The comment attacked no one and referenced no stereotypes. Unless, of course, Jew is now a slur.

So, like South Africa?

If it's in terms of costs and benefits, it's unquestionably better for the South to have been part of the US than to be its own independent nation.

Only because of the Union Navy's ability to blockade cotton exports. That was the most compelling reason. The coercion of force.

If Jews are more likely to be SJWs, then so what? Why is this fact significant?

Boils down to whether you believe in behavioral genetics, and whether policy should consider it, I guess. If you don't, everybody has the same potential, or the difference not significant enough to account for. I don't buy into the Tabula Rasa theory of humanity, though. If 3% of a population will engage in homicide, you need more restrictive measures to prevent homicide (and in turn, promote stability) than in a population where only .1% will engage in it. If you implement policy to stabilize the population with 3%, that's inherently oppressive to the population with .1%.

I think social problems are often genetic, to varying degrees. That includes tendencies to subvert, deceive, steal, rape, or murder. Not all of these acts are criminal, though.

But the fragmentation would create new priorities where ideological alignment would form. There is benefit to numbers in union, but the sovereign cost should be routinely weighed and measured.

Or do you mean that the degeneracy here talked about is unreasoned passion -that seems to be closer to the mark.

Yes, this.

Then you probably don't realize that many people, myself included, firmly resist any thinking in racial terms.

I mean... that resistance is the point...? I think most racists (racialists?) started from precisely this place of internal dissonance that ran counter to our observations.

Lately I have been trying to figure out where we went wrong. I can't really decide between 1789 (or even 1776) and 1914. Or maybe 1517.

We've went wrong a lot, but I think 1861 was the biggest in the American timeline. Secession from a government that doesn't represent their interests should be a right among a free people, and it was really the end of the 1776 experiment.

As to the "religious peoples" bit, within context, that seemed much more directed at the restraint of human nature, as you say, rather than any organized religion.

But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

While you're correct that "religious people" are often at loggerheads, that's really more an issue of unreasoned passion, than what seems to be referred to here.

The issue with a lot of these 'noticers' is that they are very vague about what they want.

Fair. But we need to be able to discuss Jews before we can have a discussion about the implications of their presence, and how to best adjust. It's fairly verboten to do the former, let alone the latter(omg,the JQ).

So, people point out their perceived problem to try to get others to acknowledge it. I can only speak to my own motivations for doing it, though. I'm sure some do want the ovens, but that just hardens our collective conditioned judeophilia.

Jews could charge interest on loans to non-Jews but not to one another (defaulting on a loan to another Jew was very strictly forbidden) and didn't necessarily have to tithe to a ruler, as well as being free of compelled donations to Rome/Constantinople/Mecca.

I know the history, but the existence of their wealth in the first place is the puzzling part.

As for the second point there were probably no shortage of mercenaries with various levels of morality willing to take "repossession" jobs.

Could be! I've often wondered if "blood libel" didn't originate with methods of compelling repayment.

The 60s were... unfortunate. But really, Henry Ford wasn't out of the mainstream before WW2.

Meaning that multicultural societies inevitably have to suppress liberties in order to keep order and stability?

Precisely. Society wants stability first and foremost. Freedom will always be secondary to that. But it's been stated better than that:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

For me, I just advocate for ethnonationalism. It should be an idea on the table.

There are large swathes of the US that just don't have a Jewish population to speak of. Or black. I don't think the US has a lot longer. In those places, ethnonationalism in an already ethnically homogeneous area should be a valid path. It shouldn't be wrongthink to at least consider it when the time comes to reconstitute.

I'm not trying to round up Jews and stick them in ovens, believe it or not.

If anything, it would make things more difficult for them, as they generally have a harder time spreading their agenda than if the demographic is broadly based.

They certainly did, until a certain event changed public sentiment.

I certainly do agree with you that a small group being disproportionately criminal creates resentment against that group

Here, if you can understand me when I say "socially criminal (or maybe civically criminal?)" pretty much hits the nail on the head. A society is only as free as the laws it doesn't have to create to foster order and stability.

You always misunderstand. I can simultaneously appreciate what Einstein did for humanity, while also disagreeing with his advocacy for Socialism. The sticking point here is that I don't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Short term gains in scientific understanding for long term social problems aren't an equitable exchange, to me.

The interesting part to me is two-fold. First, that they had wealth to lend in such hostile territory. Second, that repayment to a Jew could be compelled.

Which did your mind associate with morally deficient or subhuman? The vaginal part, or the jew part?

Incompatibility of behavior. Behavior that is extremely marginal and stigmatized becomes more pronounced when a small minority amplifies that behavior by disproportionately engaging in it.

Subversion of cultural norms that lend stability to a society are always a problem. When a group that consists of 2% of the population comprises 50% of the subversion vs 65% causing 40%, it's the issue that is more urgent, because 3% will snowball into greater subversiveness (or criminality) quicker than 66%.

Whites are disproportionately criminal compared to East Asians. So would you say that whites are a "destabilizing" element, and what exactly is it destabilizing?

Interesting thought, and I think the answer is likely yes. The problem is that we don't really have masses of white people migrating into asian countries. Around 1:1000 whites will kill someone, and I think that's around an order of magnitude higher than what's generally seen in non-sandnegro Asian countries. Probably the best proxy we have are things like US servicemen raping or killing Japanese, which certainly causes a lot of strife, if not outright destabilization. But again, it's an imperfect proxy, as those servicemen raping and murdering are black as often as not, and the fact that they're young and male further skews any usefulness we could glean from the observation.

So oppressed, the only profession they were allowed was lending white people their wealth.

Things that make you go "hmmm".

If you're referring to Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, they really seem to be exceptions to the rule. I'll gladly call them honorary Anglos, though.

Feel free to point out proportionate Jewish representation on both sides of the culture war arguments. It would be a public service.

Even if true, so what? I know it might seem obvious to some that "therefore, we should hate the Jews"

Has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with incompatibility. Not all Jews subvert, but they subvert disproportionately, and its corrosive to western society. Every bit as destabilizing as disproportionate criminality.

Even the best treatment system can become inundated with shit, and some are more prolific at producing it than others.

I think women and men were both generally happier under the nurturer/provider paradigm. The real damage to family/society didn't occur until second wave feminism. Third wave feminism went from destructive to actively hostile. The thought leaders of these most destructive waves were Jewish (as are most critical theory ideologies that permeate modern academia).

Kinda the way of it. You'll get a few quick downvotes from the anti-noticers and jannies, then over time you'll develop a positive score as more of the regulars see it. Diversity of thought's okay, though.

what then for US media?

Do you not remember the "Scandal Free" administration? This extreme bias is the norm now, not some exception to be on the lookout for.

Inclusion was never an American ideal, we were just anti-aristocrat. Mobility was a natural restriction on immigration, and as mobility increased, multi-cultural resentment rose alongside it, with policy tempered by pragmatism. Americans were sick of potato niggers by the time of the civil war, but the Union needed bodies, for example.