Maybe, they’re disproportionately involved in both bad, and good movements and practices at the upper echelons of society and economy, insofar as we can agree on what bad and good are, however the Jewish community as a whole is hostile to the existence of the white race.
Whether they’re left, right or center, progressive, Zionist or libertarian, Jews seem hostile to the notion of whites having countries or any kind of identify of their own, hellbent on making sure that never happens.
Whites are forbidden from organizing to preserve their culture, race, religion and secularism.
Granted many Europeans have always been more cosmopolitan than many non-Europeans, and many modern corporations are globalist in outlook, but still Jews are disproportionately involved in denationalizing whites, they’re not also disproportionately involved in nationalizing them.
Before Jews came to prominence in North America and Australia, our immigration policies were designed to keep us majority white.
Phenotypically, can people tell a person native to one region of Spain apart from another?
No.
Can people tell a native Spaniard apart from a native Russian?
Maybe, maybe not.
Can people tell a native Spaniard apart from a native Moroccan?
Yes.
That’s because the first distinction is insignificant, the second distinction is somewhat significant, and the third distinction is significant.
Even tho Spain and Russia are much, much further apart than Spain and Morocco geographically, physiologically, as well as psychologically and culturally, the Spaniard has more in common with the Russian than with the Moroccan.
Let me put it to you this way, if a Frenchman marries a German woman, their offspring will be more similar to a Pole than had the Frenchman married a Frenchwoman, but if a Frenchman marries a German woman, their offspring won’t be more similar to an Arab, south or east Asian than had the Frenchman married a Frenchwoman, so I don’t see it as this natural progression, the way you do.
That’s because there’s a much coarser dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans than between different sorts of Europeans.
The differences, within nations and subcontinents are much finer and smaller than the differences, between subcontinents and continents.
Just because B is less homogenous than A, but can still function, doesn’t mean C, which is as less homogenous than B as B is less homogenous than A, will be able to function.
There may be a cut off, where at some point a society is too heterogenous to function.
The introvert may get along with the ambivert, the ambivert may get along with the extrovert, but the introvert may not get along with the extrovert.
Or alternatively, C may be more different than B than B is different than A.
We shouldn’t keep increasing diversity and assume things are just going to work out.
Just because cookies and milk can go together, and peanut butter and jam can go together, doesn’t mean cookies and milk can go together with ketchup, or peanut butter and jam can go together with mustard.
Even if B’s differences from C are about as great as B’s differences from A, A and B’s differences may be mutually beneficial and complementary, C and B’s may not be.