Friday, April 7, 2017

Why is Capitalism so closely tied with 'Progressivism'?

Why are capitalism, privilege, and success so closely tied with 'progressivism'? Are capitalism, wealth, privilege, and success inherently proggy? Perhaps in the sense that both capitalism and proggism are invested in change, transformation, and reinvention. Capitalism seeks new products, new technologies, new everything. Proggism feeds on the conceit of new frontiers in the struggle for justice. Both are at war with tradition, roots,and established norms. In economics, this makes sense since improved/advanced technology is objectively better than earlier ones. Surely, a new computer is better than one 5 yrs ago, let alone 10 yrs ago. Technology can demonstrate superiority. Also, Pop Culture must promote changes in fashions to hook new generations to new trends and the 'hottest thing'.

But can same rules be applied to arts, culture, morality, justice, and emotions? Is modern art necessarily more 'advanced' than classical art, and is post-modern art necessarily more advanced than modern art? Is today's concept of family really 'more evolved' than the concept fifty years ago? Is hipster sensibility superior to the sentiments of an earlier era?
To be sure, the more a society becomes productive and plentiful, the more various peoples(with full stomachs) tend to seek their own fetishized niche of ‘justice’ concocted to cater to his or her personal whims. Also, when even the personal is politicized or filtered through ideology, even trivialities or frivolities are mistaken as 'rights' deserving of moral recognition and benediction by all of society.
In a hungry society, the main priority is providing enough food for the masses. If Michael Jackson had been born into a sharecropper family in 1900, he would have worked in the fields and focused on food & basic needs. But he made lots of money in a rich nation and could indulge his fantasies. Eventually, the flight into fantasy became a new ‘right’, and so, we are witnessing the Michael-Jacksonization of society. Michael was effectively transsexual, transracial, and transage. He was a perpetual Peter-Pan-kid. At least he kept it to himself. Today, every freak is no longer content to indulge in his/her whims but demands all of society to recognize and celebrate what he/she is. Once homos went from a group-to-be-tolerated-and-left-alone to a group-that-must-be-praised-and-worshiped-by-all-of-society, freaks of all stripes began to take their cues from the homo movement and make similar demands.

Anyway, capitalism has lots of tendencies that aren't necessarily proggy. So, how did it end up being so proggy?  Three possible explanations.

1. Most business and science/technology types don’t have much time or interest in ideas or culture. They are into money, success, ambition, and geek stuff. So, most of them don’t form their own ideas on society, politics, humanity, and history. Bill Gates is a very smart guy, but his main focus for most of his life was on geek stuff and making money. So, where do people like him get their ideas? From social sciences and media controlled by other sorts of people. So, if academia and media people lean proggy and globby(globalist), even apolitical people-of-success will gravitate in that direction. It could be that simple.

2. Mafia-type extortion. Businesses naturally want to be left alone to make money. Because Conservatives tend to be pro-business, they leave businesses alone. So, businesses have NOTHING to fear from Conservatives who kiss the butts of the business class. Why pay for something you can have for free? Conservative don’t run extortion schemes on businesses. Even when conservatives hope for donations from rich people and big business, they go pleading, not demanding and certainly not threatening.

But proggies and blacks do make demands. (And Jews make demands on gentile businesses to fork over money to Jewish causes and be mindful not to fund anything deemed 'antisemitic' or 'racist'. This means anti-white Jewish organizations & cause receive tons of donations, whereas any group even mildly associated with white interests get no funding from big business.) Jesse Jackson made an art of this and reaped a fortune by going from company to company, sniffing for ‘racism’, and extorting funds for his own coffers. (Jackson's extortion scheme ended only under Clinton & Co. that forged a deal with Big Business that progs would drop their knee-jerk anti-corporatism IF big business poured the bulk of their donations to Democrats, homos, and progs. Clintons even created a foundation to do just that on a global scale.)

Proggies, via power of media and NGO agitation/subversion, have devised an effective way to extort money and support from big companies. So, even if businesses are apolitical or conservative-leaning, they fear threats and attacks from progs who are funded and organized by the likes of George Soros. Businesses feel they have no choice but to pander to them. Progs act like a bunch of Don Fanucci’s. Just like the mafia gained control of labor unions and caused 'union trouble' for companies that didn't play ball, the Proglob(prog-globalists) operate the same way.

In contrast, since businesses have the unconditional support of Conservatives, there's no compelling reason to fund or support Conservatism. Businesses fear threats more than they appreciate support. After all, Conservative support for business is just that. It’s like a woman's devotion to a man no matter what he does. He can take her loyalty for granted. But proggy threats can get nasty, especially since proggies have close ties to media, academia, courts, deep state(with secret intelligence on everyone), and groups like SPLC & ADL and especially since Proggies can destroy careers and reputations with accusations of  ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’.
Also, to appease proggies even further, corporations have hired progsters to manage the publicity departments and to devise office policy, which means everyone has to attend endless meetings on PC this or that. Also, advertising has been taken over by the Proglob and is used mostly as a vehicle for homo, interracial, anti-white, hedonist, and nihilist propaganda.
And with the vulgarization of Gramsci’s notion of ‘cultural hegemony’, many progs and even creative types now believe that anything related to culture — even TV comedies, comic books, advertising, and manuals — must be used as vehicles of ideological indoctrination. Nothing is objective or apolitical anymore. Every image or sentiment is used to promote Jew-worship, homo-worship, mass-invasion & diversity, and idea that white wombs exist to produce black babies.

This is why Conservatives need to understand the paradoxical nature of power. If cons want businesses to be more pro-conservative, conservatives must be more anti-business. Only by threatening businesses with boycotts and lost revenue will corporations pay heed to interests of conservatives or, at the very least, not cave to proggy demands so much. For too long, businesses took Conservatives for granted since the Right has been so pro-business no matter what. The rebellion of middle America by voting for Trump’s anti-globalism and the hits taken by Target(over tranny stuff) & Starbucks(over refugee stuff) illustrates that the ONLY way to make big business respect your side's values and positions is by threatening it with dire consequences. Patriotic Americans need to formulate systems and organizations that enable massive boycotts of companies that go anti-white or anti-conservative.

3. Hipster factor. This is a conceit, especially among the young. Young people like to see themselves as forever young, cool, hip, and edgy. And the center of hip culture is in downtown areas of big cities with the glitter, fashion, buzz, dazzle, and the fun. It’s La Dolce Vita, and people want IN on this culture, like those revelers in LAST DAYS OF DISCO eager to be let into the hottest night club. Such a world is appealing for its permissiveness, experimentalism, individualism, ‘creativity’, and anything-goes-ism.
Despite the repressive aspects of PC, cultural freedom is still mostly associated with bohemian areas of NY, SF, Chicago, Austin, and the like. And the political culture of this community is proggy by default — even if most denizens of this world aren't hardcore leftists — because bohemianism is inherently anti-square and un-conservative. The whole spirit of experimentalism and alternative-lifestyle-ism, as carryovers from modernism, is a rejection of traditionalism and conservatism seen as stuffy, dull, outdated, and boring. Now, most people who hang around such communities are not so strange or ‘different’ themselves. They are mostly 9-to-5 working stiffs themselves. It’s like yuppies filled up Soho and other creative parts in NY in 80s. But they want to be around the vibes of latest trends. It’s like Charlie Sheen character in WALL STREET dates some decorator with connections with ‘creative’ types.

How come libertarians don’t fit well into this culture even though they are individualistic and pro-freedom? Because they come in two colors: (1) opportunists who will whore out to the rich and powerful for any price. They seem crass in their obsession with wealth and power, and those who can't gain success for themselves toady up to the powerful, like the contemptible Poe character in PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID (2) cold-hearted ruthless greed of someone like Gordon Gekko or Jordan Belfort.

Bohemian types are for unfettered freedom, but they also want to feel justified as people concerned with 'justice' and 'meaning'. They want be cool, not cold. They want feel warm and fuzzy on social/moral issues, not hard and bullying like libertarians for whom individual liberty and self-interest trump all other considerations. Even though libertarianism is about freedom, it strikes those who want a more relaxed cultural atmosphere as too hard-hitting and hyper. Libertarianism is more about will to power than will to party. It’s like someone who is for freedom to exercise to build muscle. It’s calisthenics than aesthetics of freedom.

No comments:

Post a Comment