China Is Overtaking America in the Technology Race. Does It Matter?

Over at the Unz Review, Fred Reed writes of the astonishing technological rise of China from primitive, war-torn disaster area of forty years ago to the World's largest and most dynamic economy. 

Typically, Unz Review commenters attribute the speed with which China has eclipsed the US in so many ways to: (a) bad American Jews, (b) superior Chinese IQ, and (c) China's racial homogeneity. 

But such explanations may be entirely misconceived. All presuppose that America must do better. But the question that needs to be asked is: do those with the power to make the necessary changes care?

If the American elites are for global governance, why would they be concerned about shit on the streets of San Francisco, American intellectual degeneration, or the progressive replacement of America’s founding European population by people of alien race, religion and culture?

Once a global system of control is established, the citizens of the US and every other country will no longer be of any account except insofar as they are needed as the technically expert Morlocks to serve a tiny population of New World Order Eloi. What we are witnessing, surely, is a prelude to the end of the age of the proletariat. Indeed, the end of the proletariat. 

What we have is a globalist elite that views the mass of mankind as non-productive, wealth-destroying, environment-damaging vermin to be eliminated either through state-managed reproductive failure — already underway throughout the developed parts of the world, or a more rapid means, for example through the release of a virus engineered for lethality and uncontrollable spread, the vaccine against which will be available only to certain persons.

Haaretz: Most Israelis Oppose Accepting Refugees

Haaretz: September 20, 2018: WASHINGTON – A clear majority of Israelis oppose accepting refugees from war-torn countries into Israel, according to a new poll released on Wednesday by the Pew Research Institute. The poll included respondents from 18 different countries, and among the Israelis surveyed by it, 57 percent were against accepting refugees – more than in any other country included in the survey.

Nothing unreasonable about Israelis opposing an influx of refugees. Man is a territorial animal. Each nation has a territorial base. If Israelis, Brits, French or Germans move over to make way for people of other nationalities, their own nation is diminished.

When one is talking of a few thousand fleeing for their lives, few are opposed to their own country taking in refugees. But when nations that have a below replacement fertility rate, as is true of all the European nations, are expected (i.e., compelled by their own leadership) to take in "refugees" by the million, people naturally become resistant.

Moreover, when the "refugees" aggressively assert the supremacy of their own culture over that of the natives of the land where they have sought haven, it becomes obvious that the natives have been betrayed by a treasonous, globalist and anti-democratic leadership, and are set for destruction as a racial and cultural entity.

So Israelis are perfectly rational and morally justified in resisting the influx of "refugees" most of whom are likely, in any case, to be economic migrants not victims of war. To do otherwise would be to place their own national survival in jeopardy.

One just wishes that Jews would remember that the same right of refusal applies to other countries. They would then, perhaps, not be so loud in their seemingly endless criticism of the countries such as Canada, the US, Britain that failed to offer safe haven to six million European Jews prior to, and during, WW2.

When Anti-Semitism Is Both Patriotic and Just

The United States is, and always has been, a plutocracy. Legislators and the Executive are elected, but they take election campaign funds and, in most cases, personal benefits (the use of corporate-owned executive jets, fishing lodges, plus after-office directorships, consultancies, book deals, etc.) from the moneyed interests. These payoffs are absolutely guaranteed, not because the paymasters are honest or inherently trustworthy, but because they have to convince the next lot of office-holders that they will get theirs. Moreover, the same interests fund both parties. Thus, when a Money-Power-controlled Republican or Democrat gets the boot from the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office, they are replaced in the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office by a Money-Power-controlled representatives of the other party.

This system of government is not necessarily all bad. It insures that the ship of state does not veer crazily from one direction to another with every turn in the electoral fortunes of the ruling political parties. Moreover, the legislators and the President are elected and thus do no doubt endeavor to do good to their constituents, or at least to appear to do good to their constituents, so far as that is consistent with loyalty to their financial backers.