TOPIC: Capitalism has no moral base and the truth is there is no such thing as Good or Evil.

What you perceive to be good / evil is folklore also known as mysticism or mythology so enjoy the life you have.

Truth Guest wrote:
Thats correct for those which do not know or having any morals in the first place there is also no vision of plus & minus.

Its a 90% world wide issue.

No morals means to those types everything is based on nothingness & emptiness.

Basically animal only likeness & mindedness.......... non human like. Animals also have no vision of good & evil.

Means your quote (so enjoy the life you have) would produce the same response any animal would have to it.

No light & no darkness just a permanent shadow like dimness. Soul only like beings.

Exactly like I see this world around me ................. gray & more gray everywhere like unwashed clothing.


With some luck only 10% on earth are able to understand this!??
@ oiram @

Truth Guest wrote:
I'm addressing the thread title, as for some reason you've dropped the comment about Capitalism from the OP.

I completely agree that capitalism has no moral basis. It doesn't. It's based firmly in the Jewish Talmud. Capitalism at its core is the exploitation of other people to enrich oneself (at the expense of others) to make the most of THIS time on earth. Capitalism is about THIS life, and is in essence an unchristian / un-muslim system, though it is very Jewish.

As with all things Jewish, when inflicted on the unsuspecting goy, it is designed to corrupt. Your average unaware goy is fully aware that their surrounding world is full of qunts. That's true, they are. The unaware goy has probably been screwed over more than once in a business deal, an investment and definitely would have been exploited in the master and servant nature of the employment contract.

At its core capitalism shores up the Jewish fractional reserve lending system whilst also corrupting the unaware goys who act just like Jews in screwing others in order to enrich themselves (at the expense of others) in THIS life on earth.

I disagree though that there is no such things as good and evil. I'd say the complete opposite myself.

Truth Guest wrote:
If there is no such thing as good and evil as you claim, then how would one judge Capitalism for having no moral base? Morality is judged by recognising something being either good or bad, or good v evil.. so how could one judge Capitalism for being immoral when you claim Good and Evil doesn't exist?

Of course the Capitalist system (the control of Capital) is immoral, tell us something we don't already know! Likewise so is it's supposed ''opposite'' communism. Both systems are constructs of the same predatory classes.

To be honest your thread title reads like everyday Communist swindle-speak, and in typical fashion totally contradicts itself...

It's amazing how you communists or ''moral relativists'' always manage to contradict yourself so enormously, and in so few words.

\Zorro\ wrote:
Because since there is no such thing as good or evil capitalism does not need to have a moral base.

Truth guest wrote:

Truth guest wrote:
Right, wrong, good, evil. Semantics.

My aim here is not to give a ready answer—for I have none. My aim is rather to examine a particular case of paradox–the attitude of Jews toward capitalism. Two propositions can be readily demonstrated: first, the Jews owe an enormous debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism; second, for at least the past century the Jews have been consistently opposed to capitalism and have done much on an ideological level to undermine it. How can these propositions be reconciled?

I was led to examine this paradox partly for obvious personal reasons. Some of us are accustomed to being members of an intellectual minority, to being accused by fellow intellectuals of being reactionaries or apologists or just plain nuts. But those of us who are also Jewish are even more embattled, being regarded not only as intellectual deviants but also as traitors to a supposed cultural and national tradition.

This personal interest was reinforced by the hope that study of this special case might offer a clue to the general paradox—typified by West Germany where Jews play a minor role. Unfortunately, that hope has not been fulfilled. I believe that I can explain to a very large extent the anti-capitalist tendency among Jews, but the most important elements of the explanation are peculiar to the special case and cannot readily be generalized. I trust that others will be more successful.

II. The Benefit Jews Have Derived from Capitalism

An Anecdote and Some History

Let me start by briefly documenting the first proposition: that the Jews owe an enormous debt to capitalism. The feature of capitalism that has benefited the Jews has, of course, been competition.[1] Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts. The market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks. Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.

A recent personal experience illuminates sharply the importance of competition. Some years ago, I attended an International Monetary Conference held in Montreal. The persons there consisted, on the one hand, of members of the Conference, who include the two top executives of the major commercial banks throughout the world; on the other, of persons like myself invited as speakers or participants in panel discussions. A conversation with an American banker present who recounted a tale of anti-Semitism in American banking led me to estimate roughly the fraction of the two groups who were Jewish. Of the first group—the bankers proper—I estimated that about 1 per cent were Jewish. Of the much smaller second group, the invited participants in the program, roughly 25 per cent were Jewish.

Why the difference? Because banking today is everywhere monopolistic in the sense that there is no free entry. Government permission or a franchise is required. On the other hand, intellectual activity of the kind that would recommend persons for the program is a highly competitive industry with almost completely free entry.

This example is particularly striking because banking is hardly a field, like, say, iron and steel, in which Jews have never played an important role. On the contrary, for centuries Jews were a major if not dominant element in banking and particularly in international banking. But when that was true, banking was an industry with rather free entry. Jews prospered in it for that reason and also because they had a comparative advantage arising from the Church’s views on usury, the dispersion of Jews throughout the world, and their usefulness to ruling monarchs precisely because of the isolation of the Jews from the rest of the community.[2]

This anecdote illuminates much history. Throughout the nearly two thousand years of the Diaspora, Jews were repeatedly discriminated against, restricted in the activities they could undertake, on occasion expelled en masse, as in 1492 from Spain, and often the object of the extreme hostility of the peoples among whom they lived. They were able nonetheless to exist because of the absence of a totalitarian state, so that there were always some market elements, some activities open to them to enter. In particular, the fragmented political structure and the numerous separate sovereignties meant that international trade and finance in particular escaped close control, which is why Jews were so prominent in this area. It is no accident that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the two most totalitarian societies in the past two thousand years (modern China perhaps excepted), also offer the most extreme examples of official and effective anti-Semitism.

If we come to more recent time, Jews have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—a case that is particularly pertinent when that period is compared with the Hitler period.[3]

Freedom of Entry and Jewish Representation

Moreover, within those countries, Jews have flourished most in the sectors that have the freest entry and are in that sense most competitive. Compare the experience of the Jews in banking, that I have referred to, with their experience in retail trade, which has been almost a prototype of the textbook image of perfect competition and free entry. Or compare their minor role in large industry with their prominence in the professions such as law, medicine, accountancy and the like.[4] Though there are barriers to entry in the professions, too, once past the initial barriers, there is a large measure of free competition for custom. Even the differences within the professions illustrate my theme. In the U.S., for which I know the details, there was for a long time a major difference between medicine and law in the extent to which state licensure was an effective bar to entry. For reasons that are not relevant here, there was significant restriction of entry in medicine, relatively little in law. And Jews were proportionately much more numerous in law than in medicine.
fee.org/freeman/detail/capitalism-and-the-jews/

Truth Guest wrote:

We already have a GOOD & BAD thread on TZ, even with a poll, and if Truth Guest does not like capitalism, what would s/he suggest instead?

In fact s/he is speaking about a multitude of completely different topics.

Plus s/he is introducing MORAL/MORALE/MORALS/MORALITY/ETHICS!

So before being able to discuss, s/he needs to get the definitions of


GOOD
BAD
CAPITALISM (and what s/he desires instead)
MORAL/MORALS/MORALE/MORALITY/ETHICS


straight.


Let alone the definitions of " folklore", "mysticism" and "mythology"
.

Truth guest wrote:
Ah, that's not what you were saying though in the context of the OP was it, not at all. Actually you're now just trying to back track because you can't get your head around your own contradiction. There really is no way out of it. Essentially you're now trying to say that capitalism is O.K because there's no such thing as Good or Evil, yet you also argue it has no moral base. Which one is it? You can't possibly hold two contrasting and opposite opinions to reach the same conclusion.

If your OP was meant in the way that you're now trying to patch it up as, then you wouldn't be calling Capitalism immoral in the first place, would you? It simply wouldn't matter to you in the first place, because Good and Evil does not exist according to you. Right. but that's not what you were saying by calling Capitalism Immoral, was it.

What's wrong with some of you people? Why can't you just admit that you contradicted yourself, rather than trying to patch it up by trying to backtrack.

The OP is a likely Communist type. Perhaps even the butchdruid......

wiikkidd wrote:
Agreed, typical communist double moral standards. In fact many of them seem to have contradiction down to a fine art..

How can anyone argue that a "Concept" has the ability to subscribe to any moral values at all? Only sentient beings have the ability to prescribe moral judgements, based on their understanding and awareness. If you attribute the same moral values to the animal kingdom or nature in general you would have to prove that they posses the same level of understanding and awareness of man. Each individual within a system is directly responsible for their own moral values beyond the rules of a state, government or any other artificial belief system. The OP is right capitalism has no morals based on anything because it's impossible. Whether there is a force of good and evil depends on the context and the understanding of individuals. A concept has no understanding of good and evil for the same reason it can't have moral values.

Guest wrote: What is with you 'guest' ghost types? If you cannot even join properly, state a freakin' country and race/gender then what ARE you then? Good shall triumph over evil once and for all soon enough. There will be no political hero that delivers mankind from it.

For your information I'm more than capable of filling in a form to join the fact is I chose no to (free will in your belief system ("concept")).

I have no interest in your nationality, religion or gender because it's irrelevant to me. You are just an individual as am I. if you can't accept that then that's your choice (free will (concept)).

Whether good will triumph over anything would depended on what you mean by that statement and how you qualify good and evil. Can you prove the existence of either beyond any reasonable doubt and also applies to all living things universally? I agree there will be no one person acting as a saviour. We are all individuals with our own moral values and concepts of good and evil. Your aggressive stance and dubious assertions demonstrate that your moral values are not in the least bit aligned with mine.

Is there something in my reply to the original primes that you contest?

If you don't like guests posting ignore them or prevent guests from posting.

Guest wrote:

This is a free forum, very different from the david icke or sz forum.
So everybody is allowed to express her opinion.
Fact.

.

Thank you.

Sadly the "concept" of freedom doesn't seem to have a universal meaning among all the "proper" members here. If freedom isn't applied equally to all then no freedom can exists..

Guest wrote: Save the long way around the question shadow guest.

Guest wrote:





I'd never thought I'd ever need to use this repulsive forum "EMO" ....

.

Of Tom "Botty Boy" Cruise!