, quite the opposite. Although I don’t think that’s economic related like you imply because I’m not a Marxoid like you. Hitler also had a Keynesian system, not dissimilar to the one we have today in most of the West. So your thesis seems dead in the water.

If you advocate protectionism, then this is also a form of artificial influence that has “socialist” features.

I advocate external protectionism, but not internal. Internal protectionism would be protecting some businesses from their competition, which is nothing more than crony favoritism. I do think nations should safeguard their own economies/industries from foreign competition though, because I believe in in-group preference. Some small elements of socialism are fine, even necessary, I’m just opposing your totalist version of it which wants to abolish market functions like prices.

You keep saying that rich people are superior to poor people, that’s why they are rich.

This is true in some cases, but not all. Some rich people who inherited the money did not earn it. But many rich people did earn it through skill/talent (athletes, actors, musicians, inventors, etc). How can we say that a great inventor is not superior in at least some way to some deadbeat who can’t keep a job? You habe the poor man’s mindset where you think poor people are inherently superior to the rich out of some innate victim mentality.

In my opinion, capitalism promotes material greed, but not personality development and strength of character.

Yet an author who sells you a book teaching you “personal development and strength of character” is engaged in capitalism. He gives you wisdom and you give him dollars in exchange. Capitalism is basically neutral to all those questions because it is not a government or person, it is a market where people do business. Which is why a strong pro-White government is also required to make our ideas work.

That’s why we have all these mediocre talented people governing us, a pure functional elite of ego-addicted careerists.

And this elite were coddled in the universities, which are dominated by Marxians who hate capitalism themselves. We have plenty of socialists and Keynesians like you in the power structure, so I could just as easily blame “socialism” for everything we have now. Your marxoid reductionist brain can’t comprehend that most of the social decay we see was cooked up by Cultural Marxoids who pump leftist nonsense into the heads of every college student who passes through their lecture halls. Blaming businessmen for this is way off.

What kind of sick system is your oh-so-sacred capitalism, where individuals own billions and others own nothing? How is a national spirit supposed to develop in such a system?

You’re projecting. Capitalism is the only system where individuals are able to own anything. Millions of people own homes, land and property thanks to capitalism and the property rights that come with it. Under feudalism and socialism, ownership is exclusively in the hands of either kings/lords or the state. You own nothing under socialism, including national socialism/fascism, because it’s all preconditioned on subservience to the state. Private property was not respected to any significant degree in NS Germany or Fascist Italy. Hitler and Mussolini seized all kinds of property, business and land from private citizens. I think this is sometimes justified, but not to the extent these people did it.

People are rationalized away by robots; when white labor becomes too expensive, it is done by eager little Asians who demand only half the wage.

So what you’re telling me is that White people have become accustomed to such a level of comfort that they won’t even do jobs that brown people will do? Yet you’re the one railing against “greed” while you demand to be paid exorbitant amounts for menial work. I think the solution to all of that is simple: close the borders, force companies to hire only Whites. The government could make that happen tomorrow, but it’s being run by leftoid-progressives.

Ultimately, a market economy that is beneficial to a people can function only if it is given a tightly defined framework by a strictly nationalistic form of government.

We don’t disagree. But your magic socialist economy alone does not achieve that on its own either. You had that in Socialist East Germany, and it was an officially “anti-fascist” state that worshipped niggers, as was the Soviet Union that banned racism and ethno-nationalism.

Take an economic system like Germany’s, which is totally dependent on exports. It always has to be on good terms with the whole world in order to get rid of its goods. This can never give rise to nationalistic sentiments.

Why is it dependent on exports? Do Germans not want to buy products produced by other Germans? Nationalistic sentiments are already on the rise in Germany, did you not see the rise of the AFD party? Your thinking is purely Marxoid, and you distill everything down to economics when that’s not the case. Not even Soviet-simp Mussolini believed that.

You offer no viable concept as an alternative. I don’t care what name a system bears as long as it excludes and combats the rampant individualism that we in the West have fallen prey to. But, strictly speaking, this alternative can only be a third way, which is not a “mixed form of communism and capitalism” as practiced by China, but an independent form of society as developed by NS-Germany.

I do offer a viable alternative, I just don’t offer Communism and planned economy, which is what you want because you’re a communist. I would like to combat individualism in the sense of Whites not having an in-group preference and I do that every day. Economic collectivism does not magically translate into racial collectivism as we’ve seen in the USSR and Eastern Bloc, and economic “individualism” does not automatically translate into racial blindness, as we’ve seen in USA, UK and apartheid South Africa. Your Marxoid brain just can’t separate the economic from the social here. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t implement some collectivist economic policies, like universal healthcare, social security, and welfare programs, it just means I don’t think the state should be the only producer and distributor of goods and services.

Capitalism constantly talks about “growth”. But cancerous tumors also grow constantly. What should be fabulous about it?

So do socialists. Communists when they defend the USSR, talk about how it grew its industrial capacity rapidly, was constantly churning shit out of factories and destroying the environment to do so. Socialists are not minimalists who just want everyone to “live off the land” in some hunter-gatherer type lifestyle. They do much of the same stuff as free market economies, but just have the state micromanaging which projects get off the ground and which don’t. Don’t the Hitler fans talk about how he “grew the economy” and started mass producing cars, war materials, and other things? Didn’t he invade Eastern Europe to attain more farm land to create “Lebensraum” for Germans? Growth is not exclusive to capitalism. Every economy must grow to improve the standards of living of people.

Capitalism, however, never talks about population growth of national ethnic groups. But National Socialism did talk about it.

That’s why capitalism on its own is not much of a worldview and I’ve never claimed it alone is sufficient for White people to thrive. Ultimately my worldview is race-first. And that would include sacrificing profits for the preservation of our kind, which is why I believe there must be restraints put on the wealthy and their influence. The point I make about capitalism is really just that it’s superior to socialism in a number of ways. That’s it.

You didn’t answer any of my queries. Why eat steak if you can eat a simple bowl rice? Why live in a house when you can live in a car or a tent? Is this evil greed? Are these decisions that the capitalist overlords have foisted upon us or are they the genuine preferences of people?

You claim “only rich people buy useless things”, I think you have no idea how many people are in debt because they buy things they can’t afford.

So your argument is that because some morons are fiscally irresponsible and take out loans to buy things they can’t afford, so we should ban everything that you think people don’t “need”? Where does it end? Will you ban telephones, washing machines, toaster ovens, televisions, computers? All of those things will exist in your beloved socialist economy too, just inferior versions of the ones produced by the private sector. Are you honestly suggesting the government should regulate our purchases?

As for loans, even then it’s pretty self-regulating. Some irresponsible bum with no job can’t get a credit card because the bank doesn’t have confidence he’ll pay back the debts. I remember when I first applied for a credit card and it was rejected even though I had a minimum wage job. No bank will loan to anyone unless proof is provided that the loan can be repaid. Unless they want to face a bunch of defaults and never get paid. Loaning still happens in your precious socialist economy, it’s just the government lending out people’s taxes to other people.

That the majority is too stupid to use the capitalist economy intelligently?

Why are we assuming that’s not the case? Or are we assuming that everybody is living way above their means and drowning themselves in “junk they don’t need”? Most students are in pretty big student loan debt, which is exclusively given out by government. Were they all unintelligent oafs for taking out those government loans to get an education? I guess they were. Maybe they should have went to trade school instead of that liberal arts degree. Are we going to control everyone’s education choices too?

And what is your oh so wise conclusion: Do you want to train them in it or even force them to use their money smart and clever?

I think it’s the parents job to instill fiscal responsibility into their kids. I guess schools can teach about it too. What is your solution, have the government monitor and control everyone’s purchases? So you want the technocratic police state that Klaus Schwab wants.

There are millions of people who cannot pay off their own houses.

If that’s the case then they probably purchased a home that they couldn’t afford. Who’s fault is that? Or are we going to give “free houses” to everyone which has never worked anywhere?

Do you mean to tell me that the houses of our race are not stuffed with material garbage, which make only the Jews rich?

I don’t know many people who’s houses are “stuffed with material garbage”. And how is that defined? I’m using a computer right now, is that “material garbage” too? Because some moron on the internet says I don’t need a computer I shouldn’t have one? Most people buy stuff they need first and want second.

You literally have the consoooomer meme stuck in your head and are projecting it onto everyone. Even NS Germany had consoooomer goods. Didn’t Hitler try to get everyone a car? BBUT BUT they don’t NEED cars! They can ride a bike! That’s consumer greed! Why do they even need a bike, when they can WALK! Didn’t he do schemes so they could go on cheap holidays? BUT BUT they don’t NEED vacations, that’s mindless consooomerism!! Only the travel companies get rich off that!!!

You claim “only rich people buy useless things”, I think you have no idea how many people are in debt because they buy things they can’t afford. Do you want to deny this social fact? What is your social critique anyway? That the majority is too stupid to use the capitalist economy intelligently? And what is your oh so wise conclusion: Do you want to train them in it or even force them to use their money smart and clever? There are millions of people who cannot pay off their own houses. Do you mean to tell me that the houses of our race are not stuffed with material garbage, which make only the Jews rich? I don’t know what your point is, that is borderline disorder.

Capitalism means owning many things that you don’t really need.

Who decides what I “really need”? You? The government? Technically I only need a 4×8 prison-sized cell and bread and water and can survive on that. You didn’t really need to eat that nice juicy steak, you could have settled for a bowl of plain rice instead! Technically you don’t need a washing machine, so hand wash your clothes instead you greedy bastard! Technically you don’t “need” an oven, so start cooking on a fire pit! You greedy capitalist pig, you! I like to bodybuild, so I need to eat quite a bit more than I “need” to sustain my muscle mass. Let me guess, you’d tell me I can’t do body building because I don’t “need” to look jacked. Ok commie!

Useless crap.

Only wealthy people can afford to buy a bunch of stuff they don’t “need” or even use. Normal income people are forced to ration their income for things they most need first (food, shelter), and then things they want to complement their basic necessities. And what makes these things “useless”? These products are of use to someone, otherwise nobody would buy them. Is a refrigerator, washing machine, telephone, computer, air conditioner, ipod, running shoes, watch, all useless? Under your communist system, all that would be available to people are whatever the faceless bureaucrats decided you “need” (which they would decide arbitrarily) not on the genuine preferences of people.

It made you poorer and itself richer.

It made you richer too by giving you a product that you find useful or that helps you in some other way, like a dishwasher or washing machine that save you precious time to do something more enjoyable. No capitalist entrepreneur makes a dime unless he provides something that people want. What’s the point of just sitting on your money and not purchasing anything with it? Does it make you happier to have wads of cash sitting under your bed or using that money to get things that make your life more enjoyable? Money can also buy useful things like a house, a car, a boat, a college degree, etc.

The highest you could ever pay: your irreplaceable lifetime spent working to pay for all this crap.

Nobody works just to “buy crap”. They work to eat. That’s life and there’s no system in which you don’t work to put food on the table, even your beloved socialism. There’s no free lunch in this world. I guess going to the grocery store every week to buy food makes me a hapless “consooomer” lining the pockets of greedy capitalist farmers! You live in a retarded communist fantasy world where we all just go to work in order to pay for “something we don’t need”, when most people don’t do that at all.

Capitalism, however, never talks about population growth of national ethnic groups. But National Socialism did talk about it.

It made you poorer and itself richer. What price did you pay? The highest you could ever pay: your irreplaceable lifetime spent working to pay for all this crap.