Capitalism is Jewish Usury PART 2: BANKERS EDITION

Capitalism is Jewish Usury PART 2: BANKERS EDITION
Why has Sup Forums got such a hard on for capitalism? This isn't in defense of communism or socialism, both communism and capitalism are Jewish monopoly's.

Capitalism is Usury. Its defining belief is ‘return on investment’. This is an extension of the ‘time value’ of money, which is the central tenet of modern economics. Capitalism is unthinkable without banking and banking is institutionalized Usury.

Usury is Plutocracy. Compound interest makes it unavoidable that the very richest own everything in generations.

And this is indeed what happened: Capitalism is one huge global monopoly. All the major banks own each other and most Transnationals plus a huge chunk of land. This juggernaut was built with the plunder of Usury.

We have all seen that Rothschild was worth 50 billion in 1850. At 5% per year, this fortune would now be a trillion, at 8% per year Rothschild would now be worth hundreds of trillions.

This is why it has been said that ‘compound interest is the strongest force in the Universe’.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4xm2qngUWpM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

A man trading his labor for another's labor is not jewish. What's jewish is buying off a government to make a man unable to trade his labor for another's labor, but instead pay funds he gets from his labor to the government for the privilege of being in debt to the currency this government uses via a private bank.

>tl;dr this is literally not capitalism

Just keep your money in a safe and it's all good.
If there's no money to lend no usury can happen.
If you don't have the money don't buy something

Looks like Sup Forums is finally waking up to both the Jew and the (((capitalist))). History will remember 2017 as the beginning of the Era of NazBol and Strasserism.

...

fuck off leftypol

You first.

No, it's just the jews.

Why not fascism?
At least you don't starve.

Why not both?

>Its defining belief is ‘return on investment’.
Wrong, the defining characteristic of capitalism is 'private property'.

Anything built on top of that fundamental bedrock is no longer a defining characteristic of capitalism

>your counter argument is a literal meme
wew

>tfw people are spreading your OC.

It's a actual national (((socialists))) try to latch onto the name of the not actually national Socialists epside

...

Hitlerists need to be shot, though.

>shove regular working jews into camps
>funded with jewish banker money

This polution only happens because they have no incentive to solve this problem, look if the same happens in the US.

Right in the first paragraphs of Nazi Germany of wikipedia is the statement that Hitler privitized state companies in Germany.

NIGHT OF LONG KNIVES BEST NIGHT

HEIL HITLER

...

>He clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."

>This polution only happens because they have no incentive to solve this problem, look if the same happens in the US.
So companies only pollute because it's cheaper then disposing of it like a rational person so a small government will be unable to stop a company from polluting if it wants to save costs.

What incentive does mcdonalds have to not pollute into a forest in a libertarian society

>Right in the first paragraphs of Nazi Germany of wikipedia is the statement that Hitler privitized state companies in Germany.

And what does that have to do with anything?

dealing with commies 101
youtube.com/watch?v=4xm2qngUWpM

>What incentive does mcdonalds have to not pollute into a forest in a libertarian society
Other person property of course. You know, you are liable and can be punished.

>And what does that have to do with anything?
That Hitlerconomics aren't solid. Do you think North Korea can be socialist forever? It depends on how much the state interferes in economy, but even if hidden, there can't be a state where the state owns and runs everything.

Bump.

And if mcdonalds owns the forest?
And what is it has endangered animals or plants in it?
Clearly their still going to pollute as much as they want.

That Hitlerconomics aren't solid. Do you think North Korea can be socialist forever? It depends on how much the state interferes in economy, but even if hidden, there can't be a state where the state owns and runs everything.

And national Socialism and Fascism don't manage everything in the economy, they just can if they wish. You know there's still capitalism and free enterprise and rich people right?

...

There is nothing evil or jewish about capitalism at all, as it is simply private ownership along with the free exchange of goods.
This "jewry" you speak of occurs when shitstains like the rothschilds get into the pocket of big government
If the state didn't have so much power then the rich would never buy them off because they are unable to benefit.

If they own the forest, they can do everything they want with it. But if they have a fetish for animal torture, for example, they might lose clients through boycott. If they get bankrupt, there's no nanny state to save them: It's deserved.

>And national Socialism and Fascism don't manage everything in the economy, they just can if they wish. You know there's still capitalism and free enterprise and rich people right?
There can be. If the state is in hunger for resources, it might get the wealth of the rich to fund a war or something. The individual has no liberty in this system. The state can do anything with its property.
This assures that the economy will develop around the state. The wealthy may use the state to prevent competition, this will create monopolies. They have incentives to do it, it's inevitable. It becomes corporativism.
Do you value more the morality of the people if it is organic or if it is by the state? Do you value the state over morality? (don't dodge this question!!!)

bumping for redpills.

And what stops the rich from selling out the country with their own private companies?

Okay so we're a ok with the destruction of the environment if their okay with some boycotts from some environmental protection groups. Great to see

>The individual has no liberty in this system
Wrong the individual has plenty of liberty in the system the state does not want to interfere with fred the shoe maker they don't care. What's good for his business is good for the state and workers

>The state can do anything with its property.
This assures that the economy will develop around the state.
Where do you get this idea from the economy develops around the people as they work the jobs and get the money and buy the products, there is still very much a capitalistic model in fascism

>The wealthy may use the state to prevent competition, this will create monopolies.
And large companies in libertarian land won't group up and form monopolies? It's in their interests to fuck over all other smaller ones, don't think your immune from corporate espionage

>Do you value more the morality of the people if it is organic or if it is by the state?
The morality of the people is the state, the leaders of fascism don't come from thin air, they come from leading members of the community

>Do you value the state over morality?
The morality of the people is the state. The nazi movement and the Nazi German people held the same morals

You just proved that capitalism is powerless against the Jewish nepotism.

That's Gregor Strasser's quote btw

What the fuck does that even mean? How do you sell out the country with your private company? Elaborate.

How did you come to that conclusion?
As stated before, without a powerful government there is no way to gain influence that would benefit yourself, no matter how much money you throw at it.

>Cheap overseas labor
>Hiring cheaper programmers from overseas
>Buying overseas raw products over domestic ones. ie buying Chinese steel or Japanese cars over American ones
>Letting foreign nations invest in your corporations there by controlling some of you
>And these corporations will be constantly pushing for more immigration non stop
>Gotta get that gdp since that's all that matters

>Wrong the individual has plenty of liberty in the system the state does not want to interfere with fred the shoe maker they don't care. What's good for his business is good for the state and workers
Pretty good, why not abolish taxation then? You are the most capitalist NatSoc I've seen, but under this system the state has the "right" to get peoples property it someone of high enough reputation wants.

> And large companies in libertarian land won't group up and form monopolies? It's in their interests to fuck over all other smaller ones, don't think your immune from corporate espionage
No sir, monopolies are beasts the state create. In a free market environment, monopolies always face competition. If they are a monopoly in a free market, then it means that they won all the clients and that they offer the best service. This can happen, but is very very unlikely without the help of the state. Libertarianism advocates statelessness, this doesn't combine with state enforced monopolies. Since every company has its competition, libertarian societies are garanteed to have its citizens' like quality every improving in a slow reasearch of the wills and dreams of the customers.
If the morality of the people is the state, how could be church hold the moral values in the West? It clearly isn't the state. It was opposed to slavery, to communism, maybe nazifascism had more reputation in the church's eyes, but don't forget that at the time, the church didn't had its own state. If the morality of the people is the state and if the state has to enforce its moral values on the people, it will be coercitive, therefore, there's a dispute here. If you disagree with any governemnt's decision, you are not moral, even if you disagree to protect your family, property, life, values whatever. You shall accept all state decisions.
Pretty retarded. Libertarianism is way more humble.

Because taxation is good for lots of things like maintaing a loyal military, building great buildings, funding artists, making sure people are being educated the right way, investing in science departments, social welfare for those who require it or ex veterans. leeches either adapt or get purged and the encouragement of cheaper loans from the government for couples who have children as well worker benefits.

Im going to disagree with your free market kills all monoplies or you get the best ones. Since it's in mcdonalds,kfc and other fast food restaurants to only keep them as top dog. Sure fred can open a restaurant but he's gonna get fucked by a muti billion dollar companies trying to destroy him

If the morality is enforced by the state, it means that there's no truth. The "truth" is what the state says. You can't disagree.
Do you think this is moral? How can you find the truth?

No, there's no easy way for big companies deal with Fred's restaurant. They are too large, they make a decision that will influence thousands of restaurants. Fred is independent, he can do it his way, he can cook the food people in his region like. The larger the company, the harder it is to keep the efficiency against competition.

The state is the people as I've said they have a much close relation then today's politicians have to your average man. If you grew up Muslim you have different morals to a Christian. Morality comes from the state your family and your friends

Sure I can believe in some sort of "natural morals" like being hurt,killed etc no one likes them happening to them, however different outlooks on abortion,rape,war,pacifism,welfare etc change based on your circumstances, morality if educated into the generations can be shaped quite easily

Before Hitler Jews and Gays in Germany were fine. after they were despised. There is no real "organic morality" it simply comes from your life and those around you. However the morals which would arise would be virtue,strength,nationalism,self reliance,charitable

No truth, no objective morality. You are agreeing with this.

Correct there is no objective correct morality, since that all simply comes from where you grow up. Spartans throw sickly babies off cliffs and will fight to the death. Christian monks will lay down and die if they had to choose between fighting and killing or dying.


What puts my opinion on how a society should run over a Muslims?
It doesn't since there is no correct or wrong morality

Don't bother, most of Sup Forums is still cucked into the boomer era capitalism vs marxism meme and worships a literal paid shill for the CIA and (((Henry Kissinger))).

Then your view is just the Law of the Strong.
Objective morelity isn't bound to childhood, because then, no one would be able to objectify morality. This proves that it was created and that it is a choice.
How was your childhood?

The strong can play a part but is still not apart of objective morality. For instance lets say the Nazis win ww2 and Poland is absorbed into Germany. No matter how peace loving or their views on Jews and civil rights were, they are now gone. The stronger society survived. And at the end of the day that's what counts. How many Aztec tribes and kingdoms were brutally extinguished, whatever their morals were they're gone the strong prevailed and made their morals the morals of the conquered lands.

Conservative middle-class christian upbringing. Nothing special

>Objective morelity isn't bound to childhood, because then, no one would be able to objectify morality. This proves that it was created and that it is a choice.

What do you mean by this? Can you reword the statement

>thinks corporatism is capitalism
>thinks fiat promissory notes are capital
>thinks the blackmarket (i.e. the only capitalist market in existence) is what stratifies global commerce

OP is a maggot shitstain of a faggot kike cunt for brains.

Well, you are the one implying christianity is all cuckery with no bravery. History proves you wrong.
Nihilism is nothing special either.


If morality is something you absorb when you are a child, you have to consider that the first humans are moral, so there can be moral humans today. But you don't believe in objective morality, thus, the way you were groomed didn't provide you exposition to objective morality. If you assume that the first humans didn't had objective morality, then morality had to be created(and it was created).
Thus, morality was created and it is a choice.

>We have all seen that Rothschild was worth 50 billion in 1850. At 5% per year, this fortune would now be a trillion, at 8% per year Rothschild would now be worth hundreds of trillions.

Yes because capital didnt vanish in the panic of 1929 bankrupting the then only major rothschild bank in Austria.
Stop talking out of your ass, go to NK if the fact that other people have more than you hurts you this much.

I never said Christianity is cucked I just said a portion of it is cucked.

No I am still very right the Christian armies were stronger then the Muslims therefore the Strongest went on and colonized the world. If the Muslims were stronger we would most likely be Muslim now You could be some peaceful monk village but if some barbarian slave village invades you and you fight and win the peaceful monks were stronger.

Who said anything about me being a nihilist I do not reject all religious and moral principals i simply state there is no correct or wrong morality. Your welcome to prove that me wrong there

The first humans were violent tribesmen raiding the others berry bushes and mammoth carcasses, they still had their own morality but it would of been very different to ours. Your getting it wrong morality has no right or wrong but you still get it from your parents and family.

Go ahead and fine me yes or no answer to all of moral robelms facing humanity and you'll be a billionaire

Is abortion right?
If the mother is in danger?
Killing in self defense?
Killing to stop a robber?
Killing an invader?
Killing at all?

none of these have a set yes or no, morality is entirety a subjective matter
Killin

I'm assuming you're christian. Jokes on you man. You don't believe in morality but you believe in god.
Believing in religious traditions for the sake of their usefullness in society, how fit to a statist!
That's how you find porpuse in your void life? You feel strong flip-floppin your own opinions?

No I'm non religious, I just recognize the values of the religion I was brought up in and want to protect them along with my family,race and culture.

And what about you then. Believing there is a correct answer to most moral questions. Putting you at different odds to billions of different people from all over different religions and cultures from the earliest man to now.

Muslims will stone someone who leaves Islam is that moral to you?
What about a Texan shooting a thief?

What makes your opinion better then the Muslims. Or do you have such a self inflated ego you see yourself superior as just by luck you happened to chose the correct morality.

All the Spartans, and conquering Spanish, and Chinese warriors and kings and Ancient Egyptians and Romans were all wrong and you happen to be correct. Why is that?

Why I'm correct? Because I'm humble enough to recognize I'm far for truth.
You need to provide crime by crime to be judged.
You might be the stronger, but what if your genitic inheritance is dissolved over time? Can you say that you won then? Do you think the moral absolutists lose when their lives are taken even if their ideas are the bedrock of further human development?
It isn't about being stronger, it is about having the honesty that will be remembered forever.

I never said it's about being stronger, it's just being stronger helps a lot nor did I say I am correct.

I'm sure your noble intent will go when the history books forget you, those small kingdoms in Italy my of been very honest but their gone and only Rome is remembered The winners write the history books

I don't think so. Renaissence was a thing. They breed our way out of islamic shadows, do you consider this a small deed?
If we won that, who the fuck is wrinting the books?

Your still haven't answered what makes your opinion better then a Ancient Romans? Is it that you pretend you don't fully now the truth.

You cannot prove your opinion is better then his. Can you summon the all mighty voice of god down to Earth and have him say your opinion is worth more. If you cannot then you have no right to say yours is worth even more then the dirtiest communist begger

If you don't believe in truth, how the fuck you expect me to prove I'm better than anyone? Killing you of course.

No, then you would win.

starsserism is fascist
Nazbols are pan-european civic cucks. Strasserism is based tho, don't associate them with each others for fuck sake

>pan-european
should change that to pan-euroasian, even worse

Not the smaller kingdoms, Not a lot of the Carthaginians, not the ancient Gallic tribes, not a lot about the Etruscan or even other kingdoms native to Italy before Rome.

Rome destroyed them and we only have snippets from history. For all we know they could be some form of ancient ancap. But we don't because Rome won and Rome wrote the books. You can't come back from history when you've been erased.

Show me truth then.

>What is moral Truth to you?
>Does this mean you simply believe in a false truth if it has no evidence?
>Then what puts what the communist thinks is moral truth over your moral truth

Nothing at all. Literally a spook

>confusing corporatism with corporatocracy

>arguing against interest

Durka Durka Muhammad jihad

>defending the system that gave the jews the upper hand in the first place

Kingdoms of Italy before Rome hardly had any writing record. You also fail to see that the romans adopted much of greek culture. They choose willingly to write something over their own culture out of love!

The truth starts when you believe in truth. I can prove it if you don't believe in it. If you like to honour your ancestors, then they may have had some thoughts that were closer to truth and you like it because you don't get rid of it entirely. Objective morality could have been created out of love for your beloved. Can you prove someone you love something if this someone don't believe in love?

The Greeks were on the losing side, according to your logic.

National Socialism is neither Capitalist or Communist. Only old money boomers and TD love (((unregulated freemarkets))) which eventually always lead to International Socialism aka Globalism.

Because most of pol users are from the US which are known for being a nation of negroes who are content with living a miserable life serving their Jewish masters

And what about Carthage we only know from what the Romans wrote. And their made to look evil.

We have no idea how many kingdoms the Romans could of erased out of anger or shame, we know they've tried before

Those kingdoms around Rome were also part Greek and we know they were vying for control of Italy. Parts of Greece sided with the Romans and made free cities in the Empire. Not so lucky about the other parts

>The truth starts when you believe in truth. I can prove it if you don't believe in it. If you like to honour your ancestors, then they may have had some thoughts that were closer to truth and you like it because you don't get rid of it entirely. Objective morality could have been created out of love for your beloved. Can you prove someone you love something if this someone don't believe in love?

Stop dodging the question and answer the question

>What is moral Truth to you?
>What puts what a communist thinks is moral truth over your moral truth

>to defeat the jew you must give up all your property rights, it's the only way

A) Usury practices are only possible if government is interfering in the economy or if you have a low IQ population.

B) You got a better alternative?

C) What you described is not free-market capitalism

If you try to analyse history will these misconceptions about what it is to be a human, then you reach these conclusions. Romans were stronger and prefered Greek religion, Greek architecture and partly, Greek philosophy. The Greeks could have been erased from earth, they wouldn't have died.

>What is moral Truth to you?
God

>What puts what a communist thinks is moral truth over your moral truth
A freaking cross

A freaking cross proves I'm right.

And the Muslim thinks he's right
And the Buddhist thinks he's right
And the Pagan thinks he's right

Nice job being a fucking spook. I knew it your moral "proof" is only backed up by your religious beliefs you have nothing over someone else's moral truths exacpt you think so

You are on equal grounds to a Muslim HAHAHA. What about protestants to Catholics on traditions and morals there's some more changing moral truths.

Fucking this

I can prove I'm right. Shall we spend the whole week reading the Summa Theologica?

Protectionism can stop all that, and you don't need a totalitarian government for that.

crony capitalism is just the end stage of freemarket capitalism

If you can prove God is real sure, I'll love to see how your specific brand of religion and Catholicism has 100% correct morality it would blow billions of morally incorrect people out of the water.

You realize if you were raised in Arabia you would be Muslim right therefore going against the 100% right morals

> if you were
I'm who I'm and I can't imagine any different.

Every cause has its effect. How do you explain the first cause?

You were born in Brazil and picked up the religion of people nearby you and also some of their morality. What a co-incidence the religion and your specific brand of Catholicism just happened to be nearby enough for you to begin learning it at such a young age I mean imagine if your country was Buddhist you would be morally incorrect.

I'm sure Muslims don't feel the exact same way you to about their religion

The_Donald has declared war against Sup Forums

(You) (Cross-thread)

well said

Well, I think we can't get rid of thid dilemma.