The Urban/Chosen Attraction

Three qualities make cities ideal for Jewish occupation and focus of power. These three aspects are the concentration of surplus labor, the difficulty in maintaining broad interpersonal relationships and community at high levels, and traditional dilution of ethnic homogeneity that happens in urban areas.

Jews have typically been averse to what we would traditionally refer to as labor. That is to say, of the trades and jobs you are least likely to see a Jew practice – farming, fabrication, and the like top the list. Along with laziness, Jews have traditionally evinced a “distaste” for the labor of our forefathers, suggesting it is beneath them to till, sow, and harvest a field. When you don’t like getting your economic or literal hands dirty, that limits your vocational options. You need food, shelter, heat, and clothes. This means you’ve got to either produce these yourself or otherwise trade with somebody who does. The less urban the area, the more decentralized trade becomes. Unlike actual middle-men, Jews tend not to fare well in barter economies. Again, I’d fault their traditional aversion to labor for this, and genuine middle-man labor participation requires a good deal of effort.

The viewpoint that Jews distaste manual labor shouldn’t be considered a radical opinion. Take it from them:

As a practicing engineer who spent the past fifteen years in the factories of this country, I was particularly attracted by Warner Bloomberg, Jr.’s, article, “Jew in the Factory” (November 1953). He describes a lunchtime discussion with a young Polish American, Andy, in which he, Bloomberg, tries to explain why Jews are not found in industry “working with their hands.” I was disturbed because Bloomberg was obviously on the defensive, finding it necessary to relate “the long history of oppression and persecutions that drove European Jewry so long ago from the crafts of the land. . . .” The implication here, of course, is that there is something ennobling or virtuous in hard, manual, unskilled labor—a fiction perpetrated, in my opinion, by those who have never made a career of it. Common sense, or if necessary a few years digging ditches, picking peas, or moving steel plate, should convince even the most romantic that far from being ennobling pursuits, they are on the contrary degrading to the dignity of man and the sooner supplanted by the machine the better. . . . – Louis Soltanoff, Commentary, 1953

Because of these circumstances, Jews must congregate in areas where a concentration of surplus labor exists. Luckily for them, we have these things ready-made. We call them cities. Surplus labor, a term used by Marx, describes the economic productivity of a given group when all the bare-necessities and stuff needed to scrape by have been taken into account. Not dinner, but dessert. Cities tend to have these because they function as economic central points for laborers to exchange goods and services for goods and services they require and also act as collections of manpower which was critical for construction, raising armies, and during the industrial revolution, the production of goods. Because of the concentration of resources, Jews are able to control enough resources in cities to support themselves, as well as, coming up with schemes or cons that would otherwise ruin the social and economic capital of an area if there were not a surplus.

The next component of cities which make them ideal for Jews is the atomization and lack of solidarity and community. It is impossible for citizens of cities to maintain broad relationships with all other members of the city. At best, neighborhood-level relations operate as the self-policing influence on societies. In small towns and miniature societies, con games and fraud spell death for their practitioners. In cities, there’s always another sucker. Worse, the suckers have a virtually impossible task of organizing and uniting the other citizens to put a stop to fraud. This raises the economic odds of running successful schemes. Jews revel in these opportunities and regularly practice economic fraud on grand scales in cities. Additionally, Jews are able to infiltrate, occupy, and solidify control of bureaucratic positions in order to protect themselves from being organized and prosecuted for fraud. When they acquire enough power, they eventually practice governmental fraud against the populace. You go from Chaim Jacobson loansharking you to Fannie Mae loansharking everybody.

Image result for hello fellow white person
Admitted to being Jewish in the recording.

Finally, cities have a tougher time maintaining “us vs. them” protective mindsets. Cities are traditionally built on trade crossroads, whether they’re crossroads, rivers, bays, or other transport hubs. A given portion of the population of a city, even if temporary, will always be foreign to the population. Cities are essentially always less homogeneous than their surrounding areas. This makes it easier to “pass” as “my fellow white person” despite being Jewish. A honed J-DAR has little problem differentiating a Jew from a co-nationalist when it is Dane vs. Jew, Serbian vs. Jew, and Spaniard vs. Jew. When an area is full of other ethnicities, it functions the same as chaff in front of a missile. It’s us vs. them, them, and them. Picking a Jew out of a lineup of various other different ethnicities is far less straightforward than identifying him against your own ethnicity.

We can boil down the love affair of the Jew and the urban environment into three simple points:

  1. Jews can only exist in environments with excess goods and work. Cities are, by definition, areas of excess goods and work.
  2. Jews require social atomization and anonymity to run economic schemes and cities provide these. Eventually, enough consolidation of power and control results in bureaucratic monopolies and governmental scheming.
  3. Jews are far more difficult to trace and identify in cosmopolitan environments. The function of cities as trading hubs and concentrations of foreign relations predisposes them to have weak defenses against outside intrusion.

One comment