Why did Europe exterminate its Jewish population, which was its intellectual elite and engine of its economic, cultural, etc. developemnt in the last 200 years?
I think Germany 1918-1945 had decided to purge itself from its half percent of Jews, because they saw the Jews as a powerful hostile element, the one that was responsible for the sudden collapse of the undefeated German Army in the end of WWI. Jewish organizations defended themselves against this accusation by pointing out the excessive participation of German Jews in the Army, the excessive number of decorations they earned, and in general, the tremendous contribution of German Jews to the country's culture, science and economy. The Nazis did not deny these facts but thought that Germany would be a more compact, solid, stable, stronger fighting body without Jews, without permanent Jewish-led agitation and ferment. Most high IQ people assumes that IQ is the most important thing in the life of nations, but it is not, and surely was not so two generations ago when when military strength was measured by the number of horsemen and lancers and may be, tank drivers. And lebensraum, calculated in cereal-producing hectares and iron-mines.
I too have thought that Europe was shooting itself in the leg by exterminating its cognitive elite, and I think that is what happened, just look at formerly prosperous countries like Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ucraine, Bielorrussia, Latvia, etc. that in one or two generations have returned to their natural, pre-Jewish condition of Third World hellholes. Why should I care? They sent my grandparents and uncles to Auschwitz and to me, they told "Go To Palestine". That is what I did and am building my own country on these dry, bare hilltops of Samaria. Regarding Europeans, let them fry in Hell without intellectual breadbaskets. Actually not, I wish no evil to Europeans, my feeling is rather indifference.
20 comments:
Sveiki!
"Why did Europe exterminate its Jewish population, which was its intellectual elite and engine of its economic, cultural, etc. developemnt in the last 200 years?"
Not in Baltic,Germans have larger influence,culturally and economically,don't know about other Europa.
"I too have thought that Europe was shooting itself in the leg by exterminating its cognitive elite,...."
Not here:)
"They sent my grandparents and uncles to Auschwitz and to me,......"
Not my grand-grandparents,they also suffered from national socialism and socialist internationalism, some concentration camps go forever,some immediately shot, some sent out to Siberia!
Each side have also other side;)
"....let them fry in Hell without intellectual breadbaskets."
Hate creates hate,We will have fun with eastern Asians,but I don't believe in Hell or Heaven;)
Take care'
This is an interesting comment. There is no question in my mind that Europe as a whole impoverished itself (intellectually, morally,and financially) by expelling and exterminating its Jewish population. So why did they do it?
The answer to this question could be debated endlessly, but actually it is one of the least discussed aspects of the Holocaust. The superficial answer, that the Jews contributed to the defeat of Germany in WWI, is clearly not true.
I do not have any special expertise on this, but I think the answer has to do with fear. As we all know, Jews tend, ON AVERAGE, to be more successful commercially, academically and professionally, due to the one standard deviation IQ advantage and also due to emotional factors like ambition, drive, appetite for all sorts of risk, and an acute appreciation of leverage. Consequently, whenever they reach a certain (and quite small)threshold percentage of the 'native' population, everybody else starts to get worried (consciously or unconsciously)in regards to loss of control over their homeland. And skillful politicians (eg Hitler) can exploit these fears, especially since he shared them himself.
Please do not think this an attempt to justify in any way the tragedy.It should never have happened, it was a short term and long term disaster for Western Civilisation, in many obvious and subtle ways, and we are still paying for it.
So, in my opinion, it is nothing to do with an "ubermensch/untermensch" thing; the Jews, I suspect, were the one and only group that Hitler really did fear as being competitive with the Germans.
You in fact see a similar phenomenon operating in Israel today, even though the Palestinians generally are not competitive with respect to achievements; but they constitute an enormous demographic threat to Israel which generates a lot of angst. And you see this xenophobia all over the world where a talented minority takes root in another country; eg the Chinese in the Philippines, the whites in Africa, etc, etc, etc.
And all I can say is that a better understanding of this phenomenon, which is biological in its true nature, might lead to more succesful attempts at prevention of genocide. We need to rise above sloganising this problem in our public discourse.
Anon.
"Regarding Europeans, let them fry in Hell without intellectual breadbaskets."
But from other side,I agree whit You Sir,We have to deal with themselves, even if we are so gullible that; Latin Americans and Africans, then we have earned for own weakness- destiny!
Don't worry soon there will not be Europeans and many other ethnic groups.
Viszlát'
I dont think Hitler feared Jews. From the very start of its political carrier, Hitler attacked Jews and never once met any resistance. Not even during the mass killings, which went on for years without any resistance. He must have wondered where was that famous Jewish power if he could kill Jews by the million and no one was resisting. However, in the end, in his political testament, he mentions it once more.
Your age is beginning to show, J. Your various three paragraph analyses are increasingly bereft of any understanding of history due to your natural chauvinism. You seem to think the Jews were the elite of Europe. I say, like many of your original Zionists said, that the Germanics were.
Were and are. I never said that Jews were the leaders or rulers of Europe. We did contribute a lot to European culture, science, economy. That when there was a substancial number of Jews in Europe, which is not the present situation. Europeans did it to us and to themselves.
I think Hitler feared the Jewish mind, as at least the equal of anything the Germans had to offer.
In this regard, it is worth reading the history of physics, especially in the interbellum years of the 1920's and 1930's; a co-operative effort, to be sure, but it is striking how a small European Jewish population could throw up enough genius (Einstein, Szilard, 50% of Bohr, and others) to match the best of Europe (Heisenberg, Planck, Rutherford, etc). You will see the same thing in the people who made the Bomb in the USA Manhatten Project (Feynman, Oppenheimer,and again the very interesting and eccentric Leo Szilard).
Hitler may have been stupid in some senses of the term,and certainly fanatically over the edge, but he could not possibly have been dumb. I do not think he thought the Jews were untermenschen at all; that was propaganda for the for masses.
This having been said, I still believe he could have controlled Germany without the antiSemitism, and even, at least for a while, harnessed the Jewish talent for Germany, as in WWI; but this is mere speculation. He was too full of hate to be rational.
Anon.
And yet, somehow, that Jewish genius couldn't get a man into space either in the Soviet Union or its twin the United States without captured German scientists.
Jews were competitors to the Germans for resources. The Russian elite were a competitor to Jews for resources. So Jews killed lots of Russians and Germans eventually killed Jews.
So what if Hitler feared the Jews? There was reason to, as the world knew and knows, and as J. takes a certain glee in (as would I, if in his place). Eighth grade assessments of the struggle for life on this earth must stop. Ridiculous Hebraic notions of "good vs. evil" mean nothing to students of evolutionary biology.
There were two talented people, perhaps the most talented the earth has ever produced. One wanted to live without the other. They said the land was their home. That's that.
It is ridiculous, dear Anonymous, to state that Germans and Jews were fighting for resources. 90 million Germans vs 0.5 million Jews? Food or living space were being disputed? Were Jews taking ten wives so that Germans would be forced to masturbate? In our modern world, bright people ARE the resource.
I see it here in Israel. This is originally a very poor waterless, arid land. Where Jews settle, suddenly factories and commerce flourished and the Arabs (even from Sudan) try desperately to infiltrate and live here. Suddenly this is their land. We are taking their resources... But Jordan for example has exactly the same resources and people is starving there.
Ah, dear Jaime, I wish you luck when, during your eventual retirement, you sit down and seriously attempt to grasp not just political theory, not just the mechanistic aspects of the civilizational overlay on this earth, but the utter reality of the eternal struggle for life.
I do not have much hope, however. A man who believes at this advanced age, per his tribal books, that all life somehow evolved to serve him, is a man who cannot attain the level of thought necessary to grasp the wider reality of evolution. You have a built-in device, inculcated by your culture, which informs your "blood" (as you've put it) as to how to react when presented with thoughts that, if logically followed through, would not allow one the mindset to properly compete here on the globe.
Meaning, of course, that if you did suddenly understand tenets of sociobiology and the like, you would have given up something essential in making you a Hungarian Jew.
Good luck with the final exams for your students. Though not an engineering question, perhaps you could ask them this, in order to weed out those unteachables: Nation A has many people and a fertile landscape watered by a large river. Nation B, adjacent to Nation A, does not have as many people, but is an easily defended mountain land. The headwaters of the river spring from there. The few people of Nation B build a dam, thus controlling the water going to Nation A. What are the possible outcomes of this scenario?
There is a difference between competition for the consumption of resources and competition for the control of resources.
Anon.
You have a built-in device ... (to delete ideas that)... would not allow one the mindset to properly compete here on the globe".
Of course I have it. I know. My mind (and yours) evolved to make us survive and reproduce. Nothing more, nothing less.
I know that there thoughts I cannot think and concepts that I cannot conceive because evolution had no use for them. Quantum mechanics may be one of these concepts, although it seems to me that it has been solved recently (decoherence and all those new concepts) and now I am able to get the gist of it. But I have no time to think much about it.
Regarding the river and the dam, during the last 50 years there were many instances of this situation. Not even one war was fought for water, not in Turkey and Iraq or Syria, not Syria vs Israel, not Argentina vx Brasil (Itaipu!), not West of China vs East of China, anything. There were no wars for resources. Full stop. And never will be. If a resource can be bought in the market, to buy it is always cheaper than waging a war for it. Profesor Fishelsohn, my mentor, said so. I repeat, dear Anonymous, the resource of the 21st Century is the competent human brain. America still has most of it by a large difference. If I may be patronizing as you are with me, I would say stop thinking in 18th CEntury terms, like Ricardo and his contemporaries. Read modern geopolitical thnkers, like those of the Rand Corporation. They are providing a public service by publishing their reports, seize the opportunity!
"There is a difference between competition for the consumption of resources and competition for the control of resources."
Not ultimately. They are on the same continuum.
"I would say stop thinking in 18th Century terms, like Ricardo and his contemporaries."
Thank you, J. This is good advice for me.
I will look also look into this interesting Rand Corp. which I've never heard of. I'm sure its output is in no way a function of the society that built it.
As for this Profesor Fishelsohn, I hope he is able to stay out of the way of such luminaries here in the United States as Richard Perle. This fellow adamantly claimed the U.S. was going to invade Iraq for reasons of oil alone, something that could have been bought on the open market for much less cost. This man should have chosen Professor Fishelsohn as a mentor, rather than Albert Wohlstetter, a gentleman who worked for...hold on...let me check here...what the, the Rand Corporation?!
What competition for resources with the Jews, who have none? Natural resources are those of say Congo, a country the size of Europe, with water, land, minerals, you name it. Or Zimbabwe, former African breadbaket, with excellent crop lands and minerals and whatever you may want. Or Kenya,for instance, with agricultural potential equal to the United States. Or just a minute, I remembered, ARGENTINA, with 3 million square kilometers of temperate agricultural land (the pampas) with perfect rainfall, and so on. Why are they all so poor? On the other hand you jave resourceless Island, Ireland, Scotland, the Great Britain, etc. that are among the wealthier countries of this planet. Conclusion: The only resource that has any meaning is ... IQ?
IQ can not succeed in a vacuum. It has to have access to at least some resources, directly or indirectly. Anon is saying that the Germans were afraid of the potential for Jews to indirectly control resources, in competition with the native volk.
Thank you, rashkov. You're correct.
J said...
Conclusion: The only resource that has any meaning is ... IQ?
No! Argentina could have a per capita GDP equal to the US, but chooses the path of failure. According to this wiki article that posts the table from IQ and the Wealth of Nations Argentina has a national IQ of 96, halfway between the US (98) and Israel (94). On top of that Argentina has Jews, but they seem to be about as productive as their Latin neighbors. Maybe there is some sort of massive gap between Anglo-Protestant culture and Latin Catholic culture.
Second, if IQ is the most precious resource in the world then immigration is a means to destroy that inborn IQ, along with a drive to promote miscegenation.
I forgot the link to my source!
link
J,
Actually one of the worst thing that has happened to the United States was welcoming of smarter Jews into the WASP circle. Pre-WW2 WASPs knew all about Jewish genius but also understood the need for eugenics, which many Jewish Americans rejected because of its racist tone.
Carnegie, Rockefeller and even Woodrow Wilson and other wasps established institutions to promote good breeding. What did the Jews have to offer-Franz Boas and Betty Friednam. This is a sensible route for Jews as they are not Germanic and Nordic but not for the US overall.
Jews as a group, at least in America outside of hard science, have distracted away from IQ and race(ironically) and therefore harmed the US in the long run.
Put more simply if the duller old money wasp was still in charge over the smarter jew, we might have a had a couple of generations worth of eugenic breeding done.
Jews can claim to in fact be more intelligent but Jews as a unit cannot claim to have made Europe or America smarter or sensible.
Post a Comment