362. What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.
444. What does it mean to be "interested in money"? Money is an abstraction, it has no reality of its own. To possess money merely means that the possessor performed a useful service for some people at some point in the past, and these people are now willing to repay that person's service on demand. To be "interested in money" therefore means that one is interested in having other people serve him on demand. That's all it means. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as this DESIRE FOR SLAVES remains an issue of secondary importance. When elevated to a top priority, however, it is fatal. For you cannot become great by merely being good at getting other people to serve you. To become great you have to become good at giving, not at taking, and by focusing on amassing money, instead of the creation of actual things, you ensure that you never will. After all, what is the point of having slaves WHEN YOU HAVE NO GOAL towards which to employ them other than the accumulation of yet more money? (i.e. of yet more slaves willing to do your bidding even though you have no goal in your mind to instruct for them to help you to achieve).
485. When you give money to someone you are saying, "I like what you are doing, please keep doing it". Since in an advanced economy the only ones who generate food are the farmers, you are almost literally putting food on their tables. You are supporting their existence. When someone's existence is not being supported in this way it means that they are not doing what the community finds helpful, so the community stops providing them with food, and if they want to remain in its context and continue enjoying its benefits they have to adjust what they do. Poor people are useless — society ITSELF has decreed this, not any particular individual or groups of individuals, but the combined efforts of all members of society put together — while rich people are the most beneficial, most helpful people around, judged by the community itself.
But what about those who became rich by stealing? That's why we have the police. We are aware of the issue and are countering it (quite successfully too, all things told). That we cannot reduce theft to zero is not an argument against this proposition, since life itself is based on what the common people think of as "theft", and there would be no life at all in the universe (i.e. there would be no universe, since the universe is a collection of lifeforms) if it were somehow possible to completely eliminate "theft" (which goes to show that law and order are not goals in themselves but merely temporary expedients on the way to a far more important and essential goal).
As for becoming rich by peddling shyt — and who the fukk are you to judge that what the people embrace and willingly pay money for is shyt? Are you not mr liberal populist democracy guy? Are you not mr subjectivity and mr different folks for different strokes guy? But you are in fact mr hypocrisy guy, who has no more respect for the subhumans than we do — and indeed a lot less (which is why you reflexively hate all "Mane Streem" aspects of culture — i.e. all popular culture itself, which is merely democratic culture — merely the cultural manifestation and ultimate result of your very own democratic principles).
But McDonald's is preferable to starving, and the poor individual (i.e. the largely useless individual, from the perspective of society) has the right to determine whether he prefers to put his income into a new cellphone or higher quality food. After all, he's merely going to be cleaning the toilets in the labs in which the scientists and the engineers will be working on the Overman, which is a function that can be fulfilled just as well on McDonald's as on organic wholesome food (and probably even better that way, since they'll have less energy and vitality to expend, and hence bear the drudgery of toilet-cleaning far better. Hell, they may as well do drugs for all we care.) The scientists and engineers, meanwhile, will be eating good food both because they deserve to, since they are more useful to society than the toilet-cleaning subhumans, and because they are smart enough to invest in it; and those who aren't are welcome to make their own choices on the matter, whatever those may be.
"But the subhumans are not well informed about the effects of nutrition!", you say. But when a celebrity rag makes millions and nutrition guides peanuts, you see where the priorities of subhumans lie. It's not a cabal that's keeping the subhumans uninformed — it's the subhumans themselves who are unwilling and unable to benefit from the tremendous decades- and even centuries-long state-backed efforts to educate them.
569. Hatred of the rich is so wretched, it's such an obscenely malignant sentiment, that it is truly a masterstroke of deception that the rich-haters have managed to convince everyone (and even the poor rich people themselves!) that they hold the high moral ground! The low moral underground, more like! For what are riches? What does it mean to be rich? Examine the concept of money closely and you will see that all it means is that rich people are those to whom everyone else owes something; and in fact a great deal of things indeed! Otherwise they wouldn't be rich! Hatred of the rich is merely an attempt to get out of discharging a debt (and indeed a great number of debts!) that one has incurred, at one point or other, of one's own free will.
anyone else see how wrong this is 
, but who wouldn't be? not everyone is born with the same opportunities or skills. 
