Dota on No Two Feminists Are Alik… Beatrix on No Two Feminists Are Alik… Beatrix on Capitalism, Consumerism, and… Dota on The Importance Of Business… GulliverFredrich on The Importance Of Business… Todd Lewis on What Is The Point Of Hate Crim… Dota on The Importance Of Business… GulliverFredrich on The Importance Of Business… GulliverFredrich on The Importance Of Business… Quartermain on The Importance Of Business… Dota on The Importance Of Business… Beatrix on The Importance Of Business… Robert Stark intervi… on Feminism’s corporate ben… Robert Stark intervi… on Portrait of the alpha mal… Daniel on Western Beauty: Subversion or…
- No Two Feminists Are Alike
- Capitalism, Consumerism, and Innovation
- What Is The Point Of Hate Crimes Legislation?
- The Importance Of Business Ethics
- The Far Left Has No Clothes
- My latest essay on Return of Kings
- The future of western values
- Robert Stark interviews me
- Enter the Muslims
- Black People: Menace or Nuisance?
- art (5)
- Asia (37)
- China (16)
- Caste (11)
- Christianity (35)
- conservative values (70)
- Cultural Marxism (76)
- Economics (17)
- Europe (9)
- Feminism (55)
- Hinduism (22)
- Hispanics (6)
- History (3)
- Homosexuals (10)
- Humor (6)
- Immigration (36)
- India (37)
- Islam (27)
- Israel (20)
- Jewry (26)
- Middle East (18)
- Organized Jewry (28)
- Race (29)
- Racism (24)
- Rape Culture (7)
- Sports (2)
- Subversion (79)
- Tribalism (23)
- Uncategorized (46)
- Western Values (44)
- White nationalism (56)
- Wimpy Whites (17)
Is consumerism Capitalism’s dead end? The words are often used interchangeably in day to day use and so I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the common man’s perception. However this was not always the case. Capitalism began as the economic extension of Classical Liberalism where the old liberals believed that a society’s happiness was the sum total of individual happiness. When Classical Liberal thought was applied to economic theory, Capitalism was born. This was to be a system where the prosperity of society would be measured as the sum total of every individual’s prosperity. Consumerism wasn’t birthed by Capitalism, but rather from mass production which originated in the Industrial revolution.
Our consumerist economy is classified as “Monopolistic competition” by economists. This generally means that the economy produces various products (technically services are products also) that are differentiated by branding and advertizing. While these products may not be perfect substitutes for each other, they are very similar. Advertizing generally conveys the false impression that consumers have a great deal of choice when seeking out products to satisfy their needs. This isn’t necessarily so. While products may vary superficially by boutique features, the vast majority of them do not differ significantly in terms of utility. So while consumer A may prefer a certain brand of laundry detergent whereas consumer B prefers another, the two brands probably do not differ significantly from one another. Products are differentiated artificially through advertizing which stimulates brand loyalty amoung consumers.
Consumerism plays upon our atavistic desire for variety, but scratch the surface of consumerist “variety” and one will unearth homogeneity. Ironically enough, in this regard consumerism isn’t very different from communism. If I were to apply Hegelian dialectic to modern consumerism it would run as follows:
- Freedom to consume, gratify desires without restraint, and define one’s self image via consumption —> Individualism –> Thesis
- Consuming mass manufactured products that most other individuals have access to –> homogeneity –> Anti-thesis
- Product differentiation via advertizing and marketing –> Synthesis
Capitalism, despite the abomination it has spawned, is not without merit. It is still the most effective engine of economic growth and aids in not just improving the economy, but molding better individuals in society. It is a system that assists young men in channeling their risk taking behaviour in a manner that is beneficial to themselves as well as society. It teaches young men responsibility, accountability, and most importantly, self reliance.
Yet while Capitalism does indeed reward initiative, it fails to spur innovation. This assertion almost reads like heresy but it is true. Businesses aren’t interested in innovation, their goal is to generate profit. Let us not fall prey to the fallacy of confusing product differentiation with innovation. Innovation costs resources and businesses would rather spend those resources selling products that have mass appeal. This is why the vast majority of pharmaceutical companies aren’t interested in discovering cures for ailments such as HIV, but would rather manufacture and distribute fast selling cough syrups.
Most of the paradigm shifting inventions over the past 100 years have been innovated by private inventors such as Bell, Watt, Edison, and Tesla. Businesses generally buy patents and convert them to mass produced goods for the benefit of society. Inventors and businessmen both have a place in society, but it is unwise to give the latter undue credit for the labours of the former. I was considering adding environmental degradation as a major fault of Capitalism but decided against it as Soviet Russia and Red China (which is a lot less Red today) have far worse records.
I’ve never been a fan of hate crimes legislature and now is just as good a time as any to question their rationale and utility. Three Arabs were shot dead recently, murdered execution style, and the media is all over these Muslim murders. Yet again the Liberal media insists on treating Muslims as a race, and because of this foolhardy insistence, the lines between racial and religious prejudice are deliberately blurred. The leftist BBC interviewed one of the locals in the area who had the following to say: “”I don’t think it made it easier to kill them because they were Muslim, black or whatever.”
It’s interesting (and depressing) how this individual categorizes Muslims as a race to be compared to Blacks. Someday North Americans will realize that religions can be changed while race cannot. As I have discussed this matter at length in a previous article, I shall refrain from repeating myself here. The point of this post is to ask the question presented in the title. Why exactly do we need hate crimes legislation? There is something chillingly Orwellian about criminalizing intent. While deciphering intent is key in establishing the motive that drives criminal behaviour, we must realize that the law ultimately punishes the actions that flow out of the motive, never the intention itself. Even in the case of attempted murder, it is not intent that is put on trial, but rather the plausibility of acting on that intent. A criminal’s feelings of ‘hatred’ toward the target are not as relevant as people think. Hate crimes legislature attempts to put intent on trial with the sole purpose of punishing a criminal for their thoughts rather than the outcome of their actions (although actions are undoubtedly a major factor).
Hicks allegedly (we don’t know all the facts yet) murdered three innocent people in cold blood over so trivial a matter. If he is found guilty of this crime, there are existing laws that can adequately be applied. Whether he committed a hate crime is irrelevant, what is relevant is that he committed brutal murder and should be tried for murder. If a thug spray paints offensive graffiti on the walls and windows of a mosque, that thug should be charged with vandalism and not a hate crime. Perhaps that thug was simply in the mood for causing mischief and the mosque happened to be the most convenient target in his radius. Ultimately, the law generally punishes actions as it is (negative) actions that can potentially harm society, not intentions. Criminalizing intent is counterproductive and violates our God given autonomy. While intent is key in day to day morality and ethical thought in general, the law is not an ethical code. As I am not a lawyer and know very little about law, I shall refrain from touching upon the “What the law is” versus “What the law ought to be” debate.
I don’t have much else to say so I’ll leave the floor open to comments.
It has often been said that a society’s level of civilization can be gauged in three places: it’s prisons, it’s toilets, and it’s roads. If a society possesses a high trust culture which emphasizes justice and consideration, one would visibly notice those values at work in the aforementioned 3 places. I would like to add another domain to that list, the domain of business and commerce. It is within the realm of commerce where Western values of high trust and consideration truly shine. Let us examine how.
In 2013 I did some contract work for a massive Canadian corporation where I acted as a liaison between customers and the accounting department. The job was a logistics position that tracked the number of units that were shipped every month to various giant retailers across Canada. If customers had accidentally been shipped fewer units than ordered, my job was to prepare the paperwork and alert the accounting department so that the customer would receive a credit on their next purchase. Unsurprisingly, customers were quick to point out shortages as it no doubt impacted their operations. Surprisingly, they were just as quick to report additional units that were shipped to them by accident. In such a scenario I would once again prepare the necessary paperwork and forward it to the accounting department which would then bill the customers for the additional units.
I was told that there was no way to track additional units shipped by accident and thus the company was at the mercy of their customers. If the customer was honest, they would report the overage. If they weren’t, that was the company’s loss. It turned out that 90% of the customers were honest and I owed my contract job to their integrity. Just another day in a civilized high trust Western culture.
Contrast this to the manner in which non western people do business. A cousin of mine (now a millionaire several times over) once said this about Dubai’s real estate market: “Everybody’s corrupt, from the bottom to the very top.” Kickbacks are very common in the UAE, and possibly the only means to secure lucrative contracts. Building material suppliers often offer kickbacks to secure contracts for new development projects. This often leads to the use of inferior construction materials which in turn frequently leads to this.
India and China do not fare any better. My mother once mentioned her awful shopping experience at Dubai’s Dragon Mart, the emirate’s only major Chinese mall. Chinese shopkeepers often threaten to raise their prices at a moments notice to force your hand and discourage you from shopping around. The Indian’s atavistic need to price haggle is a symptom of a larger problem: a lack of trust between consumers and sellers. In the West, bargaining is frowned upon and customers generally trust sellers to quote them a fair price. This has historically been the case:
The sound merchant of the old school held the opinion that his duty was satisfactorily discharged, by satisfying the actual purchase-requirements of his customers. He allowed the latter to approach him of their own accord, and waited until they called upon him, believing that he had conformed in all respects to his business obligations, by procuring for the customer, at a suitable price, the goods which the latter required. He regarded it as beneath his dignity to run after customers, or to entice them, by all manner of tricks, to buy from him; in fact, in olden times, conduct of this kind was regarded as unbecoming
and quite unworthy of an honourable trader. Far less did it ever occur to him to talk a customer into buying some article, which the latter would not have bought of his own accord. Thus trade remained a peaceful, and not unduly exciting occupation, and still the customer got what he wanted. (Theodor Fritsch, The Riddle Of The Jew’s success, page 10, 1927)
Tribalism is bad for Capitalism
Traditional Capitalism ensures that Businesses actually satisfy consumer needs in order to remain profitable and hence continue operating. Businesses that do not satisfy consumer needs or implement poor business models are punished with losses and eventually swept off the board. In tribal societies however, even lousy businesses can expect to stay profitable because they can always count on the patronage of their ethnic communities. In the long run this is harmful to the economy as businesses have no need for self improvement.
I’ve seen several examples of this in Toronto where businesses (run by immigrants) that would have shut down (under ordinary circumstances) remain operational due to the support of their ethnic communities. These businesses provide sub-standard customer service and at times their owners outright insult their customers over the counter. This arrangement generally sabotages the free market’s ability to regulate quality. In the long run, an ethnically fragmented society produces an economic system that emphasizes ethnic networking over quality. Capitalism’s innovation inducing qualities are effectively muted in such an economic environment.
How a society does business speaks volumes about it’s values and worldview. Even my ultra religious uncle (a hardcore Muslim) was impressed with the integrity of Western businessmen. He often speaks highly about his British suppliers and how they would often issue full refunds without even verifying if the goods were genuinely defective, preferring instead to take their customer’s word for it. The prevailing ethos of the West is that trade ought to benefit society and that there is a higher purpose to wealth creation. This is why Ford paid his employees very high wages (for the time) and Carnegie built libraries. India’s business class give virtually nothing back to society and the Chinese are not much better.
I think the Alternative Right and Paleoconservatives have overall neglected to analyze and comment on the business culture of the West. I’ve merely presented the tip of the iceberg in this article and it is my view that this is an area that certainly merits further study and discussion.
This post is going be rather short since my objective here is to stimulate debate rather than provide analysis.
The late American philosopher Arthur Danto rejected Hume’s fact/value dichotomy by persuasively arguing that a society’s morals beliefs were indeed predicated on their factual beliefs. He articulated this view in the broader context of Asian cultures being largely incompatible with Western culture. He argued that the moral beliefs of the Orient and Occident were grounded upon a series of factual beliefs that were mutually exclusive to each other and hence Asian cultures wouldn’t be accessible to Westerners.
Consider the following values enshrined in the Declaration :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
A lot of this is straight out of John Locke’s book. This part: “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is basically a variation of Locke’s natural rights. But the aforementioned values are predicated on a single factual belief: the existence of God. The Creator is not only the source of life, but also liberty. The classical liberal philosophers believed that freedom wasn’t merely doing what one desired, but it was also freedom from intrusive government. They believed that there was an inverse relationship between government power and individual autonomy (unless I’ve read them incorrectly).
If the value of Liberty is based on the existence of God, what happens when society loses it’s belief in God? What then sustains this value? If He doesn’t exist, why does freedom matter? We might argue that freedom is good, but why? I’ve discussed this matter with Bay Area Guy and while both of us are non religious, we both nevertheless believe that the idea of God is a force for good in society. If we remove God, morality dies along with Him. As Dostoyevsky said: “If God is dead, then everything is permitted.” Atheism leads to one dead end: Social Darwinism.
If God is dead, why bother being moral? Why not let nature take its course and let the big fish dominate all the smaller fish? Furthermore, if liberty is based on the existence of God, and as God is gradually killed off by post-modern society, could this then explain the disturbing erosion of our freedoms? Is this why NSA surveillance is on the rise? Is the State destined to replace God as the omnipresent apparition of observation and judgement?
Do any of you agree with my assessments or do you think I’ve grossly misread Atheism and just about everything? You’re comments are welcome and greatly appreciated as always.
We chat about some of the articles I’ve published over the past year.
When immigrants are wiser than natives about Dota’s wife’s statement that Pakistani criminals should be thrown out of the UK
Portrait of the alpha male and the role that religion played in surprising certain characteristics of women and alpha makes
According to a series of Pew surveys, Islamophobia is on the rise in Europe:
Pew’s 2014 Global Attitudes survey, 26 per cent of us have ‘unfavourable’ attitudes towards Muslims in this country; compare that to 46 per cent in Spain, 53 per cent in Greece and 63 per cent in Italy.
The leftist BBC self righteously took pot shots at Greece as Athens was the only major city in all of Europe that refused to permit the construction of a Mosque. It seems that this will no longer be the case as plans for a new Mosque are being discussed.
As I watched the video in the above link I couldn’t help but notice that this hostility to Muslims stems not from religious prejudice, but xenophobia. This brought me back to an excellent point Bay Area Guy had made a while ago about how Muslims had become a legitimate target for pent up anti-immigrant frustration. I suspect this is also the case in Europe. Muslims are bashed especially hard because North American Whites and Europeans are not allowed to bash any other group for fear of being labelled racist.
While there is nothing objectionable about Westerners wishing to protect their culture and heritage, what I find disturbing about these trends is how Muslims are being treated as a race as opposed to a global religion. The Bishop of Piraeus (in the video) is apprehensive about Europe becoming Islamicized. I’m not even sure what that means given that there is no such thing as Islamic culture. The culture practiced by Muslims is a function of their ethnic origin. Indian Muslims practice Indian culture (depending on caste and region) while Malaysian Muslims have little in common with Sub Saharan African Muslims.
Even dysfunctional Pakistan, the poster child of Islamic terrorism, is not fully Islamicized. As Aakar Patel notes:
In Pakistan nobody has ever been stoned to death or beheaded or amputated, unlike in Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. The laws exist only to make Pakistanis feel more Muslim; to separate them from Indians, because otherwise very little does.
If Pakistanis cannot even Islamicize Pakistan, how do you expect them to Islamicize Europe and North America? Does this mean that Pakistanis are not a threat to Western culture? Ofcourse not. However, the source of the threat isn’t Islam, but their tribal/caste collectivist South Asian culture that values group identity over universal principles. An influx of such immigrants threatens to degrade Western democracies by making the democratic process a numbers game (vote bank politics) as opposed to a healthy competition of ideologies. This is exactly the sorry state of Indian democracy.
What do Mexicans and Pakistanis have in common? Both of them vote liberal due to the Left’s commitment to lax immigration policies. Nobody in their right mind would think that Pakistanis and Mexicans harbor any love for feminists, gays, or any of the other Liberal pet classes. But why are Muslims treated as a race in mainstream discourse?
Analyzing Islam’s ritualistic framework
The Islam bashing industry has really exploded in the last decade. Daniel Pipes, Spencer, and others make a fortune selling books, DVDs, and lectures on the evils of Islam while pushing a pro Zionist narrative on the gullible masses. All of this becomes infinitely easier if Muslims are treated as one large faceless monolithic enemy. But I’m not going to bash the bashers as Occident Invicta is dedicated to analysis and not vitriol.
Islam, like it’s parent Judaism, is a ritualistic religion. It’s rituals enabled the Muslim community to internalize certain ethical ideals (such as Charity) in addition to sentiments of solidarity (Salah/prayer ritual).
What do Islamic rituals have in common with Jewish rituals?
Recognize that a significant portion of the Old Testament was written during the Babylonian exile (~590 BCE) where Jewish elites were exiled and forced to live amidst an indifferent and possibly hostile majority. I suspect it was during this fateful period that Judaism began to take on it’s distinctive character which is all to familiar to those on the alternative right: A nation within a nation. Jewish rituals pertaining to intermarriage and dietary laws were designed to prevent Jews from mingling with their gentile neighbors. This would enable Jews to resist cultural assimilation in addition to being perpetually cognizant of their own special status as God’s chosen Master race.
Islamic rituals were not meant to segregate Muslims from non Muslims and the Quran allows Muslims to dine with Jews and Christians. However, like Jewish rituals, Islamic rituals were intended to remind Muslims of their special identity and to differentiate themselves from non Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad had once said that the distinctive Islamic prayer was the distinguishing mark of a Muslim. This ritual reminds the Muslim of his special identity while simultaneously signaling this identity to those around him.
As the vast majority of Muslims today are non Arab, several Islamic ideas and values have lost their cultural context. The Islamic idea of “Gheera” for example (protective jealousy of one’s wife/sister/mother ect) seems to be lost on most non Arab Muslims. I hadn’t even heard the term until I was 20. Yet Islamic rituals and practices make it easy to classify Muslims as a separate race because rituals in general have historically had an ethnic dimension. Confucian rituals are Chinese in character while Hindu rituals are Indian in character. Since Islamic rituals are traditionally Arab in character but are practiced largely by non Arabs, Muslims have come to be in a class of their own. Leftists/Orientalists are quick to blame Whites for ‘othering’ the Muslim. However, as my analysis shows, Islam lends itself to ‘othering’.
How do you solve a problem like Islam?
Pat Buchanan has the answer: We must leave them alone. Stop invading their countries and put an end to non Western immigration. Treating the diverse Muslim world as a monolithic race is reckless, counterproductive, and above all ignorant. The West (especially the US) needs to stop supporting Israel. As a sovereign nation, Israel is free to wage unlimited war in the Middle East and continue its plunder of Palestinian land so long as they do so on their own dime. The US and Canada need to reconsider the possibility of pursuing an isolationist foreign policy which discourages military intervention but encourages trade and commerce with the third world. We need to export good and services to the third world, not our values.
There’s no point in trying to deny that many within the alternative right and white nationalist movements aren’t especially fond of black people. The implications of low average black IQ, the incessant grievance mongering of professional black leaders, as well as rowdy and violent black misbehavior are recurring themes when discussing the black question. Aside from the most extreme of white nationalists, you won’t see anyone calling for the extermination or ethnic cleansing of black people. Nevertheless, the general sentiment is that black people are at best an unwelcome presence and thorn in the side, and at worst a hostile population that poses a great danger to white people. Prominent white nationalist Jared Taylor has spent much of his career documenting the annoyances and even violence that blacks inflict on whites, which has culminated in his recent book Face to Face With Race.
(See Matt Forney’s review over at Alternative Right)
Personally, I think that the alternative right is both right and wrong with regards to their criticisms of blacks. I don’t deny that there are significant problems with black culture and the black community, nor is it my intention to come across as some bleeding heart liberal pontificating about the evils of prejudice. I’ll even admit that there was a time when I harbored a strong disdain for black people and black culture. Having had bad experiences with black people in middle school, and to a smaller extent high school, I came away with the impression that blacks are an easily angered, obnoxious group of people who will start confrontations or fights at the drop of a hat. I remember waiting in line for Burger King at the mall during my sophmore year in high school when out of the blue some aggressive sounding black guy yelled at me, “what chu lookin’ at?!” When I responded in a shocked and flustered fashion, he then immediately laughed and said he was just fucking with me. I’ve had similar experiences elsewhere. I likewise heard various stories from my mom and others about their experiences being accosted by black people. Needless to say, I did not emerge from my adolescence holding blacks in high esteem. During my younger and more volatile days commenting on blogs, I even made some harsh and unflattering statements about blacks that I’ve since renounced.
I do not deny that many black people can be irritating. I likewise am not downplaying the violent crimes that certain blacks randomly perpetrate against whites, which are not to be taken lightly. I also fully acknowledge that compared to my younger days when I lived in the East Bay, I currently live in a part of the Bay Area mostly devoid of black people. Perhaps if I lived in Oakland and had to deal with obnoxious ghetto blacks on a consistent basis, I would be singing a tune similar to Matt Forney and the various whites featured in Jared Taylor’s book.
With that being said, where I disagree with the alternative right regards the amount of weight they assign to the black question. Yes, black violence is problematic. Yes, black activists and professional complainers can be quite irritating. Yes, black people can at times be quite a nuisance, as demonstrated by the #blackbrunchnyc disturbances. However, black people are mostly just that: a nuisance. Ultimately, black radicals and critical race theorists are correct when they insist that blacks don’t actually wield any real power. Aside from certain urban enclaves such as Detroit, blacks do not possess the capacity to truly threaten white America.
To the extent that blacks menace or bother white people beyond violent street encounters, they can only do so when they are being aided and abetted by our depraved elites. Upset white brunchgoers and annoyed observers should focus their anger on wealthy oligarchs such as George Soros, whose funding of the Ferguson protests emboldens black activists to engage in irritating behavior such as #blackbrunchnyc.
On a more cultural level, if one is upset by the prevalence of rap music that promotes classless ghetto behavior, then blame white media moguls, Jewish and gentile alike. They are the ones who glamorize the ghetto lifestyle for the white masses through their influence over television and Hollywood. The suburban white and other non-black kids that I’ve observed saying “nigga” did not learn such behavior from their numerous, mostly nonexistent black friends.
Just to be clear, this doesn’t mean that I believe the alternative right should embrace black people and treat them as brothers. As visible racial minorities with a significant amount of historical baggage as it pertains to their relations with whites, the overwhelming majority of blacks will never endorse a movement that promotes white identity and seeks to preserve white demographic superiority. Trying to pander to blacks in any way would be a complete waste of time.
Rather, the alternative right should direct most of its attention and energy towards the white liberal elites who enable black petulance. Scratch any negative national trend and you will find a rotten white elite. As obnoxious and abrasive as DeQuan the foul-mouthed hood rat with sagging pants can be, he is child’s play compared to the likes of George Soros. As long as one avoids violent ghetto blacks or black people with an obvious axe to grind against whites, then black people by and large are harmless.
By no means should we disregard black misbehavior towards whites, but just remember that there are far bigger fish to fry.