America is declining. We all know it. She was a whore that was captured a little over one century ago. She has been used up for Jewish interests, and now it's time to leave her in a ditch.
So, using their pet celebrity niggers (the expensive million-dollar kind), they drum up a controversy of anti-semitism.
Suddenly Jews everywhere are coming out of the woodwork, lamenting a new apocalypse of anti-semitism in America. It's becoming 'dangerous'.
It gets 'bad enough' that they all opt for a solution of getting out, getting back to the homeland, someplace safe.
A few of these will be high-profile celebrities to occupy the public spotlight.
But the relevant ones will be the political figures and industrialists, who will tank American industry intentionally on their 'way out', since they've got everything and everyone by the balls.
They have a story that they left freely because of anti-semitism.
It's self-fulfilling prophecy, and at the same time, they will get to play the 'look how central Jews were to your economy, goy' as they smugly discuss the nation in economic shambles, from their city on the hill that was bought with lives and tax dollars from the very country they destroyed.
The Jew will use you like a ladder to climb up, and then discard you, praying on your values/morals in both directions. First they benefit from those values, taking as much slack from your rope as you'll give. Then they use those values against you, once they've gotten 'in' and sunk their teeth into the beating heart, at which point they begin to secure a better opportunity someplace else (say, with the Chinese perhaps). Parasitic behavior. Once they've reached the top rung of your ladder, and taken your economy to the point of near-implosion, they step from your ladder onto another. Then they watch yours fall and say, "You shouldn't have been so anti-semitic."
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 1.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 13:07:12 ago (+1/-0)
No,there's still money to be made and people to exploit. Plus,the jew knows the white man is evergreen. Stomp him down as hard as you like,but he will rise again and surpass you. Their mission is to destroy white people. Not just one country of white people. All white people.
With that in mind,I doubt they'd leave without setting off a nuke war.
[ - ] Belmont 1 point 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 09:45:43 ago (+1/-0)
But so long as the American military is theirs to command through the President, they're not going to abandon the US entirely. The military receives enormous funds for the Satan/Antichrist war chest (whether or not he's currently waiting in the wings), immortality research for those at the top of the pyramid, and to execute their won't-submit-and-serve list. At the same time however, the military has been vaxxed, and those most likely to reject future orders have been driven out.
It occurred to me "we're in danger" screaming could be an excuse for new laws to to imprison and fine into submission.
So the utility derivable from the US is not exhausted, yet. I suppose I had the idea that maybe there was some unique utility in collapsing the US. If the Jews really have their fingers puppeteering most of the relevant world powers, it would be possible (and possibly fortuitous) to sacrifice certain pieces on the board.
But, like you might be hinting, it may be feasible to do both at the same time. What I've suggested could be accomplished while maintaining a more remote kind of control over things here. Consider Weimar Germany. We could be entering the punishment phase. That won't mean there's no utility left to eek out of the US, but it would mean something like a controlled burn. Setting fire to one room of your house and containing it.
As I see it, that is kind of an inevitability of the parasitic process. The parasite has no choice but to sacrifice its host, just according to the nature of how the parasite thrives. But at some point, any good parasite is going to abandon that host or die itself. Of course, there's no stopping the Jews who leave our host from collecting the dripping blood in the right kind of containers to get the last drop out.
I agree that the screaming might be such an excuse, but we have to remember the push-and-pull dynamic here. If the Jews overstepped like that, coming fully into the light, they must expect pushback. I think that they wouldn't do such a thing unless they knew they were ready to pull the plug. That's sort of the logic behind the original post.
Yeah. It's a ridiculous jewsbad narrative with some tropes that ring true that leans heavily on the Single Jewish Cause, the hobbyhorse of Judeo-obsessives everywhere.
It reminds me of Moorish Spain though. By Michelet's reckoning Jews controlled the finances of the Ummayads.
Even he knew Muslims were the real power there though. Like in Spain Jews do not have the biopower, the numbers, to control the US, and it is a real failure of understanding and big picture thinking typical of the Single Jewish Cause to ascribe America's ills singularly or overwhelmingly to them.
Jews will flee instability though. Maybe they'll go to Argentina. You think Israel is safe for them by comparison? LOL. Like in getting kicked out of Spain there will be some damage to their host country economically. But Spain went on to form the Spanish Empire. It remains to be seen what will emerge from the wreckage of the United States. And if anyone wants to tank the US economy it is accelerationists.
You'd need to be clearer about what you mean by power. On the face of it, what you've said is trivially true. Jews have never been major militant empire builders like the Hellenes or the Romans or the Persians or Muslims. Their strategy for survival is fundamentally different, which history attests to thoroughly. So I'm not sure what your point is. If it is just to say that Jews in Moorish Spain were not the predominant geo-political and military rulers of the land, then you are correct. But for the sake of my earlier points about Jews (in the OP), this means almost nothing, since Jewish strategies throughout history have been parasitic on stronger nation states.
See Graetz (1894). It was recognized that diaspora Jews in Spain in the 8th century were persecuted under Visigoth rule. The Jews engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate the Berber invasion, which took only a matter of months. The Jews were rewarded for their alliance with the Muslims.
Specifically under Ummayad rule, Jews flourished. This is because the Ummayads were not dedicated Islamists. They converted to Islam for political purposes but the religious tenets of Islam languished in Spain under their rule. They were Islamists in name only, and readily assimilated the cosmopolitanism of Jews, to the extent that a class of ambitious Jewish statesmen, ministers/advisers and financiers arose in Cordova which rivaled anything like it, save for Hellenistic Egypt perhaps.
Only later would the Muslims 'change their mind' by about the 11th century, as the caliphate began to fragment and various sects vied for power. Things became even worse under the Almoravids.
And this is true generally of European history: the stronger the religious fundamentalism, the greater the adversity toward Jews. The more liberal a society was, the more Jews flourished.
But let us not forget, like you are keen to, Joe, that this almost always led to trouble. Jews were, after all, exiled 109 times from different nations.
I never ascribed all of America's ills to Jews. That wasn't the claim.
You're also making analogies to historical contexts that are inappropriate. That the Spanish empire was able to flourish post-Jew has everything to do with the fact the Catholics dominated the empire.
We live in a different era, for several key reasons. There is a lack of such religious unity and religious authority. Jews have a much, much more pivotal controlling stake today than they did in Cordova in the 10th century. For fuck's sake, Joe, you can't be that obtuse. Our situation is a little different. By a little, I mean a lot.
I don't know what Single Jewish Cause means, and I don't accept it as equivalent to my position for that reason.
That Jews are currently puppeteering US politics is not at all a ridiculous claim.
Some points. I'll put it in kind of a bullet point format to abbreviate it. I dunno why some think people read their long-winded posts.
- I think you and I have discussed Jewish power enough in a previous discussion to know that by Jewish power in America I am leaning into their percentage of elites. In raw GNP they probably have less total income than Mexican-Americans, due to the differences in numbers between the two groups, even if Jews are higher per capita. To argue Jews have some decisive power beyond that would require a better argument than I have so far seen anyone of your basic orientation make.
- The Single Jewish Cause is language used by less anti-Semitic white nationalists to describe very anti-Semitic white nationalists. Single Jewish Causers see white problems basically as a Jewish problem or certainly as the crux of the problem requiring nonstop attention and conversation. People like me, the less anti-Semitic, challenge this as lacking nuance and a comprehensive understanding of white problems.
- I have also touched on the many historical Jewish expulsions with you previously. Jews were an intolerant group themselves surrounded often by Christians. As a small group they were vulnerable to attack and expulsion. I'll add that if you've read Sombart you may know that their trading and competing for customers offended the ethics of the medieval guild economy as it was thought immoral to deprive a man of his customers and thus his livelihood by taking his customers. Jews were some of the first capitalists.
- Lastly, your claim that you don't see America's problems as essentially Jewish in nature is hard to reconcile with the opening paragraph of your OP where you state that America has been "used up for Jewish interests" while making what is likely a reference to "capture" of the US by Jews over a century ago through their supposed domination of the Fed. If you mean something else you need to make a much better effort expressing yourself.
I'll give you some credit for at least ATTEMPTING to make a reasonable presentation though. That is scarce around these parts.
Well, with arguments like this, sometimes short-form doesn't cut it.
- Your 'even if' caveat is really the entire point. The claim that Jews have decisive power in the happenings within the country is not simply a function of the Jewish fraction of GNP. It also involves the roles Jews occupy within the bureaucracy, including political positions and roles in major media, finance, law and education. It also involves Jewish behaviors, i.e. normative ethnocentrism and nepotism with detrimental behaviors to the host society. There are over 300 million Americans. We can be sure there are cross-sections of the population with a higher GNP fraction than Jews. It doesn't mean that segment occupies the same roles, has the same level of power, behaves the same way or has ethno-nationalistic interests in undermining the host society.
- I would not take the Single Jewish Cause theory off from the table. Look, I'll be the first to admit that as far as theoretical virtue goes, conspiracy theories are perhaps the costliest of any theory. They are not ideal. One does not rationally accept them unless a conspiracy theory is what best explains the evidence. The SJC theory is not the only theory on offer, at least not at my table. We don't necessarily require a theory that strong.
It's possible, for example, to hold a weaker theory. Ditch the grand conspiracy and instead trace the problem to features endemic to the Jewish race. There may be special interest groups within the Jewish population that are problematic. Not every Jew needs to be in cahoots with every other Jew; rather we'd be talking about an aggregate effect of strategies common to Jews as a race. This cumulative effect would be the emphasis of a weaker theory.
But here's the rub. As far as epistemology goes, you're probably not going to find anybody else here as qualified to talk about that subject as I am. I resisted a conspiracy theory for about as long as it was rationally possible to do so, that is, before the evidence made it irrational to reject a conspiracy theory. A good theory should be simple and it should cause you to predict (successfully) that you'll find the evidence you actually do find. At this point, believing in the strong SJC theory will cause you to predict the evidence better than any competing theory (at least, if you have a better one, I'm all ears.)
Even if it is the case that a weaker theory is the true theory, I'd still advise people believe the stronger version since it is pragmatically preferable at this point. That is, until evidence emerges that should cause us to doubt that theory. The evidence favoring it is far stronger than the evidence that is disfavorable.
- Regarding your 'touching on' (this or that), you have a bad habit (which you've again demonstrated tonight) of making a point, and then ignoring my response to it. You did that with the 'surrounded by Christians' point. You did this with my response to your pornography post the other evening, after you posted a rather deceitful quasi-defense of the porn industry, saying it wasn't dominated by Jews (it is).
Your habit is to either ignore the response, or to continue the conversation as if I'd never said anything. You say, "I have also touched on the many historical Jewish expulsions with you previously." Sure; I also responded to you previously.
The entirety of our last long-form discussion consisted of me rebutting your points, you changing the subject, and then returning later to re-state a point like it was the first time, like I'd never said a word about it previously.
Hitler wrote about this behavior in Mein Kampf. As of right now, your habits of argument are so aligned with his description of the Jewish style, that, combined with others of your habits, I consider it very likely you're a Jew.
- I said, "I never ascribed all of America's ills to Jews." That is because I didn't. I do consider America as being used up for Jewish interests. But the Jews are not a hurricane that a society cannot stop from making landfall. For the Jew to achieve what the Jew has achieved requires many other conditions be present, the most important being a general dissolution of the host society's moral fabric. I've said for a very long time that Jews sell the ticket to the ride, but you have to buy. If your society has succumbed to the Jew, an antecedent rot was already present. Hence, all of America's ills are not the result of Jews, but Jews exploited them. There was a time where the situation might have been resolved with greater vigilance, but the parasite is now so entrenched that it festers.
I'd like to say that people could refuse the ticket today (in some respects they can, say, by not jerking off to porn), but try telling an 18-yr old person to avoid one (or all) of: some college education, an auto loan, a mortgage, auto/home/health insurance, etc. At some point, the parasitic bureaucracy has its tendrils into every facet and institution of your society, taking away viable alternatives. It's a point of no return.
The alternative to the Single Jewish Cause is simple enough in concept if requiring enlightenment in elaboration: The white man's problems are caused by a number of things. It is multifaceted. Mexican population exploded post-war due to enhanced wheat yields caused by Norman Borlaug (ethnic Norwegian) and his Green Revolution for example. With the result being that Mexicans flooded over our southern border. Itz teh jo0z!1! though. And indeed if Paco gets in Sally's backhole en masse in every high school and college in large cities in the Southwestern United States this is obviously Jews' fault too. Not the Mexicans fucking our women. And if you believe otherwise you're probably arguing like a Jew and working for the ADL.
I could go over many examples. The Catholic Church, not Jews, is the leading refugee resettlement group in the US. Their motive is obvious: more Catholics in the US for their pews and collection plates and greater Catholic political power. But noticing this may mean I'm a Jew, so watch out.
Niggers fuck white women en masse. Blame Jews. Then blame the Civil Rights Movement, where Jews were culpable, completely on Jews while ignoring non-Jewish roles.
Corporate America lobbies to bring immigrants in. As do ethnic lobbies to bring in their families. Blame Jews!
You responded to my comments about medieval Europe, yes. You initially acted in this thread though that I ignore the issue. I think my response is adequate. You refuse to accept it and start ranting about Hitler.
Your comments on Jews in the porn industry was also classic cherry picking, but then the Single Jewish Cause requires this or ignorance of non-Jewish sources of subversion. Even on that anon thread the role of the Italian Mafia in the porn industry historically was noted, nevermind my pointing out that Hefner, Guccione, and Flynt were the big names in the public mind even 50 years ago. I found some of your claims to be of dubious accuracy too but I'll give you some credit for looking into it. The problem is like most of these cases you find what you want. Selectively. And act as if pretty girls fucking themselves on camera is THE issue of world-historical significance. It is conspiratorial anti-Semitism married to bourgeois prudery. And misses the greater emergency of the racial question almost completely. At any rate I demonstrated who ran the top ten porn companies as of 2017. Or something approaching that.
There is another problem: constant attacks on Jews distorts the picture and offers a slanted, one-sided narrative. Spain for example. Judeo-obsessives are quick to note Jews cooperated against the Visigoths, their oppressors. They ignore (or are more likely ignorant of the fact) that Jews cooperated with Christians in fighting Muslims later in Spanish history. Surprise, surprise: different Jews do different things. It was even a baptised Jew that convinced Isabella to fund Columbus. Did you know the Rothschilds funded Cecil Rhodes in founding Rhodesia? Or that a Jewish financier equipped the Habsburgs in rolling back the Ottomans in the Great Turkish War? Or that Jewish labor leader Samuel Gompers was probably the man most responsible for our immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s? Obsessives inevitably ignore these positive civilizational achievements in favor of the incessant search to substantiate their version of the devil theory of history.
The jewsbad fixation also distracts from the real threat: the rise of color and the interference of the US government in obstructing our ability to achieve self-determination. This implies no love for the likes of Jonathan Greenblatt nor to absolve Jews of the harm they have genuinely caused. Though he'd no doubt be less inclined to censor us if more white nationalists were more like me and less like you. Admittedly maybe not much less. But then my point has never been that Jews are wonderful. And you have to be pretty dense to think it is. More like you people misunderstand all of this stuff to the point that you end up going down a false road and spend your time focusing on the wrong shit. This suits the US government too. Better to focus on Jews than focusing on the government in a truly revolutionary way.
And if you believe otherwise you're probably arguing like a Jew and working for the ADL.
One thing I do not do is to explain all disagreement with me as caused by Jews. Your disagreement with me, per se, was not the reason I first called you a Jew. The reason for that was your habits.
Norman Borlaug Green Revolution
I'd encourage you to see how Borlaug became involved with this project, and who the actual spearheads of producing it were. Borlaug was hired by another scientist E.C. Stakman for a project being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This was lobbied for by the Secretary of Agriculture (and former Chair of the Board of Economic Welfare) Henry Wallace, a Freemason who would later found the Progressive Party, a communist group pushing for racial desegregation in schools, universal healthcare, racial and gender equality and pacifism toward the Soviet Union.
You seem to want to pick out only the public facade of a given phenomenon and act as if it ends there. The changes that came with the Green Revolution neither began nor ended with Borlaug. He was the scientist who gained the most notoriety in the wake of it. Consider for example that the Rockefeller-funded project came after Wallace's campaigns through Latin America during WWII to get their support for the US's war efforts - a campaign that was largely successful.
Additionally, Borlaug was a popularizer of another climate-change precursor (and completely bunk) theory called the Population Bomb. But our hyper-moral bleeding heart Borlaug had to feed the starving people. If you could have seen the starvation! If you could have just seen it! Lo and behold his programs not only caused population explosions, but would also be the subject of many foreign critics who recognized that control over these new species of plants meant the increasing consolidation of control over the food supply. National economies would become less sovereign with time as fewer and fewer powers controlled food - sound familiar?
Niggers fuck white women en masse. Blame Jews. Then blame the Civil Rights Movement, where Jews were culpable, completely on Jews while ignoring non-Jewish roles.
I don't think people are ignoring non-Jewish roles. I think people are seeking explanations because intuitively they know to follow the money and the power. They know that bureaucratic hierarchies follow top-down causation, and what they're finding - increasingly - is Jews and Jewish organizations near the tops of these communistic funnels. This is undeniable. The research to demonstrate Jewish control (speaking in terms of occupying the highest-power roles) of the media is clear. The remarkable presence of disproportionate numbers of Jews in advisory and cabinet roles for US politicians is clear.
You attempted to deny this in the case of pornography. I picked out many more figures in smut/porn and painted a larger historical narrative than you. You picked out Flynt and Heffner, the latter of which I'd barely call a pornographer. I showed you that the current leadership of Pornhub consists of a Syrian and a Jew, but was original Jewish and was handed elsewhere when the company got into hot water. If you wish to continue to deny the Jewish role in pornography, I can't stop you, but it isn't rational.
Corporate America lobbies to bring immigrants in. As do ethnic lobbies to bring in their families. Blame Jews!
FFS, Joe, please recognize the category error here. Corporations are not ethnic identities. Furthermore, if corporations are spending an unexpected amount of money to increase 'muh diversity', then given the nature of control within them, it would help my case if Jews occupied a disproportionate number of the highest stations in the corporations pushing for immigration most enthusiastically. Or, if it could be shown there was a plausible mechanism for Jewish-dominated financial institutions, say BlackRock, to twist the arms of said corporations in order to get certain competitive privileges in their access to credit.
Nobody is claiming there is zero non-Jewish influence in any of this. What do words like controlled opposition, or shabbos goy, or golems mean? Of course there are non-Jews who get pulled into these schemes. I've previously explained that none of this occurs without an antecedent breakdown in moral fabric. Machiavellian politicians and regulators can and often do participate in these schemes.
The point of the Single Jewish Cause theory is to identify a primary 'motor' and a best explanation for the cohesion of the movement, since if things were really a 'free market' and 'open' and 'spontaneous' result of many independent reasons, then we WOULD NOT expect there to be (i) convergence and (ii) cooperation and this scale. How does your theory explain the apparent uniformity of corporate media strategy, branding/marketing and investment in the past decade if these are all just independent entities full of ethnic and intellectual diversity out for their own unique gain? You couldn't possibly explain that kind of convergence, because it is contradictory to your view. The uniformity has an explanation, and so far, ours is better than yours.
You can't have it both ways. You can't identify family resemblance of features common to this global movement, and then say those universal features are explained by a non-explanation, i.e. independent causes happening everywhere with no connection. That would be like flipping a hundred heads successively in a coin toss.
Obsessives inevitably ignore these positive civilizational achievements in favor of the incessant search to substantiate their version of the devil theory of history.
You are the one who cherry-picks just to make your particular, present point. Gompers was a fine, strong-borders nationalist who helped us out! Hardly. The AFL started, really, as a internationalist, labor-organizing, save-the-worker, Communist-inspired group like most of the other worker's parties. As things proceeded, Gompers became more conservative. It became opportunistic for him to do so, in his particular case.
There are just so many factors involved in these dynamics that, while we want to simplify in some regards, we are frustrated to do so in other regards. It is true, however, that the Jew on an aggregate level remains exactly the kind of problem the SJC says it is, even while we might pick out any individual Jew within the milieu of history and say, "Look, he's not so bad! He was kinda capitalist by the end." (Well, it's not enough to justify anybody by their being capitalists.)
But imagine dumping a flask of water down a sandy slope. At a certain point the water has the same identity, namely at point of the flask, just before it hits the sand. But in the course of draining down the slope, tributaries form and may go any which way. Some of them will diverge and others converge. Yet, the EXPLANATION for any of those happenings downstream, at any moment, is the flask dumping the water.
Not every single Jew is going to fit the pattern, albeit it is unlikely they won't fit the pattern at all. That isn't required for the theory to be correct.
It isn't a necessity that a theory of this kind pick out every single instance correctly. It's not a scientific theory. It is a theory about human beings, who are not atoms or other smaller deterministic particles. Your logic would also imply that people are generally wrong to theorize that blacks are a problem for white nations, since you could point to where the theory fails in the case of this or that single instance of a black person (who might be high IQ and particularly industrious).
Exceptions don't defeat rules in the case where we're theorizing about intelligent and freely-willed behaviors.
The jewsbad fixation also distracts from the real threat: the rise of color and the interference of the US government in obstructing our ability to achieve self-determination.
So it's the structure itself and has nothing to do with the people. You could take 'the gubmint' and remove every individual, and replace them with all new ones of similar competence, and our problems would be the same. You realize this contradicts the first clause in your sentence, where you identify racial differences as one of the 'biggest problems'. So why should I not think it is possible for a 'racial difference' to possibly be one of the real differences behind the 'gubmint problem'. I mean, if race is undeniably a problem, then race could be a problem in government. All else being equal, a government unduly influenced by foreign-race interests would be a 'big problem' by your lights.
Compare theories. In the most general sense, we recognize a problem. Whatever our theories are, they have to explain a problem. Yours stops at government. Mine includes government and goes further, by also fine-graining onto the ethnoreligious makeup of the parts of government.
My theory can identify/recognize the data points that disproportionate numbers of Jews occupy every institution, while your theory must stop at 'government bad'.
Ceteris paribus, my theory will make better predictions than yours does. Mine will support identifying the government as a problem. But it will also make predictions about what's happening in government and what the players will look like, that yours will flatly miss.
Again, I maintain that a person who goes for the SJC as a heuristic is going to be better off than a Jew-blind libertarian.
I'm going to condense this again with bullet points.
- Borlaug... blah blah blah... Borlaug is known as the father of the Green Revolution. It was the third agricultural revolution or whatever they call it. Of course others were involved. Your rather unnecessary discussion on the Rockefeller Foundation and such does little to promote jewsbad though. And indeed it is pretty unnecessary to tell me this stuff most of the time. I already know it much of the time. This case being no exception.
Borlaug as a transformational figure is enough explanation alone to explain much of the demographic transformation of the United States. Indeed, he has been credited with saving billions from starvation. More people in other words to come HERE. Some Jewish porno peddler looks very small beans by comparison. Incomparably less lethal to the white race. But prudes are going to keep beating that drum I reckon.
- You and I have a fundamental disagreement in that I think your basic method of looking at this is ridiculous. And all Judeo-obsessives by extension. Catholics, and Christian churches generally, tend to support refugees for example for financial or religious reasons. The good samaritan and all that. If Catholics want more spics here though you'll say they're shabbos goys getting pulled into the Jewspiracy. If gentile CEOs wanna cut costs by bringing in foreign workers to undercut native labor - something capitalists like to do from modern Japan to pre-civil war America - you tell us it's all in the end getting roped into the plot of the Jewish marionette. Apparently US immigration policy, which is substantially driven by something as interest based as spics lobbying Washington to bring in more spics so as to bring in their relatives, is also reducible to Jews. Sen. Eugene McCarthy said these essentially foreign interests had captured Congress decades ago.
But you guys don't talk about this stuff. First because you are ignorant of it. And second... if you do discover it you amalgamate it into your Jewish unified field theory.
- The US government. Indeed, the United States itself.
Its composition is of little importance for my purposes as I am a secessionist. It is an affair of state. I want to take US territory away from it and form another country altogether. A white ethnostate. That necessarily makes them my natural opponent and vice versa. It is very predictable.
I do give you credit for being knowledgeable and for applying effort to debating. There aren't many people here who are interested in much more than shit-posting.
I can make my case with an (oversimplified) example.
Suppose there are five corporations: [A, B, C, D, E] = Corp
It is plausible that every member of Corp has an economic interest in hiring the cheapest possible labor. If we also say that Corp operates within the politico-economic boundaries of a nation - let's just say it's America - then if it is possible to import foreign labor into America legally, every member of Corp will have an autonomous and individual interest in promoting immigration.
So someone says: "Immigration is bad." It could be true, on some analysis of aggregate metrics, that immigration is bad for a nation. But if we are seeking an explanation why immigration has increased, prima facie, we can't leap to "Jews bad." This is because there is an economic explanation, namely, every member of Corp has an interest in promoting this for their own benefit.
One thing we might do, however, is to analyze immigration in terms other than corporate interest. We might analyze immigration in more macroeconomic terms, and at that point we wonder about the economic regulators of America. If immigration is harming the nation broadly (perhaps in the long-term), then we can ask if there are crucial decision-makers (roles with certain political/legal power) that influence the state of immigration in America.
IF we did find, historically for example, that such a role exists, and that for a series of decades beginning with a downturn in America's economy, those roles were occupied disproportionately by Jews, then someone would have a reasonable case for blaming Jews. It wouldn't be a particularly strong case (they'd require other evidence), but it would be a totally reasonable data point.
That's an a posteriori argument. What about an a priori argument? I prefer a combination of both, but a priori arguments in this case are what tip me over the edge. So here is what that would look like.
Part of what underwrites what we discussed previously (the economic reasons that help us understand why Corp would promote immigration) is a capitalistic space for competition. Things would look very different if all of the members of Corp were assumed to be cooperating together in lock-step.
So a priori we can say something about what kind of behavior is expected from A, B, C, D, and E. We can say that their behaviors are divisible into roughly two kinds: behaviors that are shared by all members of Corp (like promoting immigration), and behaviors that are unique to just individual members of Corp.
This follows from principles of free market competition. There must be some things that each member is doing to differentiate itself (especially true if we assume Corp contains members competing in a single commercial space). If Nike sets out to advertise its shoes in the US according to some feature X, Adidas is likely to promote its shoes according to a feature Y - this is segmenting the space, and modern principles of marketing explain why this works the way it does. It's sometimes the case that two companies will compete for dominance on the same feature, e.g. Coke and Pepsi competing for best-tasting soda.
Crucially, what must be the case a priori is that these competitive behaviors are not cooperative. They are, by definition, meant to separate and to benefit one member of Corp AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHERS. That's business in a free market. This is just brute fact.
So suppose that Corp includes all of the companies doing business in America (or the West, roughly). If all of them are promoting immigration, we've got no case for conspiracy, have we? Not an a posteriori case.
But suppose that all of the members of Corp are all selling their products according to the same features and doing so cooperatively, by attaching the same marketing (messaging, values, etc.) to their products. Suppose all of them take up the exact same moral causes, and use the exact same evaluative language in their commercials. That is, they are all behaving publicly in what can only be called a convergent manner, as in converging on all of the same communications and messaging.
This is precluded from happening under ordinary competitive, capitalistic conditions. That is because if, say, 80% of the members of Corp all independently pursue some strategy P, this invariably opens up a new commercial opportunity Q. Q is roughly whatever P is not. Q is known as a 'market gap'. An example would be if there are two denim jeans companies, one who markets to the low-income class, and a second who markets really expensive jeans to the rich. There is space for a third competitor to skim the middle of the market, since a gap exists. The same holds true for BRANDING. We expect branding strategies to work by the same dynamic. It would be remarkably unexpected (permitted perhaps in principle) for competing companies to all converge on uniform brand strategies, since competitive interests would dictate that the rational strategies would be those which maximally differentiate the competitors.
Yet, this is the opposite of what we are seeing, in what is sometimes called the 'woke' movement. We are seeing an unprecedented convergence of strategies in companies that are supposed to be competing. But what's more interesting is that we are NOT seeing what is expected under our best theory: that there should be an equal or greater swing in the opposite direction among other members of Corp, to brand themselves and communicate according to values that are maximally differentiated from the rest of the pack.
This phenomenon is an anomaly, and it requires explanation. You are fond of economic explanations, but you won't be able to appeal to them here, at least not for a satisfactory answer.
But what's more, is on top of this we can also make an a posteriori case. That's because we have noted some competitors who have tried marketing according to values opposite to wokeness, and what has happened to them? Have they been allowed to freely compete? No. They've been crushed. They've been cancelled. It appears something is corrupting the system so those market gaps are inaccessible. A posteriori that is also an anomaly that requires explanation.
Further, if we look at what roles - and what people are occupying them - that are responsible for this state, and we find they are Jews (at least disproportionately Jews), we gain a huge deal of justification for talking about a Jewish conspiracy - simply as a matter of scale. Causing a phenomenon like this in a market space as big as America, with so many players and so many hundreds of billions of dollars, is a major feat.
And in fact, we do find a disproportionate number of Jews, particularly in the areas of media and finance, i.e. the ones who dominate what communications look like, and the ones who control whether business entities have access to necessary financing, based on whether they conform with the artificial/coerced 'woke' value system being mandated.
At every turn we can find a disproportionate Jewish presence in precisely the places and roles which we would expect have the largest stake in explaining the anomalies we are seeing.
Your atomized, micro-economic theory cannot possibly explain what we are seeing at the larger scale.
Not only that, but at every turn, we have accumulating evidence of Jewish voices (on television and social media) implicitly equating challenges to this woke movement with anti-semitism. We don't even have to independently claim Jews are the primary culprits in all of this. . .they are doing it for us.
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 1.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 13:07:12 ago (+1/-0)
With that in mind,I doubt they'd leave without setting off a nuke war.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 19:30:44 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Belmont
[ - ] Belmont 1 point 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 09:45:43 ago (+1/-0)
It occurred to me "we're in danger" screaming could be an excuse for new laws to to imprison and fine into submission.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 2 points 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 10:01:30 ago (+2/-0)
But, like you might be hinting, it may be feasible to do both at the same time. What I've suggested could be accomplished while maintaining a more remote kind of control over things here. Consider Weimar Germany. We could be entering the punishment phase. That won't mean there's no utility left to eek out of the US, but it would mean something like a controlled burn. Setting fire to one room of your house and containing it.
As I see it, that is kind of an inevitability of the parasitic process. The parasite has no choice but to sacrifice its host, just according to the nature of how the parasite thrives. But at some point, any good parasite is going to abandon that host or die itself. Of course, there's no stopping the Jews who leave our host from collecting the dripping blood in the right kind of containers to get the last drop out.
I agree that the screaming might be such an excuse, but we have to remember the push-and-pull dynamic here. If the Jews overstepped like that, coming fully into the light, they must expect pushback. I think that they wouldn't do such a thing unless they knew they were ready to pull the plug. That's sort of the logic behind the original post.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 20:21:47 ago (+0/-0)*
It reminds me of Moorish Spain though. By Michelet's reckoning Jews controlled the finances of the Ummayads.
https://i.etsystatic.com/13621658/r/il/69d410/2473352040/il_794xN.2473352040_t41n.jpg
Even he knew Muslims were the real power there though. Like in Spain Jews do not have the biopower, the numbers, to control the US, and it is a real failure of understanding and big picture thinking typical of the Single Jewish Cause to ascribe America's ills singularly or overwhelmingly to them.
Jews will flee instability though. Maybe they'll go to Argentina. You think Israel is safe for them by comparison? LOL. Like in getting kicked out of Spain there will be some damage to their host country economically. But Spain went on to form the Spanish Empire. It remains to be seen what will emerge from the wreckage of the United States. And if anyone wants to tank the US economy it is accelerationists.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 21:06:57 ago (+0/-0)
See Graetz (1894). It was recognized that diaspora Jews in Spain in the 8th century were persecuted under Visigoth rule. The Jews engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate the Berber invasion, which took only a matter of months. The Jews were rewarded for their alliance with the Muslims.
Specifically under Ummayad rule, Jews flourished. This is because the Ummayads were not dedicated Islamists. They converted to Islam for political purposes but the religious tenets of Islam languished in Spain under their rule. They were Islamists in name only, and readily assimilated the cosmopolitanism of Jews, to the extent that a class of ambitious Jewish statesmen, ministers/advisers and financiers arose in Cordova which rivaled anything like it, save for Hellenistic Egypt perhaps.
Only later would the Muslims 'change their mind' by about the 11th century, as the caliphate began to fragment and various sects vied for power. Things became even worse under the Almoravids.
And this is true generally of European history: the stronger the religious fundamentalism, the greater the adversity toward Jews. The more liberal a society was, the more Jews flourished.
But let us not forget, like you are keen to, Joe, that this almost always led to trouble. Jews were, after all, exiled 109 times from different nations.
I never ascribed all of America's ills to Jews. That wasn't the claim.
You're also making analogies to historical contexts that are inappropriate. That the Spanish empire was able to flourish post-Jew has everything to do with the fact the Catholics dominated the empire.
We live in a different era, for several key reasons. There is a lack of such religious unity and religious authority. Jews have a much, much more pivotal controlling stake today than they did in Cordova in the 10th century. For fuck's sake, Joe, you can't be that obtuse. Our situation is a little different. By a little, I mean a lot.
I don't know what Single Jewish Cause means, and I don't accept it as equivalent to my position for that reason.
That Jews are currently puppeteering US politics is not at all a ridiculous claim.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 5, 2022 22:05:31 ago (+0/-0)*
- I think you and I have discussed Jewish power enough in a previous discussion to know that by Jewish power in America I am leaning into their percentage of elites. In raw GNP they probably have less total income than Mexican-Americans, due to the differences in numbers between the two groups, even if Jews are higher per capita. To argue Jews have some decisive power beyond that would require a better argument than I have so far seen anyone of your basic orientation make.
- The Single Jewish Cause is language used by less anti-Semitic white nationalists to describe very anti-Semitic white nationalists. Single Jewish Causers see white problems basically as a Jewish problem or certainly as the crux of the problem requiring nonstop attention and conversation. People like me, the less anti-Semitic, challenge this as lacking nuance and a comprehensive understanding of white problems.
- I have also touched on the many historical Jewish expulsions with you previously. Jews were an intolerant group themselves surrounded often by Christians. As a small group they were vulnerable to attack and expulsion. I'll add that if you've read Sombart you may know that their trading and competing for customers offended the ethics of the medieval guild economy as it was thought immoral to deprive a man of his customers and thus his livelihood by taking his customers. Jews were some of the first capitalists.
- Lastly, your claim that you don't see America's problems as essentially Jewish in nature is hard to reconcile with the opening paragraph of your OP where you state that America has been "used up for Jewish interests" while making what is likely a reference to "capture" of the US by Jews over a century ago through their supposed domination of the Fed. If you mean something else you need to make a much better effort expressing yourself.
I'll give you some credit for at least ATTEMPTING to make a reasonable presentation though. That is scarce around these parts.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 00:36:48 ago (+0/-0)
- Your 'even if' caveat is really the entire point. The claim that Jews have decisive power in the happenings within the country is not simply a function of the Jewish fraction of GNP. It also involves the roles Jews occupy within the bureaucracy, including political positions and roles in major media, finance, law and education. It also involves Jewish behaviors, i.e. normative ethnocentrism and nepotism with detrimental behaviors to the host society. There are over 300 million Americans. We can be sure there are cross-sections of the population with a higher GNP fraction than Jews. It doesn't mean that segment occupies the same roles, has the same level of power, behaves the same way or has ethno-nationalistic interests in undermining the host society.
- I would not take the Single Jewish Cause theory off from the table. Look, I'll be the first to admit that as far as theoretical virtue goes, conspiracy theories are perhaps the costliest of any theory. They are not ideal. One does not rationally accept them unless a conspiracy theory is what best explains the evidence. The SJC theory is not the only theory on offer, at least not at my table. We don't necessarily require a theory that strong.
It's possible, for example, to hold a weaker theory. Ditch the grand conspiracy and instead trace the problem to features endemic to the Jewish race. There may be special interest groups within the Jewish population that are problematic. Not every Jew needs to be in cahoots with every other Jew; rather we'd be talking about an aggregate effect of strategies common to Jews as a race. This cumulative effect would be the emphasis of a weaker theory.
But here's the rub. As far as epistemology goes, you're probably not going to find anybody else here as qualified to talk about that subject as I am. I resisted a conspiracy theory for about as long as it was rationally possible to do so, that is, before the evidence made it irrational to reject a conspiracy theory. A good theory should be simple and it should cause you to predict (successfully) that you'll find the evidence you actually do find. At this point, believing in the strong SJC theory will cause you to predict the evidence better than any competing theory (at least, if you have a better one, I'm all ears.)
Even if it is the case that a weaker theory is the true theory, I'd still advise people believe the stronger version since it is pragmatically preferable at this point. That is, until evidence emerges that should cause us to doubt that theory. The evidence favoring it is far stronger than the evidence that is disfavorable.
- Regarding your 'touching on' (this or that), you have a bad habit (which you've again demonstrated tonight) of making a point, and then ignoring my response to it. You did that with the 'surrounded by Christians' point. You did this with my response to your pornography post the other evening, after you posted a rather deceitful quasi-defense of the porn industry, saying it wasn't dominated by Jews (it is).
Your habit is to either ignore the response, or to continue the conversation as if I'd never said anything. You say, "I have also touched on the many historical Jewish expulsions with you previously." Sure; I also responded to you previously.
The entirety of our last long-form discussion consisted of me rebutting your points, you changing the subject, and then returning later to re-state a point like it was the first time, like I'd never said a word about it previously.
Hitler wrote about this behavior in Mein Kampf. As of right now, your habits of argument are so aligned with his description of the Jewish style, that, combined with others of your habits, I consider it very likely you're a Jew.
- I said, "I never ascribed all of America's ills to Jews." That is because I didn't. I do consider America as being used up for Jewish interests. But the Jews are not a hurricane that a society cannot stop from making landfall. For the Jew to achieve what the Jew has achieved requires many other conditions be present, the most important being a general dissolution of the host society's moral fabric. I've said for a very long time that Jews sell the ticket to the ride, but you have to buy. If your society has succumbed to the Jew, an antecedent rot was already present. Hence, all of America's ills are not the result of Jews, but Jews exploited them. There was a time where the situation might have been resolved with greater vigilance, but the parasite is now so entrenched that it festers.
I'd like to say that people could refuse the ticket today (in some respects they can, say, by not jerking off to porn), but try telling an 18-yr old person to avoid one (or all) of: some college education, an auto loan, a mortgage, auto/home/health insurance, etc. At some point, the parasitic bureaucracy has its tendrils into every facet and institution of your society, taking away viable alternatives. It's a point of no return.
@PostWallHelena
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 04:46:54 ago (+0/-0)*
I could go over many examples. The Catholic Church, not Jews, is the leading refugee resettlement group in the US. Their motive is obvious: more Catholics in the US for their pews and collection plates and greater Catholic political power. But noticing this may mean I'm a Jew, so watch out.
Niggers fuck white women en masse. Blame Jews. Then blame the Civil Rights Movement, where Jews were culpable, completely on Jews while ignoring non-Jewish roles.
Corporate America lobbies to bring immigrants in. As do ethnic lobbies to bring in their families. Blame Jews!
You responded to my comments about medieval Europe, yes. You initially acted in this thread though that I ignore the issue. I think my response is adequate. You refuse to accept it and start ranting about Hitler.
Your comments on Jews in the porn industry was also classic cherry picking, but then the Single Jewish Cause requires this or ignorance of non-Jewish sources of subversion. Even on that anon thread the role of the Italian Mafia in the porn industry historically was noted, nevermind my pointing out that Hefner, Guccione, and Flynt were the big names in the public mind even 50 years ago. I found some of your claims to be of dubious accuracy too but I'll give you some credit for looking into it. The problem is like most of these cases you find what you want. Selectively. And act as if pretty girls fucking themselves on camera is THE issue of world-historical significance. It is conspiratorial anti-Semitism married to bourgeois prudery. And misses the greater emergency of the racial question almost completely. At any rate I demonstrated who ran the top ten porn companies as of 2017. Or something approaching that.
There is another problem: constant attacks on Jews distorts the picture and offers a slanted, one-sided narrative. Spain for example. Judeo-obsessives are quick to note Jews cooperated against the Visigoths, their oppressors. They ignore (or are more likely ignorant of the fact) that Jews cooperated with Christians in fighting Muslims later in Spanish history. Surprise, surprise: different Jews do different things. It was even a baptised Jew that convinced Isabella to fund Columbus. Did you know the Rothschilds funded Cecil Rhodes in founding Rhodesia? Or that a Jewish financier equipped the Habsburgs in rolling back the Ottomans in the Great Turkish War? Or that Jewish labor leader Samuel Gompers was probably the man most responsible for our immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s? Obsessives inevitably ignore these positive civilizational achievements in favor of the incessant search to substantiate their version of the devil theory of history.
The jewsbad fixation also distracts from the real threat: the rise of color and the interference of the US government in obstructing our ability to achieve self-determination. This implies no love for the likes of Jonathan Greenblatt nor to absolve Jews of the harm they have genuinely caused. Though he'd no doubt be less inclined to censor us if more white nationalists were more like me and less like you. Admittedly maybe not much less. But then my point has never been that Jews are wonderful. And you have to be pretty dense to think it is. More like you people misunderstand all of this stuff to the point that you end up going down a false road and spend your time focusing on the wrong shit. This suits the US government too. Better to focus on Jews than focusing on the government in a truly revolutionary way.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 09:33:24 ago (+0/-0)*
One thing I do not do is to explain all disagreement with me as caused by Jews. Your disagreement with me, per se, was not the reason I first called you a Jew. The reason for that was your habits.
Green Revolution
I'd encourage you to see how Borlaug became involved with this project, and who the actual spearheads of producing it were. Borlaug was hired by another scientist E.C. Stakman for a project being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This was lobbied for by the Secretary of Agriculture (and former Chair of the Board of Economic Welfare) Henry Wallace, a Freemason who would later found the Progressive Party, a communist group pushing for racial desegregation in schools, universal healthcare, racial and gender equality and pacifism toward the Soviet Union.
You seem to want to pick out only the public facade of a given phenomenon and act as if it ends there. The changes that came with the Green Revolution neither began nor ended with Borlaug. He was the scientist who gained the most notoriety in the wake of it. Consider for example that the Rockefeller-funded project came after Wallace's campaigns through Latin America during WWII to get their support for the US's war efforts - a campaign that was largely successful.
Additionally, Borlaug was a popularizer of another climate-change precursor (and completely bunk) theory called the Population Bomb. But our hyper-moral bleeding heart Borlaug had to feed the starving people. If you could have seen the starvation! If you could have just seen it! Lo and behold his programs not only caused population explosions, but would also be the subject of many foreign critics who recognized that control over these new species of plants meant the increasing consolidation of control over the food supply. National economies would become less sovereign with time as fewer and fewer powers controlled food - sound familiar?
I don't think people are ignoring non-Jewish roles. I think people are seeking explanations because intuitively they know to follow the money and the power. They know that bureaucratic hierarchies follow top-down causation, and what they're finding - increasingly - is Jews and Jewish organizations near the tops of these communistic funnels. This is undeniable. The research to demonstrate Jewish control (speaking in terms of occupying the highest-power roles) of the media is clear. The remarkable presence of disproportionate numbers of Jews in advisory and cabinet roles for US politicians is clear.
You attempted to deny this in the case of pornography. I picked out many more figures in smut/porn and painted a larger historical narrative than you. You picked out Flynt and Heffner, the latter of which I'd barely call a pornographer. I showed you that the current leadership of Pornhub consists of a Syrian and a Jew, but was original Jewish and was handed elsewhere when the company got into hot water. If you wish to continue to deny the Jewish role in pornography, I can't stop you, but it isn't rational.
FFS, Joe, please recognize the category error here. Corporations are not ethnic identities. Furthermore, if corporations are spending an unexpected amount of money to increase 'muh diversity', then given the nature of control within them, it would help my case if Jews occupied a disproportionate number of the highest stations in the corporations pushing for immigration most enthusiastically. Or, if it could be shown there was a plausible mechanism for Jewish-dominated financial institutions, say BlackRock, to twist the arms of said corporations in order to get certain competitive privileges in their access to credit.
Nobody is claiming there is zero non-Jewish influence in any of this. What do words like controlled opposition, or shabbos goy, or golems mean? Of course there are non-Jews who get pulled into these schemes. I've previously explained that none of this occurs without an antecedent breakdown in moral fabric. Machiavellian politicians and regulators can and often do participate in these schemes.
The point of the Single Jewish Cause theory is to identify a primary 'motor' and a best explanation for the cohesion of the movement, since if things were really a 'free market' and 'open' and 'spontaneous' result of many independent reasons, then we WOULD NOT expect there to be (i) convergence and (ii) cooperation and this scale. How does your theory explain the apparent uniformity of corporate media strategy, branding/marketing and investment in the past decade if these are all just independent entities full of ethnic and intellectual diversity out for their own unique gain? You couldn't possibly explain that kind of convergence, because it is contradictory to your view. The uniformity has an explanation, and so far, ours is better than yours.
You can't have it both ways. You can't identify family resemblance of features common to this global movement, and then say those universal features are explained by a non-explanation, i.e. independent causes happening everywhere with no connection. That would be like flipping a hundred heads successively in a coin toss.
You are the one who cherry-picks just to make your particular, present point. Gompers was a fine, strong-borders nationalist who helped us out! Hardly. The AFL started, really, as a internationalist, labor-organizing, save-the-worker, Communist-inspired group like most of the other worker's parties. As things proceeded, Gompers became more conservative. It became opportunistic for him to do so, in his particular case.
There are just so many factors involved in these dynamics that, while we want to simplify in some regards, we are frustrated to do so in other regards. It is true, however, that the Jew on an aggregate level remains exactly the kind of problem the SJC says it is, even while we might pick out any individual Jew within the milieu of history and say, "Look, he's not so bad! He was kinda capitalist by the end." (Well, it's not enough to justify anybody by their being capitalists.)
But imagine dumping a flask of water down a sandy slope. At a certain point the water has the same identity, namely at point of the flask, just before it hits the sand. But in the course of draining down the slope, tributaries form and may go any which way. Some of them will diverge and others converge. Yet, the EXPLANATION for any of those happenings downstream, at any moment, is the flask dumping the water.
Not every single Jew is going to fit the pattern, albeit it is unlikely they won't fit the pattern at all. That isn't required for the theory to be correct.
It isn't a necessity that a theory of this kind pick out every single instance correctly. It's not a scientific theory. It is a theory about human beings, who are not atoms or other smaller deterministic particles. Your logic would also imply that people are generally wrong to theorize that blacks are a problem for white nations, since you could point to where the theory fails in the case of this or that single instance of a black person (who might be high IQ and particularly industrious).
Exceptions don't defeat rules in the case where we're theorizing about intelligent and freely-willed behaviors.
So it's the structure itself and has nothing to do with the people. You could take 'the gubmint' and remove every individual, and replace them with all new ones of similar competence, and our problems would be the same. You realize this contradicts the first clause in your sentence, where you identify racial differences as one of the 'biggest problems'. So why should I not think it is possible for a 'racial difference' to possibly be one of the real differences behind the 'gubmint problem'. I mean, if race is undeniably a problem, then race could be a problem in government. All else being equal, a government unduly influenced by foreign-race interests would be a 'big problem' by your lights.
Compare theories. In the most general sense, we recognize a problem. Whatever our theories are, they have to explain a problem. Yours stops at government. Mine includes government and goes further, by also fine-graining onto the ethnoreligious makeup of the parts of government.
My theory can identify/recognize the data points that disproportionate numbers of Jews occupy every institution, while your theory must stop at 'government bad'.
Ceteris paribus, my theory will make better predictions than yours does. Mine will support identifying the government as a problem. But it will also make predictions about what's happening in government and what the players will look like, that yours will flatly miss.
Again, I maintain that a person who goes for the SJC as a heuristic is going to be better off than a Jew-blind libertarian.
@PostWallHelena
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 8, 2022 00:08:22 ago (+0/-0)*
- Borlaug... blah blah blah... Borlaug is known as the father of the Green Revolution. It was the third agricultural revolution or whatever they call it. Of course others were involved. Your rather unnecessary discussion on the Rockefeller Foundation and such does little to promote jewsbad though. And indeed it is pretty unnecessary to tell me this stuff most of the time. I already know it much of the time. This case being no exception.
Borlaug as a transformational figure is enough explanation alone to explain much of the demographic transformation of the United States. Indeed, he has been credited with saving billions from starvation. More people in other words to come HERE. Some Jewish porno peddler looks very small beans by comparison. Incomparably less lethal to the white race. But prudes are going to keep beating that drum I reckon.
- You and I have a fundamental disagreement in that I think your basic method of looking at this is ridiculous. And all Judeo-obsessives by extension. Catholics, and Christian churches generally, tend to support refugees for example for financial or religious reasons. The good samaritan and all that. If Catholics want more spics here though you'll say they're shabbos goys getting pulled into the Jewspiracy. If gentile CEOs wanna cut costs by bringing in foreign workers to undercut native labor - something capitalists like to do from modern Japan to pre-civil war America - you tell us it's all in the end getting roped into the plot of the Jewish marionette. Apparently US immigration policy, which is substantially driven by something as interest based as spics lobbying Washington to bring in more spics so as to bring in their relatives, is also reducible to Jews. Sen. Eugene McCarthy said these essentially foreign interests had captured Congress decades ago.
But you guys don't talk about this stuff. First because you are ignorant of it. And second... if you do discover it you amalgamate it into your Jewish unified field theory.
- The US government. Indeed, the United States itself.
Its composition is of little importance for my purposes as I am a secessionist. It is an affair of state. I want to take US territory away from it and form another country altogether. A white ethnostate. That necessarily makes them my natural opponent and vice versa. It is very predictable.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 1.5 yearsNov 8, 2022 10:20:57 ago (+0/-0)*
I do give you credit for being knowledgeable and for applying effort to debating. There aren't many people here who are interested in much more than shit-posting.
I can make my case with an (oversimplified) example.
Suppose there are five corporations: [A, B, C, D, E] = Corp
It is plausible that every member of Corp has an economic interest in hiring the cheapest possible labor. If we also say that Corp operates within the politico-economic boundaries of a nation - let's just say it's America - then if it is possible to import foreign labor into America legally, every member of Corp will have an autonomous and individual interest in promoting immigration.
So someone says: "Immigration is bad." It could be true, on some analysis of aggregate metrics, that immigration is bad for a nation. But if we are seeking an explanation why immigration has increased, prima facie, we can't leap to "Jews bad." This is because there is an economic explanation, namely, every member of Corp has an interest in promoting this for their own benefit.
One thing we might do, however, is to analyze immigration in terms other than corporate interest. We might analyze immigration in more macroeconomic terms, and at that point we wonder about the economic regulators of America. If immigration is harming the nation broadly (perhaps in the long-term), then we can ask if there are crucial decision-makers (roles with certain political/legal power) that influence the state of immigration in America.
IF we did find, historically for example, that such a role exists, and that for a series of decades beginning with a downturn in America's economy, those roles were occupied disproportionately by Jews, then someone would have a reasonable case for blaming Jews. It wouldn't be a particularly strong case (they'd require other evidence), but it would be a totally reasonable data point.
That's an a posteriori argument. What about an a priori argument? I prefer a combination of both, but a priori arguments in this case are what tip me over the edge. So here is what that would look like.
Part of what underwrites what we discussed previously (the economic reasons that help us understand why Corp would promote immigration) is a capitalistic space for competition. Things would look very different if all of the members of Corp were assumed to be cooperating together in lock-step.
So a priori we can say something about what kind of behavior is expected from A, B, C, D, and E. We can say that their behaviors are divisible into roughly two kinds: behaviors that are shared by all members of Corp (like promoting immigration), and behaviors that are unique to just individual members of Corp.
This follows from principles of free market competition. There must be some things that each member is doing to differentiate itself (especially true if we assume Corp contains members competing in a single commercial space). If Nike sets out to advertise its shoes in the US according to some feature X, Adidas is likely to promote its shoes according to a feature Y - this is segmenting the space, and modern principles of marketing explain why this works the way it does. It's sometimes the case that two companies will compete for dominance on the same feature, e.g. Coke and Pepsi competing for best-tasting soda.
Crucially, what must be the case a priori is that these competitive behaviors are not cooperative. They are, by definition, meant to separate and to benefit one member of Corp AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHERS. That's business in a free market. This is just brute fact.
So suppose that Corp includes all of the companies doing business in America (or the West, roughly). If all of them are promoting immigration, we've got no case for conspiracy, have we? Not an a posteriori case.
But suppose that all of the members of Corp are all selling their products according to the same features and doing so cooperatively, by attaching the same marketing (messaging, values, etc.) to their products. Suppose all of them take up the exact same moral causes, and use the exact same evaluative language in their commercials. That is, they are all behaving publicly in what can only be called a convergent manner, as in converging on all of the same communications and messaging.
This is precluded from happening under ordinary competitive, capitalistic conditions. That is because if, say, 80% of the members of Corp all independently pursue some strategy P, this invariably opens up a new commercial opportunity Q. Q is roughly whatever P is not. Q is known as a 'market gap'. An example would be if there are two denim jeans companies, one who markets to the low-income class, and a second who markets really expensive jeans to the rich. There is space for a third competitor to skim the middle of the market, since a gap exists. The same holds true for BRANDING. We expect branding strategies to work by the same dynamic. It would be remarkably unexpected (permitted perhaps in principle) for competing companies to all converge on uniform brand strategies, since competitive interests would dictate that the rational strategies would be those which maximally differentiate the competitors.
Yet, this is the opposite of what we are seeing, in what is sometimes called the 'woke' movement. We are seeing an unprecedented convergence of strategies in companies that are supposed to be competing. But what's more interesting is that we are NOT seeing what is expected under our best theory: that there should be an equal or greater swing in the opposite direction among other members of Corp, to brand themselves and communicate according to values that are maximally differentiated from the rest of the pack.
This phenomenon is an anomaly, and it requires explanation. You are fond of economic explanations, but you won't be able to appeal to them here, at least not for a satisfactory answer.
But what's more, is on top of this we can also make an a posteriori case. That's because we have noted some competitors who have tried marketing according to values opposite to wokeness, and what has happened to them? Have they been allowed to freely compete? No. They've been crushed. They've been cancelled. It appears something is corrupting the system so those market gaps are inaccessible. A posteriori that is also an anomaly that requires explanation.
Further, if we look at what roles - and what people are occupying them - that are responsible for this state, and we find they are Jews (at least disproportionately Jews), we gain a huge deal of justification for talking about a Jewish conspiracy - simply as a matter of scale. Causing a phenomenon like this in a market space as big as America, with so many players and so many hundreds of billions of dollars, is a major feat.
And in fact, we do find a disproportionate number of Jews, particularly in the areas of media and finance, i.e. the ones who dominate what communications look like, and the ones who control whether business entities have access to necessary financing, based on whether they conform with the artificial/coerced 'woke' value system being mandated.
At every turn we can find a disproportionate Jewish presence in precisely the places and roles which we would expect have the largest stake in explaining the anomalies we are seeing.
Your atomized, micro-economic theory cannot possibly explain what we are seeing at the larger scale.
Not only that, but at every turn, we have accumulating evidence of Jewish voices (on television and social media) implicitly equating challenges to this woke movement with anti-semitism. We don't even have to independently claim Jews are the primary culprits in all of this. . .they are doing it for us.
@PostWallHelena