The more powerful the individual, group or state, the more care outsiders will take with you. For instance, criticism of Jews will often end your career in America (just ask Rick Sanchez, Gregg Easterbrook) because of Jewish power.
As blacks rose in power in America during the 1960s, they increasingly replaced Jews from leadership positions in civil rights. As blacks gained, Jews lost.
As the Jewish population of America declined from 3% to 1.7%, the Jewish vote mattered less.
The higher the percentage of Jews in Israel, and the more Jewishly committed these Jews, the more powerful and secure Israel is.
Those who argue that America should assist China’s economic growth are advocating that America assist China with its billion plus people to become much more powerful than America.
I have an instinctive bias in favor of meritocracy and the free market but I want to be open about the consequences of this. Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to see at times higher values than capitalism, such as nationalism.
In a free market in baseball, the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Dodgers and other big market teams would dominate, so Major League Baseball instituted revenue sharing to even the playing field.
This year, I watched all episodes of the Colombian miniseries on drug kingpin Pablo Escobar. I was fascinated by his story. I’ve always hated drugs but watching this series helped me to see things from the Colombian perspective. If they could make lots of money manufacturing and selling drugs to North America, why not? Why should they be expected to care about the welfare of North Americans? Do Americans care about the welfare of Colombians?
In the series, I watched many honorable people in Colombia who opposed the drug trade get slaughtered, and I started to think if there sacrifice was worth it. Why would an ordinary Colombian who was not a saint turn down an opportunity to create a better life for himself and his family? It suddenly made sense to me why Colombia, Mexico and company became narco states and it ceased making sense to me why so much domestic effort was put in these countries to reducing the narcotics trade.
I don’t expect people to be saints. I expect people to act in their self interest. So what was the self-interest of those who’ve fought the narcos in Colombia, Mexico etc?
Over the past couple of months, I’ve listened to many lectures on offensive realism by John J. Mearsheimer. He makes the obvious point that the richer a state gets, the more power it has to threaten other states. So I start thinking about the drug gangs. If they were not fought, they would increasingly take over their countries. With wealth comes power. So perhaps Colombians and Mexicans have had a strong incentive to fight the narco trade.
Then I started thinking about Jews. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of around 108-120 while whites have an average IQ of about 100, East Asians of 105, American hispanics of 90 and African-Americans of 85. In a free market, Jews are going to dominate. Superior verbal IQ, in particular, will help Jews to dominate the media.
I don’t expect people to be saints. I expect individuals and groups to act in their self-interest. So as Jews rise in power, they are going to support policies that are good for Jews. This may not always be in interests of the natives and hence there’s going to be a reaction, which is generally called “anti-Semitism.”
With wealth and power, comes increased sexual access. I don’t expect Jews, or any group, to be saints, so some Jews will inevitably use their wealth and power to have sexual access to non-Jews. Most groups don’t like it when outsiders have sex with their women. So there’s going to be more conflict.
If drug traffickers are given a free hand to peddle their product, they are going to make tons of money, accumulate power and lots of sex.
If smart people are given a free market, they’re going to make lots of money, accumulate power, and have lots of sex.
Is the free market, then, always in the best interests of a nation? Or should it erect discrimination in favor of its majority?
The diaspora Chinese are known as the Jews of Asia because they are inevitably smarter and harder working than the natives and accumulate greater wealth and education.
My Ashkenazi friends from Australia generally regard Australians as dumb, racist, bigoted, mouth-breathing drunks who are lousy in business. My gentile Australian friends who know Jews in real life tend to regard them as elitists who lack mateship. About the only Australians who are anti-Semitic are those Aussie who encounter Jews in real life (particularly Sydney and Melbourne).
Australians have traditionally had one culture, and so the majority feels easy kinship while those who stick out, such as Orthodox Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists, are often hated. In multi-cultural America, by contrast, minority groups have an easier time and the majority is often uncomfortable.
In a free market, a minority who does not strongly identify with the majority population, is going to be more likely to peddle destructive things such as drugs, gangster rap, pornography, and the like. Crime rarely happens according to a race’s exact demographic percentage of the general population. Certain groups tend to dominate certain crimes. In the West today, however, it is usually considered impolite to point that out. Whose interests does that serve?
If Jews occupy themselves with Torah, Torah observance and a way of doing business that does not compete with non-Jews, perhaps they will be less likely to be hated by non-Jews.
Jews tend to be smart, educated, cohesive and hard-working. I’ve rarely thought of that as posing a threat to non-Jews. It seemed like a gift diaspora Jews were bringing their gentile countries. Jews were serving as a light unto the nations. Now I’m struggling with difficult questions. I’m starting to think that the rise of the Jews creates a reaction that is often fatal for Jews.
Diversity does not work simply because it destroys culture by destroying standards. When you have two or more groups, standards differ, and thus an “official” Government standard must be created that includes both, which prevents each group from establishing its own cultural mores and values. This creates a Balkanization effect where each group withdraws, which prompts liberal democratic Government to try to force them to merge, resulting in genocide by the outbreeding of both.
But diversity doubly fails when it attempts third-world integration into the first world. It takes a population which is genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, and introduces a new population which is genetically hardwired for the exact opposite. This forces the first-world natives to become caretakers for the newcomers, exhausting themselves and turning their society into a battleground for the symbolic victory of diversity.
Netanyahu has had extensive experience with the Palestinians, who as a mixed-race population (Caucasian, Asian, and some North African) of third-world status have its typical traits: low IQ (in the low 90s), a lack of long-term planning ability, r-strategic reproduction, unruly social behavior requiring rule by warlords, and a tendency to blame first-world populations for their endemic poverty, disorder, crime, corruption, poor hygiene, and impulsiveness. With Palestinians within its borders, Israel can never properly exist, and it cannot protect the Jewish people who share a culture, languages, heritage/ethnicity, and religion.