A Critique of the Fear of Parasitic Demographics
I’ve written earlier about propertarianism, and actually managed to get a response from Curt Doolittle. In it, he critiqued my position for allowing parasitic behavior, or “the imposition of costs.” This is a common theme amongst propertarians of libertarians, that our philosophy does not account for free loading and parasitic behaviors, especially at the demographic level. I’ve often asked for examples but have not received satisfactory answers.
Well, I believe I finally happened upon not just AN example, but THE example that he draws upon.
Specifically, I’ve been reading with great interest The Myth of German Villainy over the past few days. (Read this thing. It is fascinating.) In it, Benton Bradburry explains why Hitler hated the Jews and Bradburry’s reasons for believing that tales of German brutality are greatly exaggerated. As to the first point, which we will primarily focus on in this piece, he supports two essential themes. First, Jewry and Bolshevism were synonymous, especially primary to the creation of Israel in 1948. This took on gravity when you consider the consistent and nefarious implementations of the Red Terror by communists when they were able to seize power and Bolshevik rebellion in Germany in the 1920’s. Secondly, Jews had significant in-group preferences. That is, once a Jew was put into a position of power in any institution, he or she would consistently favor their fellows Jews over fellow Germans, Russians, etc, in all manners. This second point is most relevant for our discussion.
I want to take these claims at face value. It does not matter to my critique whether they are true or not. I assume them to be true here.
Curt Doolittle critiques libertarianism for its inability to force citizens of a society to pay for and maintain commons created by its other members. He defines things such as a spirit of cooperation as a common, a classification I agree with, and it is this class that I believe Doolittle is primarily referring to when he levels his charge.
Returning to our Jewish example, Western society has struggled for centuries to attain egalitarian values, from top to bottom. It has worked hard at the beliefs that slavery is wrong, that women are the moral equals of men, that we are ALL endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. It teaches in its schools and most of its religious institutions that we should consider each person on their own merit. In fact, in many cases, it strives to remove our ability to even consider that.
Within such a framework, Ashkenazi Jews have a marked and unfair advantage, as they will refuse to extend the courtesy offered by other demographics. They will network with each other and prefer to hire other Jews, even to the neglect of their own business.
It gets worse, though. Not only do Jews have an overriding in-group preference, they also have the brains to target exceptionally lucrative and powerful positions, especially media, banking, and politics. The Rothschilds are a very well known example, but in the 1920’s the majority of high finance was in Jewish hands. Considering that the largest firms from that period are still in existence, for the most part, there is no reason to suppose this has changed. During that period, Jews also owned almost all of the major newspapers in America. In politics, Bradburry points out that Jews assumed almost total ownership of the political bureaucracies of Germany and Russia when laws banning them from doing so were lifted by the Kaiser and Czar respectively.
To summarize, the moment that legal protections of ethnic Russians and Germans were lifted, Jews immediately used underhanded bargaining techniques to assume vast swaths of political power, without a shot being fired. Combined with their already total control of high finance and media, this put them in position to covertly rule nations. Considering their treatment of the Palestinians, their suicidal preference for saving the financial institutions they’ve put in place, or their obsessions with the Red Terror during their socialist years, theirs would certainly not be a benevolent reign.
Suppose that all of this is true.
How could a libertarian society defend against a demographic with such norms?
We would see nothing inherently wrong with any firm offering a position of authority to a Jew. If that business owner saw fit to do so, it’s his company. When that Jew began to hire only his fellows, libertarians would have no reason to enforce different behavior. These are all voluntary arrangements. Even if that society recognized the behavior and developed its own norm of not hiring Jews, some would deviate from this path or be ignorant of it, and each case would spell another hostile takeover. Thus, one bite at a time, Jews would weasel themselves into control of those firms and institutions they target.
First, we need to define the society, and therefore what we would be defending ourselves against, in the worst case. I’ll assume a minarchist framework. Essentially, this society would rule itself almost completely through a common law tradition, based upon a Constitution affirming every citizens right to life, liberty, and property, conditioned upon respecting those rights existing in other people, with an explicit and very limited exception given to government so it may fund itself. Contracts would also be listed as being enforceable. The government would be the arbitrator of last resort, though probably not be accepted as an appeals court, and provide for national defense. The vast majority of government revenue would be generated through usage fees. You use the courts, you pay for them. You think we need to raise an army to fend off an invader? You pay for it.
Secondly, what would define success or failure? Honestly, this bar should be set very low. In Russia, Jews were able to use the concentrated power of the state to slaughter literally millions of Russia’s best and brightest. In Spain and Hungary, they attempted to do the same. Despite the existence of a state, they have also secured for themselves almost complete control over high finance and media. So, as long as we can reasonably say a libertarian community like the one above wouldn’t be as vulnerable to brutal massacres or almost total violent exclusion from lucrative sectors of commerce, I think this qualifies as a success.
First, we should examine Jewish dominance of finance and media. In the case of the former, it should be remembered that Christianity and Islam both banned believers from making loans at interest to their fellows. Thus, Jews had the opportunity to spend centuries securing their hegemony. Also, several times during the past century, they have been able to form or control central banks and legislatures. Through these, they have been able to divert significant amounts of wealth to themselves. During the Weimar Republic’s period of hyperinflation, Jewish bankers were ideally positioned to purchase vast swaths of real assets due to their tight grip on the avenues for securing foreign currency. Assuming that their control of American banking has continued unabated since World War Two, they have been the benefactors of several bailouts, most notably the famous Greenspan Put, TARP, and Bernanke and Yellen’s QE programs.
A libertarian society would be focused on providing avenues for individuals to solve their quarrels peacefully, not on creating an institution with a coerced monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. It would also not be in the business of forbidding any industry to any demographic. Finally, it would have zero avenue for Jewish bankers to appropriate massive swathes of wealth for themselves every time they messed up.
If any of these abilities were removed, much less all, Jewish dominance in banking would most assuredly not be anywhere near where it is today. In the past 70 years, banking has been plodding along, innovating at a speed that Silicon Valley finds repugnant. It can afford to do so, because gaining access to high finance requires literally millions of dollars to spend JUST on complying with regulations. So, while Jobs and the Woz could start a five hundred billion dollar empire in a garage, doing the same in banking is literally impossible (as long as you want to be “legitimate”). If Greenspan had not had such a friendly relationship with Wall Street, Goldman, et al., would not have survived to 2000. If TARP hadn’t happened, same thing. If QE wasn’t an ongoing policy, these institutions would probably be in the red. If lending hadn’t been forbidden to Christians and Muslims, there’s no reason that it shouldn’t have been filled with natives in proportion to their numbers.
In the case of the latter, we run into a confluence of factors. First, media has been an exceedingly expensive industry until the advent of the internet and consumer products that yield results comparable to what the professionals can make, both of which are very new phenomenons. Thus, given Jewish in-group preference and their access to capital through banking, we would expect them to dominate the field, as they would have much easier access to credit. This would continue in a libertarian society. What would not continue, though, is the protection that the industry has had. In music, for instance, you can be fined $25,000 a song, if you share content illegally. Mickey Mouse has been trademarked for decades, and there is no end in sight. Paramount has repeatedly sued fans of Star Trek for making amateur films set in the same universe. TV and radio stations have to register with a government agent to broadcast, rather than this simply being available on a first come basis.
I am not prepared to say where a libertarian society, driven by organic conflict resolution producing societal norms, would end up other than to say that they would certainly be less restrictive than where they are now, in regards to media.
The Red Terror
Simply put, a libertarian society, driven by conflict resolution between parties using common does not have any mechanism through which to institute a Red Terror. There is no body in existence to pass a law mandating all business owners be herded into fields and executed en masse.
Secondly, such a society, with most law enforcement being handled by private forces, would possess groups so well armed that they would be able to give even the army a hard time. Imagine, for instance, trying ton confiscate weapons from Southern Red Necks. How well do you think that would go? The laws, as they stand right now, are already pushing their pride to the breaking point. When Obama proposed legislation to take away scary looking semi-auto rifles after Sandy Hook, some very prominent members of the YouTube gun community began publicly stating that they would violently resist its implementation. Any community that understands that its norms and liberties are dependent on the ability to the people to defend them would pose a similar challenge. Indeed, the Bolshevik revolution in Germany was actually put down by former soldiers organizing themselves to defend against the takeover of the reds.
Questioning the premises
Finally, I’d like to add two more simple points. First, I have heard it said on reputable podcasts that, in fact, Ashkenazi Jews score on average 120 on IQ examinations, with a particular predilection for subjects like law and philosophy. If this is true, then we would expect to see Jews dominate any industry they preferred. So, their ownership of the majority of banking in the early 20th century may not indicate a sinister conspiracy, but merely their advanced intellect.
Secondly, in a libertarian community, citizens must respect certain rights. These rights are easy to understand. Furthermore, by its nature, legal power is dispersed as widely as possible, in order to avoid things such as 1% of the population being able to seize control of their society. Given this, while Jewish firms may be able to bring sufficient coercion to bear on those who do business with them, a gambit in and of itself, any attempts to force others into contract would undoubtedly be met with enough armed resistance to render the effort both unprofitable and dangerous to their own persons.
As a result, we can be relatively sure that the laws of the market will be brought to bear on Jewish firms, along with the rest of them. I’ve already mentioned this above. If the Fed had been in existence from 1990 onward and banking institutions engaged in the same behavior that they did, those firms would now be bankrupt.
Thus, if a firm gains a position of dominance in any market, we can be sure that it has done so by offering better products and services, in a libertarian society. There are multiple libertarian authors who have examined the robber barons and found exactly this.
The risk are real. Given certain conditions, particular demographics could gain enough power to dominate and destroy any society they so choose. Thus, the question must be treated carefully by any political philosophy.
While I don’t pretend this piece is an exhaustive or authoritative examination of the subject, I do think it should give proponents of liberty hope that their system still stands head and shoulders above its competitors, as it actually addresses the mechanism by which the majority of abuses have occurred throughout history: political power.
The more we can eliminate the need and desire for the State, the less society will have to fear from the 1% using it to appropriate wealth from the general populace and violently suppressing competition. This remains true whether we are talking about corporate welfare or Jewish oligarchy.