How long will a nation keep around minorities who are not good for them? Eventually a nation will rid itself of trouble or get brought down by it.
Every minority group should ask if they are an asset to their country. Is it true that with Jews/blacks/Muslims/ etc, you lose? Or is true that with X minority group, is everyone a winner? All groups are in a competition for scarce resources and to propagate their genes. Such competition is often zero sum.
If minority groups are not an asset to the majority, it is in the national self-interest to get rid of the trouble. Eventually, the majority will overcome their squeamishness and act. Eventually, normal healthy tolerant people will react with fury to those who threaten them. Every form of life reacts violently to that which threatens its survival.
Given that racial and religious diversity destroys social trust and cohesion, all things being equal, it is not in the majority’s interest to keep minorities around unless these minorities are of benefit to the majority. All things being equal, you want to be surrounded by your own kind. Who needs aggravation?
In a free country, high-IQ Jews will usually rise to the top in certain areas, but do gentiles want to be ruled by Jews? I know Jews do not want to be ruled by gentiles. On the other hand, the ability to respect excellence is a measure of how excellent you and your society can become. If you instinctively hate an outsider who excels you, you are headed towards a miserable and mediocre life. Nobody, however, wants to be ruled by malicious outsiders working a corrupt system.
I am thinking about Godwin Smith’s essay on The Jewish Question back in 1892:
Mr. Arnold White, Baron Hirsch’s commissioner, says, in a plea for the Russian Jews (“The Truth about the Russian Jew,” Contemporary Review, May 1892), that “almost without exception the press throughout Europe is in Jewish hands, and is largely produced by Jewish brains;” that “international finance is captive to Jewish energy and skill;” that in England the fall of the Barings has left the house of Rothschild alone in its supremacy; and that in every line the Jews are fast becoming our masters. Wind and tide, in a money-loving age, are in favor of the financial race….
A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?
Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.
In 1934, as the guarantees of the minority treaties of the Versailles settlement proved utterly illusory and as Hitler consolidated power in Germany, C. A. Macartney, the secretary to the Minorities Committee of the League of Nations published a detailed analysis of the minority problem in Europe and came to the conclusion that “the real root of the problem lies in the philosophy of the national state as it is practiced today in central and eastern Europe. . . . It is true that the [minorities] Treaties provide in general terms for the equality of all nationals of the contracting state before the law, and as regards enjoyment of civil and political rights, and for the same treatment and security in law and fact. . . . [However], since the whole conception of the national state implies a violation of the principle of equality to the detriment of the minorities, the guarantee of equality might be construed as involving the renunciation by the state of its national character. . . . A national state and national minorities are incompatibles.'”
The “philosophy of the national state” referred to by Macartney was that the state, a territory with a government, is an expression of the sovereignty of a “nation,” a group that is in American terms defined ethnically (even religion being considered more a matter of heritage than necessarily of faith). He also noted that the new states after Versailles defined themselves constitutionally in national terms, each as the state of the single nation that forms the majority of its population. Macartney noted that when a minority exists in such a state, only three solutions are possible: the revision of frontiers to match the distribution of populations, the elimination of the minorities by emigration “perhaps through exchange of populations,” or the altering of the basis of the state, so that it is no longer a national state. He also noted that a fourth possibility could be seen in “physical slaughter,” but that “although this most effective of remedies is still in vogue in certain countries it shall not be discussed in this humane Macartney’s position was echoed almost sixty years later in my analysis…