19 April, 2020

White Philosophy: Global Finance Capitalism and Other Scary Things (Including Neocons)

Posted by Socrates in capitalism, capitalist greed/exploitation, globalization, International finance capitalism, Ivor Benson, Neocon agenda, neocon ideology, Neocons, Socrates, supercapitalism, White philosophy, White thought at 2:49 pm | Permanent Link

(This post was inspired by a post I saw at SF Forum about James Burnham, who is sometimes called “the first neocon” and who had interesting ideas about capitalism: Here).

Let’s briefly talk about both capitalism and neoconservatism [1].

First of all, when you talk about capitalism, what exactly are you talking about? There’s nothing at all wrong with small, mom-and-pop capitalism (aka, free enterprise, the corner store). Mom-and-pop capitalism has been around forever and it will still be around when the world ends.

International finance capitalism (aka supercapitalism), on the other hand, isn’t real capitalism [2]. It’s unnatural and more-or-less “Rosemary’s Baby-like satanic” and it should be banned by every country on earth, by law. It kills mom-and-pop capitalism. It’s a global wolf, eating everything in sight. It’s predatory.

As for neoconservatism (as we know it today), it exists to further this idea: “use American military and political power to further Zionism in every way possible.” Neocons often use wars, such as the 2003 Iraq War, to further Zionism, and to further the unique relationship between America and Israel. Neoconservatism as we know it now is a Jewish ideology: it was first invented by New York, Jewish “ex-leftists,” but it went nowhere. Then, gentile Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson re-started it in the mid-1970s, and then more Jews piled onboard it, and it took off: slowly at first, then faster and faster until it went airborne beginning in the Reagan era.


[1] “Burnham’s seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, attempted to theorize about the future of world capitalism based upon observations of its development in the interwar period. Burnham argued three possible futures for capitalism: (1) that capitalism was a permanent form of social and economic organization and that it would be continued for a protracted period of time; (2) that capitalism was a temporary form of organization destined by its nature to collapse and be replaced by socialism; (3) that capitalism was a temporary form of organization currently being transformed into some non-socialist future form of society. Burnham argued that since capitalism had a more or less definite beginning, which he dated to approximately the 14th century, it could not be regarded as an immutable and permanent form.” — Wikipedia.

[2] “International finance capitalism” involves a network of dozens of entities around the world (e.g., banks, investment firms, corporations), each acting in concert and each acting as a link in a global chain; the major emphasis is on “finance” and “profit maximization” rather than on the mere manufacturing of essential things that benefit the people of the home nation; hence the reason that banks and investment firms play such a big role in international finance capitalism, which is the opposite of mom-and-pop capitalism, which honors the traditional values of “private property rights” and “the free exchange of goods.” International finance capitalism has no allegiance to any country and it hinders and undermines mom-and-pop values such as the free exchange of goods. Indeed, many mom-and-pop stores went bankrupt in the 1980s and 1990s due to being undercut by cheap goods from a couple of global retailers who had strong ties to China and Taiwan. In a monopoly situation, there’s no free exchange of goods, is there? There’s just one seller (or maybe two) selling everything at whatever price he chooses. There’s no real competition and you’ll eventually lose your mom-and-pop property to bankruptcy.

Comments are closed.