Do Jewish People Bring Antisemitism With Them?

Human impulses long for a system of information processing and decision making that produces inferior results, socialism. I have many times pointed out that the system which people in Brevard County think is the solution to corruption of their criminal-justice courts is actually the cause of the corruption, populist democracy. They wish to replace court decision-making with social gossip decision-making, which creates terrible results based on popular falsehoods and political influence.

For centuries, Jewish people migrated to various cities in Northern Europe, only to be run out of town based on popular aversion to their activities. The popular model is that middleman minorities are disliked because the information role of middlemen is undervalued relative to the more tangible product of physical labor, even though laborers discover the most profitable product to labor on only as a result of the supervisory information communicated by middlemen. Minorities often participate in trade specifically to the extent that they have a network of contacts in the nations they came from, and where the majorities of people in those nations are often enemies of each other. And Jewish people specifically were allowed to engage in money lending for interest in the cities they fled to, which was forbidden to both Muslims and Christians.

So the popular model is that human nature likes farming collectives where work and income is decided socially based on what people collectively see and agree on and feel is right. And human nature dislikes the impersonal networks of trade and banking and money, which produce value through information rather than through labor on physical inputs and outputs, and which networks form spontaneously and dictate people’s wealth and occupations without anybody voting on the pattern that emerges. So when Jewish people show up in some town in Northern Europe, and are relegated to the gauche urban occupations of trade and banking rather than owning or laboring on farms, the local people have a natural dislike for them. People dislike the web of independent local information-processing decision makers that make capitalism work, each of whom optimizes his activities based on information known only to him, and which information cannot be known to much less processed by a collective or central political institution.

The idea is that by various accidents or random occurrences, Jewish people end up in activities that are repulsive to the archaic and misguided tribal impulses of man. But what if it was not innate human nature to dislike capitalism, but rather social attitudes brought into town and promoted by those same Jewish people? What if Jewish people were creating and promoting the cultural habits and attitudes, that held the occupations and activities of Jewish people as evil?

In other words, a town in Northern Europe could have traders and independent businessmen, and nobody cares. These independent traders and businessmen could even be ugly and morally backward and crude and obscenely rich and aloof, and nobody cares. But then Jewish people show up and, at the same time as they take over these occupations, they promote a culture of social consciousness and collective awareness and communication and social participation. And this collective social animal which the Jewish people cultivated and animated through the social nature of their habits, then hates the independent decision-making businesses that operate outside the moral oversight of the social collective.

It doesn’t need to be Jewish people. Anybody who has a social information occupation like doing sales or filling out loan applications, rather than a physical occupation like designing or building bridges, will form into political institutions that manifest and are imprinted with the social nature of his daily work. People with solitary jobs like digging graves, will accept that businessmen are also operating in a solitary way, calculating how much to pay people and what products to produce in their back rooms, without any voters knowing what they are doing or telling them what to do. But the cliche from “The Wolf of Wall Street” is that the first thing a pen salesman asks is “How long have you been in the market for a pen? How do you use a pen in your daily work?” It is only a small step that these same people would like the idea of a government institution that finds out everyone’s medical conditions, and then sets the price of medicine. People in social occupations imagine a government that does the same thing they do, discovering people’s needs, and appealing to and serving their emotions. Rather than simply enforcing rules like prosecuting fraud and protecting property rights that enable decision makers to operate anonymously and independently.

I am an engineer, and George “Soros” Schwartz is a trader and promoter. Our different approaches to the world are reflected in our different approaches to reforming criminal justice. Soros believes that people deciding the actions of prosecutors by popular election will result in those prosecutors behaving in a more moral and just and economically productive way, so that the community doesn’t harm its own body in a shortsighted way. I believe that forcing prosecutors to follow the law, by sending people who lie in court to prison, is the way to create more accurate and just outcomes in criminal court, and more harmony and economic prosperity and less war and aggression in society. I believe increasing the role and influence of a popular vote will just end up sending unpopular people to prison based on gossip, myth, and blood libel, such as minorities and Jewish people.

Soros believes that by buying radio stations, he can use the power of social communication to improve the performance of this process of the popular vote deciding who goes to prison, to use culture to dissolve traditional prejudices, and to mitigate the irrational and damaging aggressive impulses of man which instinctive impulses are misplaced in urban societies. I again argue that it is the nature of radio stations, no matter who owns them, to end up demagoguing all day against competing knowledge institutions like businessman, the Federal Reserve, and the FDA. So Jewish people promote social rather than impersonal governance in an effort to bring out the best nature of man. I believe social decision processes, rather than merely cultural institutions, inevitably bring out the worst nature of man, and lead to war. An open society is one that minimizes the power of elections to affect the lives of individuals, and instead promotes the impersonal rule of law. The local dullards need to be left to their own private devices, not awakened to social consciousness.

The October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel, was an attack on Israeli farming collectives known as “kibbutzes”. My understanding is Jewish people withdrew into these collectives, after becoming disillusioned with the idea of participating in capitalism in diverse urban centers. Kibbutzes imply a moral judgment, that working as an anonymous independent decision maker in a city, is morally inferior and perilous, compared to participating in a social labor collective where everybody likes you. I argue the opposite, that the idea of Jewish people living together as a tribe, is the source of much of their problems. Suppose each person on a kibbutz had to work for a wage to get a mortgage, to obtain his own individual apartment to live in. Then the way for a Palestinian person who sees the land and aspires to the same prosperity, is to also silently and anonymously work for a wage and get a mortgage, and outbid the Israeli for the same apartment. But if a tribe owns the land, then the way to improve your own prosperity is for your own tribe to kill their tribe, and take over the land. So people hold wars and rallies and go on TV, trying to use social processes to obtain control of the land. Social collectives are inherently closed and awkward, compared to spontaneous trading networks.

Israel has become more collectivist and populist recently, such as by giving more power to the legislature over the supreme court. As a purely statistical observation, this has not been associated with an increase in prosperity, since they are now experiencing more war and death. A truly “open society” is one that dissolves the collectives and social decision-making institutions, leaving only social cultural institutions and atomistic individuals programmed with the culture and morals necessary to keep it that way. People in social occupations and with a social nature, need to promote a government and society built on an impersonal mechanical system of laws and property and independent knowledge institutions. Jewish people who move to cities, need to promote low social consciousness and the rule of law in those cities, rather than social activism and populist democracy, or they end up paying the price for changing the culture to serve their own misguided impulses and whimsy.