This is a response to a comment on one of my Bitchute videos in which a leftist-fascist is arguing that all or most of our woes stem not from the ideological Leftists who hijacked the popular culture, not from the Marxist academics who brainwashed the new generations, not from the public schools, not from the leftist activist groups, left-wing media organs and leftist politicians, not from jewish influence… no it’s exclusively the responsibility of “corporations”.
“Who benefits from importing a bunch of low wage slave labor into the west?”
“Low wage slave labour” is an oxymoron. If they’re being paid a wage, they’re by definition not slaves, and if they’re entering a new country to work, obviously they’re making more money in the new country than in their home country. And lots of people benefit from immigration. The State benefits because it has more cattle to tax and fund its social programs, public services, defense budget, welfare, pensions, police, etc. More tax cattle means government employees can demand higher salaries. Politicians benefit because they have more votes to farm.
From American Thinker:
The idea that America needs illegal immigrants because there is a shortage of laborers willing to work at picking lettuce and tomatoes, backbreaking labor that no one else would otherwise do, is nonsense. The sanctuary cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York do not contain a single acre of lettuce or tomato fields, In fact, in these big sanctuary cities farming is banned, yet these big non-agricultural cities were the creators of official sanctuary policies.
If cheap migrant agricultural labor were needed, the Federal government would never have discontinued the agricultural guest worker program, the Bracero program. That program was first started in 1942 when migrant labor was genuinely needed during WW II. If big corporate agriculture had its choice, there would be a robust guest worker program enabling temporary workers to cross the border with valid guest worker IDs as they did from the 1940s to 1960s.
If big agricultural corporations always needed cheap labor, and they are powerful lobbyists in Washington, it’s difficult to explain how they allowed the Bracero program to be discontinued by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Historically, the evidence shows that agricultural lobbyists gave campaign donations to Democrats in order to promote the Bracero program. The real reason the Bracero program was cancelled was that LBJ was a Democrat, and Democrats controlled all the big cities of the nation in the 1960s. All these big cities started to lose population to the suburbs and other states after 1950.
Big unions benefit from immigration because they have more aggrieved low wage workers to pay union dues to represent them. Churches benefit because they have more people to proselytize to. Some businesses benefit who need low skilled labour, which is sometimes not forthcoming domestically. Charities benefit who get government largesse to coordinate new refugee arrivals. Organized Jewry benefits who want to weaken the majority ethnic group. All of these groups together support immigration, it’s not a single cause. I guess you could fault free market economics for being so efficient and producing so much wealth and prosperity that hordes of outsiders want to get a piece of it, which would mean your remedy to that is deliberately making your own society poorer so nobody wants to come live with you. Instead, you could just close the borders and have a guest worker program for others to “do those jobs nobody wants to do”.
“Who benefits from the decline in morality that increases drug, alcohol and porn consumption, and gluttony?”
This is really only an argument for restricting harmful activities in a market, not banning the market outright. Hard drugs are prohibited in all civilized states. Alcohol used to be prohibited and is now strictly regulated & taxed. Porn used to be prohibited under obscenity laws. All of that can be prohibited in a society that has a mostly market economy. Free enterprise is paired with a state with laws, it does not mean free rein for anyone to sell anything they want. Companies that use dangerous chemicals in products, for example, should be punished by law. And they generally are. I personally would ban strip clubs, sex shops, OnlyFans and other degenerate businesses that do more harm than good. But the prohibition of those things is, in my view, a social policy that happens to bleed into the economy, as everything tends to do.
But the State can also harm citizens and who punishes the State? Who regulates the regulators? If a State-run enterprise poisons people, is anyone held accountable? If they are it’d probably be damage control to protect the ones at the top. States have done crazy secret medical experiments on citizens and gotten away with it. States have murdered millions of people and gotten away with it. The problem with total Statism is that the State is unaccountable to the governed and can carry out worse abuses than any private company can in a nation of laws. There needs to be some checks and balances on the State as well.
“No, it’s the big corporations that want a one big global market with no races, no national identities, no moralities and no cultures”
Corporations didn’t cook up critical race theory, gender fluidity, intersectional feminism, race-denialism, cultural relativism, or any of this leftist tripe. All of that came out of Marxist academia, not corporate boardrooms. Some corporate CEOs like Bill Gates used to oppose diversity efforts, saying it would “destroy the company”. This all changed rather recently due to the new climate of culture dominated by social leftists as well as leftist governments pressuring the private sector towards diversity/inclusion/equity type bullshit. At best corps are race-blind and just want to sell their products to anybody. Eliminating or mixing people’s races & cultures doesn’t help them move more product. If that were the case then their best customers should be Brazilians and other heavily mixed race Latin Americans, but there’s no reason to believe that’s the case. Mixed race people also have cultures. Does a White person with multiple ethnic heritages buy more product than a White person of only one ethnic heritage? Or does it only work inter-racially? This is totally stupid.
A lot of these big companies are multi-national and can sell their products globally, eliminating the need to “import people” just to sell them stuff. Why import when you could just ship the products abroad, or set up a local branch of the business in other countries? Some businesses have culture-specific and gender-specific products to sell, so how does erasing or obscuring gender or culture really benefit them? What can they sell to a tranny that isn’t already sold to women or men? Why would a mixed race person or an atheist be more inclined to buy an iphone, a Samsung television or an Xbox than a pure race person or a religious person? Doesn’t make much sense. Muslims of the Middle East, if they can afford it, are purchasing all of that stuff the same as secular Europeans or Americans are. In fact, the two largest shopping malls are located in Dubai and Tehran. Capitalists also sell books about religion, morality, etc. The Bible’s a pretty big seller.
Even socialized state-run enterprises need more customers to grow their industries, so socializing all enterprises alone would not eliminate the need to either sell more stuff to the current customer pool or “bring people in” to add volume to that pool of customers. Either that or go multi-national like private companies have done in order to move more product around the globe; otherwise no growth. Historically, communist & fascist states would expand their economic base through imperialism, by conquering other countries and sucking their resources, labour, etc., into the State machinery, and they achieved growth that way. But that’s not a recipe for global harmony, now is it?
Capitalists are not all a hive collective, they’re business owners competing against each other in different markets. Corporations are virtue signaling for PR purposes and have been colonized by leftists from within. They’re bending to the social justice mob, which includes their own leftist employees who demand they take these stances.
A recent survey of 15,000 members of Gen Z reveals just how willing America’s youngest workers are to bring activism into the office. The data shows that during their first few years in the office, Gen Z has eagerly infused their generational ethics into the workplace and demonstrated a willingness to turn down jobs and assignments based on personal politics.
Workers in the previous generation — millennials — have served as a test case of how this mindset wreaks havoc on the workplace. Filled with 25 to 40-year-old activist employees, corporations have been forced to choose sides in the culture war. Last month, Disney workers walked out over the so-called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill in Florida (and tanked the company’s stock while they were at it). Equinox — which also includes SoulCylce — faced strike threats in 2019 because its owner supported Trump’s candidacy. More than 500 employers experienced walkouts just within the three weeks following George Floyd’s May 2020 murder. And, in June 2020, Facebook employees working from home still managed to stage a “virtual walkout” over Zuckerberg’s choice not to censor Donald Trump.
Generation Z workers are terrifying their millennial bosses with a series of woke and entitled demands, including that their companies support BLM, provide paid time off for ‘anxiety’ and telling the CEOs to do the assignments themselves… By 2025, members of Generation Z – those born between 1997 and 2021 – will make up 27 percent of the global workforce, predicts the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
… Rodriguez revealed one incident when her co-founder contacted her to say a younger social media manager had called on a Saturday to demand to know how the vibrator start-up would be supporting Black Lives Matter. Still, the fear of bad publicity from web-savvy workers led Unbound to hire a diversity, equity and inclusion officer to train staff, as well as launching a fundraiser for a group that supports sex workers of color.
Thuletide wrote a good explanation of the phenomenon of “woke capital”:
Modern “Capitalists” (corporations, businesses, etc.) parrot Cultural Marxist (“Woke”) ideals for a few reasons: 1. They’re forced to do so by Civil Rights laws (enacted by Socialists & Social Democrat governments in the 60s/70s). 2. They’re threatened by “cancel culture” enforced by Leftist media hegemony and NGOs like the ADL. 3. Leftist activists aggressively colonized corporations as part of their Long March Through The Institutions of Power. 4. Globalist elites (who take ideological cues from Leftist academia and from being predominantly ethnically Jewish) have bought up and monopolized corporations. 5. Too Big to Fail companies can push unprofitable ideological nonsense because they’re supported by the state. 6. Companies are kept in line by private finance pressure, e.g. BlackRock’s ESG which is a corporate Cultural Marxist social credit score.
In other words, it’s a multi-faceted phenomenon. Big labour unions and leftist politicians (who are themselves hostile to capitalism, especially big business) have all the same social positions as woke corporations. They all support BLM, LGBT, amnesty for illegals and anti-White politics. It’s a political agenda not merely an economic one. Business owners themselves have national identities, cultures and religions. You can be a Christian, Pagan, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., and a business owner. The original exterminators of cultures and religions were the Marxist Socialists who outlawed it in Communist societies, not capitalists, even if today some of the big ones are promoting social leftism to “keep up with the times”. Businesses used to be able to discriminate against customers they didn’t wish to serve, until the State stepped in to legislate against that, like Christian-owned bakeries now being forced to bake gay or trans themed cakes. Try refusing service to a black or trans person today, and watch the leftist State crush your business with its “civil rights” laws.
“No, Fascism isn’t against “capitalism” in a sense of opposing your local Mike’s butcher shop. It is against these globalist capitalist elites.”
No, fascism is against all free enterprise, and asphyxiates it with regulations, taxation, licensing, red tape, etc. If “Mike’s butcher shop” down the street grows into a bigger chain of butcher shops, you can bet the fascists either nationalize it or start to regulate and tax it to death, until it’s functionally a state-run enterprise. That’s a pretty clear hostility to success in the marketplace. Fascism was born of Marxism and aims to replace the market, and all other vectors of power including the family unit, with the State. A successful business is a challenge to fascist State power and as such will be curtailed. No financial success is allowed if the State doesn’t have a huge cut of it.
“Fascism simply believes that no one should be dirt poor begging in the streets, nor should there be men so rich they can literally control the state through money”
Most “liberal democracies” and other forms of government have anti-poverty programs too so that is not unique to Fascism. How rich does one have to be to “control the state through money”? Millionaire? Multi-millionaire? Billionaire? How much does he have to spend and is the return on investment even worth the trouble and risk of bribery? States can also enrich certain players by giving away lucrative State contracts to them, the way Putin does in Russia. Most countries have campaign finance law and anti-bribery laws that deal with that. A dictator can be bribed and corrupted the same way a “democratic” politician can, so unless you make everyone equally poor with no means to bribe, you can’t avoid that. Plus, businesses are not the only ones who finance politicians. So do foreign country lobbies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.), feminists, queers, pensioners, charities, “civil rights” groups, religious groups, labour unions & more. Labour unions are some of the biggest spenders on elections. It’s not only businesses who have influence on politicians.
And what about the power of the State itself? Who regulates the regulators? Who holds the State accountable under fascism? Nobody can hold it accountable because it’s above the law. Fascists and communists hate business because it is a node of power outside of the State. And, as Mussolini said, he wanted “nothing outside the State”. That doctrine inherently puts Fascism on a collision course with business and any kind of private activity, like homeschooling.
None of this is a defense of the corrupt corporations who support the radical Left’s social agendas. If they all failed tomorrow I wouldn’t mourn the loss. Indeed, I advocate consumer boycotts of companies that support Leftism and even strategic anti-trust break ups to weaken their power. But the point here is that this narrative we often hear from Socialists who’ve infiltrated the right that all of our woes stem from big business interests is based on shoddy Marxian thinking that ignores the complex set of factors behind what we see in the modern world, resorting to vague speculation about theoretical motives of a non-existent hive borg collective called “capitalism”. This sidesteps totally the ideological motives of politicians, activists and even certain capitalists who support this stuff.
George Soros, for instance, is dumping hundreds of millions of his own money to promote social Leftism. He isn’t getting a financial return on that investment (donations aren’t even really an “investment,” it’s charity), but he is getting a social return in the form of a more diverse and “tolerant” society in which the jewish minority can feel safe. By his own account, he’s motivated to do what he does by ideology, not economics. His son Alex Soros explained his father’s motives:
The hatred, which is ripping apart the fabric of this country, does not deter my father or me. As a young teenager in his native Budapest, my father survived the extermination of Hungary’s Jewish population under the Nazi occupation — an experience that shaped his view of the world. Since the early 1980s, he has given away more than $15 billion to further the ideal of an “open society” in which equality and the protection of one’s fundamental individual rights are paramount.
It is not charity, and his outlook represents more than mere solidarity with others who have endured similar fates. He believes in an open society because Jews and other minorities need rights and equality under the law to prevent another Holocaust.
Soros himself supports government intervention, regulation and welfarism in the economy to spread out the wealth more evenly. He wrote this in the article “The Capitalist Threat”:
Whether the theory is valid or not, it has turned out to be very helpful to me in the financial markets. When I had made more money than I needed, I decided to set up a foundation. I reflected on what it was I really cared about. Having lived through both Nazi persecution and Communist oppression, I came to the conclusion that what was paramount for me was an open society. So I called the foundation the Open Society Fund, and I defined its objectives as opening up closed societies, making open societies more viable, and promoting a critical mode of thinking. That was in 1979.
Popper showed that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual. I want to extend his argument. I contend that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction—from excessive individualism. Too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability.
It makes sense why Socialists (Fascists are Socialists) are making this argument because it feeds credibility into their proposed solution to all societal problems, and that is seizing the means of production for themselves to do a mass wealth transfer… to themselves. They’re very happy that big visible companies have gone “woke” so they can justify seizing them. But the government and public institutions are also “woke,” so then the argument becomes, “we’ll seize those too”. Labour unions are also woke: “we will seize them also”. Short of the absolute takeover of all of these institutions simultaneously, they can’t get what they want.
It also makes sense that they put all of the blame for the present social crisis on big business when you view it as an attempt to show fealty and solidarity with the radical Marxist Socialist Left; disgruntled blue collar workers they wish to recruit to their movement by promising them a status upgrade via economic socialist redistribution.
Extremely engaging read. It always goes back to the elephant in the room 🐀