In “The Atlantic 50:” Pundit demographics Sailer writes:
Rather than debate who is on the list, I’m going to use this list to answer a question I’ve been wondering about. Like Francis Galton in the 1860s, I like to take other people’s lists made for their own purposes and use them to answer my own questions, such as: What are the demographics of opinion-molders?
In Sailer’s estimation 50% of the pundits are jewish, while only 46% are White (96% “white” – 50% jewish), and 43% are Christian (23% Catholic + 20% Protestant). In response there were a few mentions of the jewish disproportion, the following two being the most negative:
Jewish 23.75 50%
Komment Kontrol will never allow me to say this, but there’s an element of self-fulfilling prophecy here – something along the lines of, “We write 50% of the commentary in this nation if and only if we declare that we write 50% of the commentary in this nation.”
Or maybe more like: “You are allowed to claim the other 50% of the commentary in this country if and only if we choose not to contest the claim.”
I just noticed the other day that you get the very same thing over at Wikipedia when you read a Bacharim biography versus a Shkotzim biography – for instance, compare the Wikipedia propaganda on Tarski [greatest thing since sliced bread; second coming of the Messiah] -vs- Church [hayseed hick redneck inbred troglodyte].
The 20 percent Protestant representation is not surprising and fits into the general late Roman Empire vibe the country has today. There have never been fewer Protestants on the Supreme Court or in Congress than there are today. And look at the demographics of Obama’s cabinet to really see the power shift: half-foreign; immigrants; children or grandchildren of immigrants. Catholic and Jewish by and large with perhaps two or three Protestants. You know you’re in trouble when Hilary Clinton is the best example one has of the old Protestant America. Obama’s maternal roots are deeply American but we all know what he thinks of his white heritage…he hates it.
But does the passing away of Protestant America matter? We’ll see.
In response came this:
if you guys are done whispering about the unspeakably powerful jewish/catholic cabal, (you guys DO realize how laughable and pathetic you sound, right? ever’thang would be all better if only hymie wasn’t keepin’ you down??)(i’ll BETCHA the vatican invented the AIDS virus, too! it’s clearly all part of a sinister centuries-in-the-making rothschild/opus dei plot for world domination! my god! this thing is huge! HUGE, i tell you!) maybe someone can answer this for a pore dumb redneck. krugman is number 1?!?
Note the characteristically anti-anti-semitic self-misidentification as a “pore dumb redneck”.
Komment Kontrol let my response through:
I realize how nervous and uncomfortable you sound. Something similar can be heard every time jewish disproportions are criticized.
50% of the list is jewish. It’s probably 100% philo-semitic. And for some strange reason anyone who finds this troubling has to be reminded, constantly, that they will be mocked for it. You might as well drop the pretense and simply remind us that it will soon be literally unspeakable, or at least illegal. That’s how laughable and pathetic the subject is.
The demographic I’m most concerned with here hasn’t been mentioned yet. It’s an issue “the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates” (in the Atlantic’s view) are especially adept at keeping from being debated.
Which of these people favor genocidal levels of immigration, whether shaped as “amnesty”, “comprehensive immigration reform”, or “open borders”
Dobbs, Hannity, and Limbaugh have taken more or less negative positions concerning illegal immigration, which could be seen as being at least half opposed. The rest I know something of are more or less in favor.
There is at least one person on the list with an explicitly dim view of Whites and Christians.
Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.
As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it’s a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.
. . .
We’ve seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It’s more tribal than religious, and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst.
Is there anyone on the Atlantic list who has written similarly negative things concerning jews? Something that approximates Meyerson’s statements? More tribal than religious indeed.
Lists reflecting jewish disproportions are not difficult to find. Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’ | Jewish News | Jerusalem Post, from 2007, is a good example. A list of lists can be found at A Summing Up – Achievements of Jews.
The double standards are clear. Jewish disproportions are good. White disproportions are “hate”. Attacking Whites is good. Defending Whites is “hate”.