16 December, 2009

Little Shop vs. Big Retailer: One Maintains, the Other Transforms

Posted by Socrates in AmeriKwa, Big Business, capitalism, international Jewry, nation-building/nation-wrecking, New World Order, Socrates, supercapitalism at 5:50 pm | Permanent Link

An example of how supercapitalism changes communities. Goodbye, local merchants/people/goods! Hello, NWO!

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 11/20/13 “Free Trade” Threatens Our Future 52% similar
  3. 07/11/12 How To Live White, Part 2 48% similar
  4. 10/11/07 Who’s Ready for Global Money? 41% similar
  5. 06/05/11 The Joys of Supercapitalism, Part 1: Corporate Radio 41% similar
  6. 01/27/08 America: a Capitalist Country? 39% similar
  7. 12 Responses to “Little Shop vs. Big Retailer: One Maintains, the Other Transforms”

    1. Tom McReen Says:

      These days there is no difference in ideology between what the left promotes and what corporations promote, regardless of any leftard prejudices against capitalism.

    2. alex Says:

      Comment on Sailer’s blog:

      Memory said…

      Remember the NYT article about the Jewish lady in Italy on a multi-cult mission to make Italy more Chinese?

      And the article about the Jewish lady activist in Australia with the stated mission of moving past the age of “white men” in positions of authority?

      I remember these articles.

    3. 2050 Says:

      Yeah, it’s sure hard to understand what all the anti corporation crowd is complaining about.

    4. alex Says:

      Corporations…pure evil. Offering people products and services. And jobs. Oh, how I hate them.

      My town has 17,000 people. A big kike box, Lowe’s, showed up several years ago. Three other local hardware stores are still in business. It’s not as simple as the leftist puritans portray it, that Wal-Marts drive out all other business, nor that their effects are wholly negative. In large measure the hatred of Wal-Mart is a class thing. Leftists hate the little people, and don’t like to see them able to buy products at cheap prices, especially when those products are the type of stuff the upper middle class “white people like.

    5. Adam Says:

      alex Says:

      Corporations…pure evil. Offering people products and services. And jobs. Oh, how I hate them.

      My town has 17,000 people. A big kike box, Lowe’s, showed up several years ago. Three other local hardware stores are still in business. It’s not as simple as the leftist puritans portray it, that Wal-Marts drive out all other business, nor that their effects are wholly negative.

      The three locals are likely hanging on by their finger nails. In my area I can think of two statewide discount stores that went belly up not long after Walmart opened next door to them, and another one that is barely hanging on, probably not much time left. A local pharmacy also closed its doors.

      In large measure the hatred of Wal-Mart is a class thing. Leftists hate the little people, and don’t like to see them able to buy products at cheap prices, especially when those products are the type of stuff the upper middle class “white people like.

      The hatred of Walmart is also a Jew thing, probably because it didn’t start out as a Jewish shop. As for it being a class thing, most white leftists I know ARE little people, but think Jewishly. They don’t hate the little people unless they’re fellow whites, and they reserve a special distaste for the poor ones who shop at Walmart. They have incorporated a reflexive Jewish hatred of the white working class; a Jewish way of valuing the worth of a man by the size of his bank account. It is only through identification with the Jew and adopting his characteristic hatreds that these leftists can escape what they see as the horrible curse of their own whiteness, if only temporarily.

      You will find that such people never work up the same sort of bile over Jew shops like Lowe’s or Home Depot. But Walmart, the people who work there, and the people who shop there (but only if they’re white) occupy a special place in their demonology.

    6. Adam Says:

      2050 Says:

      Yeah, it’s sure hard to understand what all the anti corporation crowd is complaining about.

      Corporations are a hated target of leftists because the corporate elites are not Jewish enough yet. Too white, about 90% or so! I think if you investigate you will find that they rarely if ever complain about Jew-owned or Jew-led operations. For instance, you won’t hear them utter a word in anger about the corporate media, unless they perceive it as favoring whites and run by whites (like Faux News and Clear Channel). Then the gloves come off. Also a target is any corporation too closely identified with the hated white man. Cheney’s association with Haliburton comes to mind. Or Exxon with Lee Raymond. But they’ll never go after any corporation that George Soros is associated with.

      “One conclusion of this volume is that Jews have played a decisive role in developing highly influential intellectual and political movements that serve their interests in contemporary Western societies. These movements are only part of the story however. There has been an enormous growth in Jewish power and influence in Western societies generally, particularly the United States. Ginsberg (1993) notes that Jewish economic status and cultural influence have increased dramatically in the United States since 1960. Shapiro (1992, 116) shows that Jews are overrepresented by at least a factor of nine on indexes of wealth, but that this is a conservative estimate, because much of Jewish wealth is in real estate, which is difficult to determine and easy to hide. While constituting approximately 2.4 percent of the population of the United States, Jews represented half of the top one hundred Wall Street executives and about 40 percent of admissions to Ivy League colleges. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions. … Jews are thus overrepresented by a factor of at least 13 based on their percentage of the population and are overrepresented by a factor of approximately 6.5 if adjustment is made for their higher average income. … [I]nfluence is affected not only by mobilization but also by the resources held by the group. Salter estimates that Jews control approximately 26 percent of the “cybernetic resources” of the United States (i.e., resources as measured by representation in key areas such as government, media, finance academia, corporations, and entertainment). This average level of resource control reflects both areas of high (>40 percent) Jewish representation (e.g., mass media, high finance, the legal profession, the intellectual elite, entertainment) and low (<10 percent) Jewish representation (e.g., corporate elite, military leaders, religious leaders, legislators). The overall estimate is comparable to that made by Lerner et al. (1996, 20) based on data gathered in the 1970s and 1980s. Lerner et al. arrive at a 23 percent overall Jewish representation in American elites. The results also parallel levels of Jewish overrepresentation in other societies, as in early twentieth-century Germany where Jews constituting approximately one percent of the population controlled approximately 20 percent of the economy (Mosse 1987, 1989) and also had a dominating influence on the media and the production of culture (Deak 1968, 28; Laquer 1974, 73).”
      — Professor Kevin MacDonald, (1998), The Culture of Critique, pp. 304-6, 1stBooks. [Emphasis added.]

    7. Nordlander Says:

      Oh, no. Evil corporations. Mass production of goods, making them accessible and cheap for all, is not compatible with that sweet ol’ tyme postcard where you see the shopkeeper with his white whiskers offer the little boy some hard candy from a glass bowl, while mommy smiles. (But wait. How could you afford your computer if not for mass production and more efficient methods and facilities?)

      I wonder what the caveman said about the first farmer building a home made of wood:

      “You are ruining our way of life! Now all wholesome values will be lost! Oh, don’t you care at all for all the good times we have had in this cave….”

    8. Tim McGreen Says:

      Wal * Mart is bad because of the way they treat their employees, their union-busting tactics, their over-saturation of a given area to kill off local competition, their Chink slave-labor made crap, and their relentless marketing to Mestizoes.

      Corporations are not evil per se but when they start throwing their weight around, buying politicians and hiring slick lobbying firms to get laws passed that favor them and screw over everybody else, or when they make billions of dollars and pay no taxes, or when they move their manufacturing and customer support operations to China and India, or sell their WMDs and CAT bulldozers to the Zionist Entity, THEN they start becoming evil in my book.

    9. Adam Says:

      The whole POINT of having a corporation is the possible advantage in the abuse.

      By design, the legal fiction of a corporation provides a shield to protect the individuals behind it from retribution by society. The technique of incorporation hides the money trail, and diffuses responsibility. Although under some circumstances it’s possible to pierce that shield and sue the owners of a corporation for damages it has caused society, it’s difficult and unusual. No one, for example, ever sues a corporation for shipping jobs overseas, although that is arguably at least as damaging as, say, negligently polluting the environment — and probably more so. Even in cases where corporations do get sued for the damages they cause, the people who own the corporation are shielded and escape with their personal fortunes. In cases where the corporation loses, the most that will happen is that the corporation will go bankrupt.

      Facilitating abuse is the point of incorporation. If the legal technique of incorporation were no help in buying politicians, shipping jobs overseas, paying no taxes, and having no national, cultural, or racial loyalty, then there would be no point in doing it. Incorporation is a technique essential to the survival and spread of the global technological system. Uncle Jewey would be lost without it.

    10. Tim McGreen Says:

      Very good points, Adam/Dietrich. Corporations are often used to evade taxes and legal responsibility, while at the same time recieving all the legal “rights” of an individual “citizen”. I just didn’t want to smear them all with the same tar-brush. Aryan sense of fairness, you know.

    11. alex Says:

      The funny thing is that guys like Adam who criticize corporations – any government body analyzed in the same light would be 1000x as guilty, and, on top of it, they don’t even produce any services for the people who pay into them. The average white taxpayers gets virtually no service from the government, but has to pay 50% of his earnings in taxes. But keep on whining about corporations who actually offer useful products and services at reasonable prices. And paying jobs.

    12. Adam Says:

      alex Says:

      But keep on whining about corporations who actually offer useful products and services at reasonable prices. And paying jobs.

      Hard to believe you can both defend corporations and attack public shuls at the same time, Alex. I would think your head would explode from the contradiction. If there are no public shuls, then where oh where are your beloved corporations going to get the cubicle sheep to fill all those wunnerful paying yobs?