On The Jewish Question and Palestinian immigration

First let's review what a Prisoner's Dilemma is because everything I have to say hinges on understanding that. Rather than describe it I'll just repeat Wikipedia:

"Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail. The prisoners are given a little time to think this over, but in no case may either learn what the other has decided until he has irrevocably made his decision. Each is informed that the other prisoner is being offered the very same deal. Each prisoner is concerned only with his own welfare—with minimizing his own prison sentence."

And, 

"This leads to three different possible outcomes for prisoners A and B:

• If A and B both remain silent, they will each serve one year in prison.

• If one testifies against the other but the other doesn’t, the one testifying will be set free while the other serves three years in prison.

• If A and B testify against each other, they will each serve two years."

Basically there are four different possible outcomes.

• Defect / defect

• Cooperate / defect

• Defect / cooperate

• Cooperate / cooperate

Racism is a Prisoner's Dilemma. For a while from about 1995 to 2010 nearly everyone was cooperating against racism. Racism has decreased steadily from the Civil Rights movement till about 2010 but then in about 2010 college professors started promoting hatred towards white males. I remember sitting in class in college and my female college professor literally saying to the entire class of about 100 people that she hated white males. I remember that she suffered no consequences for this. I also remember that gender weirdness suddenly showed up on the scene around 2014. Usage of weird pronouns was not even a thing prior to that on my college campus. The disease spread outward from Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League where it had been around much earlier than that, probably since the '80s, but confined to the gender studies departments of those universities. 

White males are currently 62% of all males in the population of the United States. In 2010 the American left decided to defect against this demographic.

In a multiracial coalition against racism you need all parties to be on board. If one party decides to defect against the others it increases the odds that the others will also defect. If all parties coordinate defecting against one party, as the left did against white males, that one party has a tremendous incentive to defect hard against all the others. 6 years after the left decided to hate white men Donald Trump was elected.

They basically put him in office. 

And that's the nature of leftists: to be a leftists is to be bad at understanding secondary consequences. Every race in a multiracial nation only has an incentive to cooperate to the degree that others are cooperating with them. This requires punishing all defectors not just the white ones. By deciding to defect against caucasian men, and only caucasian men, the left guaranteed a retaliatory defection of America's second largest voting demographic after white women.

Dating  has been hell in this period since the left has not defected against white women and so the politics is now split on gendered lines, with women being significantly more left-wing than men. This is probably deliberate and calculated to reduce caucasian birth rates. Though the defection was not just against white males but to a lesser extent all men. 

I have been told that I should read The Culture Of Critique by Kevin McDonald but from what I can tell none of his books reference any specific genes or genetic distributions which would show a greater prevalence of ethnocentric tenancies in the jewish population. Therefore the issue of whether a genetic predisposition to ethno-narcissism exist among jews is unproven. It is also possible that such ethno-narcissistic tendencies are cultural in origin as demonstrated by the behavior of Zionists in Israel and their recent genocide of the Palestinians. There is also the issue of the many jews who contradict the idea of all Jews being subversive. A key example would be Robert Moses, who was racist and very much pro white, or Jonas Salk, who developed the polio vaccine and gave it away for free. Then there's the issue of incentives, which are a far stronger influence on people's behavior than genetics.

So let's tie this all together. Incentives control people's behavior more than genetics. For a long time jews have behaved in a way that was more or less pro white, at least in the US. Jews have an incentive to favor either cooperate / cooperate in the multiracial program or cooperate / defect with them defecting. This is the same with all races though except white liberals exhibit suicidal altruism where they cooperate long after everyone has defected against them. This refusal to defect on the part of white libs paradoxically increases the probability of defection by all the other groups by lowering the cost of that defection. Cooperating when other people are defecting against you is not a cost-free behavior. If everyone receives a benefit on the basis of their race except you then you are being actively discriminated against. If others practice ethno-narcissism except you then you are being excluded from job positions. Turning against white men and only white men guarantees that a significant percentage of those white males will defect against the multiracial program. Liberals refusing to punish defectors lowers the cost of defecting against whites, increases the penalty of being white, and increases the probability of defection by that class of whites that are not liberal. 

In other words, they hate conservatives so much they have configured the incentives to destroy the multiracial truce because doing that is calculated to harm conservatives. They hate conservatives so much they are willing to destroy the whole multiracial project.

• Libs are willing to abolish the police and make everyone unsafe, of every race, in order to spite white conservatives
• Libs are willing to destroy the multiracial piece in order to coordinate defection against white males
• Libs are willing to destroy the state of Israel in order to spite the whites who live there, because they perceive jews as white
• Libs are so indifferent to secondary consequences that promoting anti-white male ideology got them Donald Trump and they still don't understand that

The revealed preference of white liberals is either for destroying the multiracial piece, or for wrecking the whole thing to spite conservatives. I I'm skeptical about whether or not jews actually benefit from this process. It seems to me that the safest environment for being jewish would be one where the multiracial project is intact and everyone is in a cooperate / cooperate equilibrium with everyone else. Since jews are a high IQ population it is a contradiction to state that they would be working towards a situation that makes them less safe. One witnesses that for decades TV and movie studios, largely run by jews, did cooperate by heavily promoting racial peace and equality. 

The problem here appears to be white liberals who are defecting against everyone while nobody defects against them. For an iterated prisoner's dilemma to work and to reach a cooperate / cooperate equilibrium you must punish defectors hard.

An effective way to do this is to bring palestinians into America. Not a lot, not millions. Just enough to force American jews to defect against the left. Since wealthy jews have an outsized influence on the Congress it is important that they be made to defect hard against the left, and nothing ratchets up left-wing anti-semitism like a few hundred thousand palestinians.

By hook or by crook wealthy jews need to be made to form a vast coalition against white liberals, assuming you want the multiracial project to work. In the book Albion's Seed the thesis is put forward that the political conflict between the left and right is really a continuation of an ethnic conflict between different factions of whites from the European continent. This is plausible because it does not require a genetic component, only that people continue to vote and hold the prejudices that their parents had, and voting like your parents is a well-known and statistically proven phenomenon.

If your goal is to fracture the multiracial piece and champion the interests of white males, you would somehow have to get white liberals to like white males. Good luck with that. Maybe if you completely took over the universities, fired all the left-wing professors, and instituted a pro-white (or at least conservative) curriculum you can get future generations of both whites and minorities to have a favorable attitude towards whites. This would not necessarily result in anyone hating minorities or jews. Think a white male "first among equals" situation. But I think no matter what you do getting rid of the compulsory anti-white education of the population is paramount. No kind of peace can ever be realized as long as that exists. 

But I am not seeing the case for attacking jews. Yes, many of them have been an absolute drag on American society. But those are either (1) white liberals or (2) powerful Zionists. Conservative jews / weak Zionists / ordinary jews are not affecting much of anything, and again incentives matter. Why kill what you can co-opt?