Culture Anti-Semitism and Collective vs. Individual Guilt

Skallagrim

Well-known member
to be frank it sounds like a paradox to a lesser extent. "the system only works if things were a certain way....but if things were that way the system would not be necessary in the first place."

That's not the actual implication of what I wrote. Particularly your statement "if things were that way the system would not be necessary" is entirely your subjective value statement, and it's completely at odds with my view.

A more accurate way of describing my view is that I see big government as a very harmful and extremely addictive drug... that can only be produced by wealthy countries. Those countries could function well without the drug, but their wealth is precisely what causes them to get hooked on the drug!

You subsequently interpret that as: "since they can afford the drug, kicking the habit would not be necessary".

My actual view is that kicking the habit would be a very good idea, since the drug (big government) is extremely harmful to you, even if you're affluent enough to afford it. But I also note that junkies rarely choose to kick their habit, so I understand that regardless of libertarianism (or at least: "small government"-ism) being a very good idea for most wealthy societies, they still won't choose it. (To their ultimate detriment, because big government is to a society what crack cocaine is to a human.)
 
That's not the actual implication of what I wrote. Particularly your statement "if things were that way the system would not be necessary" is entirely your subjective value statement, and it's completely at odds with my view.

A more accurate way of describing my view is that I see big government as a very harmful and extremely addictive drug... that can only be produced by wealthy countries. Those countries could function well without the drug, but their wealth is precisely what causes them to get hooked on the drug!

You subsequently interpret that as: "since they can afford the drug, kicking the habit would not be necessary".

My actual view is that kicking the habit would be a very good idea, since the drug (big government) is extremely harmful to you, even if you're affluent enough to afford it. But I also note that junkies rarely choose to kick their habit, so I understand that regardless of libertarianism (or at least: "small government"-ism) being a very good idea for most wealthy societies, they still won't choose it. (To their ultimate detriment, because big government is to a society what crack cocaine is to a human.)

Would the euphoria of faux-godhood be the addiction then? to quote the bible:

All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, and the king answered and said, "Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?"
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Counter-point: libertarianism only works in a high-trust society. Because that's where you can rely on the fellow members of the community to be "men of their word", without the constant application of force to get people to do what they promised to do. It is precisely in low-trust societies that men can't rely on each other, so they seek an instrument of force to compel others to "behave". That instrument is ultimately state power. (This can be a "formal" government or a warlord of any kind: the basic role is the same. An organised, armed entity that can compel people to obey.)

That's why the "look at Somalia!" canard is so dumb. Somalia is exactly where libertarianism cannot work. A Western country is precisely where it could work. (And we may argue, since Western governments used to be quite small during the entire period where the West took over and basically ruled the world, that in its minarchist iteration, libertarianism very much did work.)

The big "problem" is that such high-trust societies are successful because of their nature, and become victims of their own success. It creates excess wealth. And governments always grow as large as they possibly can. More wealth prompts more taxation, leading to a growth in government. So the exact countries that could actually work very well as libertarian countries almost never do, because the same thing that would allow this also makes them so wealthy that it "encourages" a large government. (In this light, you might view a big government as a "luxury problem". Only successful countries can prop up those things!)

Conversely, low-trust societies can't sustain big governments, for the exact same reason they can't function in a libertarian way. (They get relatively small governments... that are almost 100% dedicated to oppression.)
This is false wishful thinking. Low trust societies naturally break down into smaller higher trust societies. People are communal and will band together. Somalia is low trust because there isn’t a “Somali” identity. They don’t look at themselves and say I’m a Somali and so is this guy we have a lot in common. Like you do with Holland. In Somali they first identify by tribe and then religion.
A high trust society like the Japanese will identify themselves as Japanese first over whatever else. And their culture stresses the importance of order so that helps.

Also you are wrong about past government being “small” most of the European great powers were monarchies where the head of government had large powers that were almost unchecked.
 

Poe

Well-known member
to be frank government systems in general sound like a paradox to a lesser extent. "the system only works if things were a certain way....but if things were that way the system would not be necessary in the first place."
That is why they are temporary things with institutions constantly drifting in differing directions. Rome is an extreme example of going from Republican city state all the way to a giant monarchical empire but something more common is France with its cycles of centralization.
 
That is why they are temporary things with institutions constantly drifting in differing directions. Rome is an extreme example of going from Republican city state all the way to a giant monarchical empire but something more common is France with its cycles of centralization.

It's a wonder people don't constantly wake up in fear wondering if their going to get their head blown off or sent to some golough or if a famine is going to starve them to death.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Comrade
Unless this article is leaving things out, thats very bad do you know how many people work at companies owned by Jews? I'd hazard a guess that it's a lot.
GDdBQGLXoAATWYZ.jpg
 

ATP

Well-known member
Compilation of few polish articles:

1.polish fake historian,Barbara Engelking,wrote another book about bad poles,to be precise - farmers./Jest taki piękny,słoneczny dizen - my translation - it is besutifull,sunny day/
She take jewish memories - and censored them.
For example,Ada Schwerdt wrote about farmer who beat his fanily and behaved like animal - but,she also wrote ,that he was local degenerate.
Engelking cut it and show him as typical polish farmers.

Book is full of such fakes - yet,Yad Vashem translated book.To teach how bad polish farmers were.

2. Poish nationalists were against jews - for purely economical reasons.There was less then 10% of jews,yet they had half of shops.

3.Swiss firm working near Davos for tourists/borrowing skies and other stuff/ decide to not work for jewish clients - becouse of their behaviour.They do not gave up borrowed stuff,leaving it everywhere or even stealing.

Here:

Result? police was send on them,and they still must work for people treating them like shit.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Another compilation:
1.Izaak Singer,born on polish territory in 1902 migrated to USA and become famous writer - but,he openly said,that most jewsdo not bother to learn polish,even when Poland become independent 83% still was unable to write even most easy letter.

2.Yet,Poland was still center of jewish world for centuries/David Harris/,but they remained foreigners.

3.Antony Polonsky say,that from 1340 to 1772 jewish population grown from 10.000 to 750.000.They build their own towns inside towns,and world getto was used from 1516 - but,they closed themselves on their own free will.
And,from about 1600 rabins from other countries asked polish rabins for opinions in their matters.

4.In Poland Talmud first edition - 1559.about 160 more till fall of Poland.

5.In Paulinowo vilage hide jews during WW2 - but,one of them worked for gestapo.germans come 24.2.1943 and murdered 11 poles,including 2 womens.
Czesław Kotowski /his parent and brother were murdered/ after WW2 tried to convict Jad Vashem that they deserved their trees - but they answered,that he must deliver document which confirm that germans killed them for helping jews.
They still do not have their trees.

6.
24.2.1953 commies murdered polish hero,general August Fieldorf.
It was decided by procurator Fajga Mindla Danielak/change name to Helena Wolińska/ and judge Maria Gurowska/Maria Zand/,doughter of Moryc Zand and Frajdy Elisenbaum.

7.jews from Silesia considered themselves as german jews,and jews from Moscov as russian - when both groups come from Poland

8.Even David Harris made mistake that his ancestors do not come from Poland - when his father family come from polish city lwów,and mother from Belarus - and,as proved Majer Bałaban,till partitions in 1772 there was no jews in Russia/tsars killed or exiled all/

9.Forgotten jewish rabin Majer Bałaban in 1930 wanted serious Historian working on polish history - unfortunatelly,till our times it not happened.But,he wrote that jews lived in Poland,becouse it was only country which never exiled them.

10.in current polish purges participate Michał Broniatowski,who become chief of new tv.His father Mieczysław Broniatowski,grandfather Pinkus and grand-grand father Aaron was all good commies.His grand-grandpa even fought in Spain for sralin.

Interesting,what new tv would say about antisemitism....

11.Polish gardener,Mieczysław Wolski,hide 38 jews in bunker under his home.But,when germans come 7.3.1944 ,all jews pretended that only he and his sister son helped them,so rest of family was spared.
One of victims was jewish historian Emanuel Ringblaum with family.Traitor could be either polish dude Jan Łakiński,executed by Home Army later,or Mieczysław Wolski ex-girlfriend.
If so,they all died becouse he choose wrong girl.

12.One story with happy end - Josel and Henia Rochman have little daughter in Warsaw getto,but they knew,that they would die.So,they made small box,hidden on wagon,and send to polish friends.
Child was adopted by Stanisława Bussoldowa.

She was her second mother,and all heritage was golden cross/!/ from grandfather Aron Rochman,and info where found his brother in USA.
Girl Marry Jerzy Ficowski,and,when it would be possible,go to meet american family.Since she was catholic,asked by one old lady who do not lie poles if she is jewish or not,answered no.

And,as kind of joke - Catholic document from Vaticanum is partially heretical,becouse question right to convert jews.Responsible for that was cathoic priests,but there was also jew Abraham heschl,who influenced it - and threathened to burn himself in Auschwitz,if document was rejected.
Which,of course,was bullshit - commies would never allowed it.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Yes it would be crazy if, say, 50% of US billionaires were Jewish. Statistically impossible I think.

middle man minorities across the world regularly out perform the societies they live in.

This is how it works lets say there is a farmer, if the farmer has to sell his own produce he ends up splitting his time between farming and selling which reduces productivity.

Now lets say Levi goes to the farmer and buys directly from him and handles the transportation and storage of goods. The farmer can specialize in making food and Levi gets the food to a community that makes stuff but doesn't grow stuff. He then uses money and buys farm equipment and brings it to the intitial farmer increasing his productivity.

By doing this the general economy is made more efficient and Levi can become very wealthy indeed. Heres the thing though if Levi doesn't get good and I mean really good at resource management, risk management he's going to lose it all. When that happens he and his family starve to death.

That's a pretty big incentive to get really good at this shit, its also a heavy incentive to save money because you never know when things are about to blow up in your face.


Now because you save and store money because you never know when things are going to go tits up people want to borrow money from you. Now you can trust some people yes the people you personally know but there is always more people who want to borrow money and a lot of them say their ideas are good ones.

And maybe they are? But these are not people you personally know so you charge interest as a way to manage the risk because if they fuck up your the one who suffers. If their idea works?

You get your money back and something extra and their business takes off. Now consistently play this forward for generations and you can accrue some serious intergenerational wealth.

As long as you don't lend money to the government.

Never do that, they will just kill you so they don't have to pay you back and then take all of your shit.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Heres the thing though if Levi doesn't get good and I mean really good at resource management, risk management he's going to lose it all. When that happens he and his family starve to death.
I'd say that it's the opposite, the way being a middle-man in economics works is that you're exposed to less overall risk because you aren't tied up nearly as specifically as direct supply-demand relationships. It's not nearly as bad for Levi if the farmer screws up because he can go to another farmer, whereas in the direct relationships the particular people in the city working with that farmer are much more "stuck" with him.

But this does make for a much harder "floor" than for the wider demographic, which does hedge out incompetence. This is amplified in the Jews due to their history of ghettoization, pairing this specialized class of rich Jews with a demand for maintaining more generalization than the wider society and suffering far less from population density issues. So they got both high-quality sources of intergenerational wealth and high-quality barriers against intergenerational poverty on the demographic level.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I'd say that it's the opposite, the way being a middle-man in economics works is that you're exposed to less overall risk because you aren't tied up nearly as specifically as direct supply-demand relationships. It's not nearly as bad for Levi if the farmer screws up because he can go to another farmer, whereas in the direct relationships the particular people in the city working with that farmer are much more "stuck" with him.

But this does make for a much harder "floor" than for the wider demographic, which does hedge out incompetence. This is amplified in the Jews due to their history of ghettoization, pairing this specialized class of rich Jews with a demand for maintaining more generalization than the wider society and suffering far less from population density issues. So they got both high-quality sources of intergenerational wealth and high-quality barriers against intergenerational poverty on the demographic level.

Its that way some what today because we live in a safer era.

Add in the fun of bandits, angry mobs, disease, and all of the other people who want a taste when trying to move goods in any kind of merchantile venture, and that's on small scale land travel. Big things like the silk road? Yeah that could go very ugly for you very quick, but if you made the journey you made it big.

Back then government and crime could really add to cost of doing business, much like it does today actually just not to the same kind of sever scale.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Comrade
Yes it would be crazy if, say, 50% of US billionaires were Jewish. Statistically impossible I think.
I mean yeah, a tiny fraction of the population, especially non-native in ethnicity, running most businesses? That'd be so bloody ridiculous, nobody would ever believe it possible because it's simply IMpossible.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
As long as you don't lend money to the government.

Never do that, they will just kill you so they don't have to pay you back and then take all of your shit.

Say what? What kind of weak wannabee government borrows money and needs to find ways not to pay it back?

Real proper stronk chad monarchies do not borrow from the Jews... they tax the Jews! And leave them alive so they can be taxed some more later on!
Why would his majesty want to kill his most productive group of little wealth-accumulators, or allow anyone else to do so?
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Say what? What kind of weak wannabee government borrows money and needs to find ways not to pay it back?

Real proper stronk chad monarchies do not borrow from the Jews... they tax the Jews! And leave them alive so they can be taxed some more later on!
Why would his majesty want to kill his most productive group of little wealth-accumulators, or allow anyone else to do so?
Because his majesty is an idiot who only understands the power of violence. More than a few countries have been run into the ground by such men.
 

shangrila

Well-known member
I thought this thread was for chronicling incidents of AntiSemitism, not chan posting Jew jokes.

Yet it's got very clever jokes like this now...

They're like 0.2 percent of the global population and 2% of most Western nations, there's no possible way they own lots of companies or institutions, that's silly.

Or

I mean yeah, a tiny fraction of the population, especially non-native in ethnicity, running most businesses? That'd be so bloody ridiculous, nobody would ever believe it possible because it's simply IMpossible.

This is like a sample of one of those posts that Gay Leftists would cap, put into a collage and state "This is the Sietch thread topic on AntiSemitism. But there's no way they act like Nazis. It's probably no more then 2% of them at best. ;)."

But at a bare minimum maybe people could just try and exhibit a little self control and not shit up a thread about AntiSemitism with (totally not) AntiSemitic dogwhistling memery, humorous or otherwise.

I guess I don't personally care. Like who cares what other people think ultimately, especially adversarial Leftists plus I shitpost a lot myself but I figured I'd offer this open feedback. But don't let me tell ya what to do. I feel cringe enough being the one to say this of all people.
On SB, it's against the rules to point out completely neutral facts about Jews. I was infracted for pointing out that when Goldman Sachs came out with a new requirement that all non-Asian IPOs now required at least one "diverse" director, it was pure meaningless virtue signaling, as it's extremely rare for any Western Board to lack at least 1 Jew, and Goldman conveniently left the East out.

The fact that completely neutral statements of fact are banned makes it relevant to any discussion of anti-semitism in the rare places where it isn't banned. It's unfortunate that actual Nazis will jump all over it, but Jews really shouldn't have worked so hard to ban more reasonable discussion by calling everything "dogwhistling".
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
On SB, it's against the rules to point out completely neutral facts about Jews. I was infracted for pointing out that when Goldman Sachs came out with a new requirement that all non-Asian IPOs now required at least one "diverse" director, it was pure meaningless virtue signaling, as it's extremely rare for any Western Board to lack at least 1 Jew, and Goldman conveniently left the East out.

The fact that completely neutral statements of fact are banned makes it relevant to any discussion of anti-semitism in the rare places where it isn't banned. It's unfortunate that actual Nazis will jump all over it, but Jews really shouldn't have worked so hard to ban more reasonable discussion by calling everything "dogwhistling".

First off, its unfortunate that the Jews on SB got you infracted for what appears to be reasonable discussion. But I guess when the Nazis jump all over it the Jews will only have themselves to blame for all of their hard work. Meanwhile I think the difference between what I was talking about and what you are talking about is that your statements are meant to further reasonable discussion as you say when it was being discussed on SB, while here people are allegedly "dogwhistling" antisemitic commentary in a thread about antisemitism.

This thread isn't about the "Middle Minority" or the Political Meme thread where you can find lots of that hilarious content about those darn Jews. It's supposedly about AntiSemitism. I mean it's not even this... a lot of other prior discussions in this thread were pruned off such as how about how the Jews allegedly want to wipe out all nonbelievers except Muslims or random posts about how Slavs were more oppressed then Jews in WW2 even earlier in the thread (along with all sorts of other random topics), which again... is reasonable discussion to have, but the repeated insistence and desire and compulsion of people wanting to bring up such topics in this thread might strike other folks (not just the Jews that have banned reasonable discussion by calling everything "dogwhistling") as a bit odd.
 

shangrila

Well-known member
Well, aimed at reasonable discussion or not, what almost all Jews, even those otherwise diametrically opposed, agree should never be allowed to be alluded to, is Jewish power.

And Jews are powerful. In America, Jews are the mightiest of all groups that possess even the least sense of group identity. They may have experienced a few setbacks recently, faced with every other Identity Group united against them, but notice they aren't losing. And of course, Israel is the most powerful state in the Near East. I have tremendous respect for (at least the previous generation of) Israelis, having seized Might by their own hands such that Conan the Cimmerian would be proud, but any treatment of them as the underdog is pure delusion.

An useful analogy might be America and anti-Americanism. America is the mightiest nation on Earth and has been such since at least the end of WWI. It hasn't had a single interaction where it was the underdog since the 1840s at the latest. Even today, in our state of decay, it may be a tottering Giant, but a Giant nonetheless. And Americans too often have this delusion against admitting it, producing media hilarities like America being occupied by North Korea and the like. Consider how pointless any discussion of anti-Americanism would be, if American might is not only not acknowledged, but can't even be mentioned at all. When that power, both jealousy towards its mere existence, as well as more concrete objections to how it's put to use, is an enormous part of anti-Americanism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top