New York Times critic Manohla Dargis, who is not Jewish, but to use her words, “I am married to a Jewish man, so I am sensitive to the representation of” … how jewish Hollywood is. It doesn’t stop her from complaining that Hollywood’s movies are too “white”.
Steve Sailer quotes Dargis, reacts to her misdirected distaste like it’s a big joke, and tosses in his own sneer at “hillbilly” “white trash” for good measure. Sailer likes things like this. He calls attention to White/jew double standards without identifying them as such. Then instead of a sober lecture about “human biodiversity” he serves up a comedy schtick.
The search result in the first link in this post has been scrubbed of the blurb concerning Dargis’ jewish sensitivities, but the short synopsis that remains is relevant in its own right. Project MUSE – Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies – The Fockerized Jew?: Questioning Jewishness as Cool in American Popular Entertainment, by Samantha Baskind:
This essay examines the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture, using the film Meet the Parents (2000) and its sequel Meet the Fockers (2004) as a case study to demonstrate how the Jewish Jew is no longer avoided and when portrayed does not fall victim to stereotyping. While looking at these two films together, I describe a broader evolution in media from the de-ethnicized Jew, and for that matter the de-ethnicized Jewish actor, to performers flaunting (and thereby celebrating) Jewishness in a Christian-centric society that has found acceptance of the Other. The paper also questions what about Jewishness is cool and describes how viewer subjectivities influence the perception of coolness.
The “upsurge in overt jewish identity” continued with Little Fockers (2010), which Dargis reviewed:
Part of what made the first movies work as well as they did — “Meet the Parents” hit in 2000, and its sequel, “Meet the Fockers,” followed four years later — was the cultural clash that dare not fully speak its name. Initially, the series only broadly winked at the reasons for Jack’s slow-burning tsuris. Was that a bagel in Greg’s pocket, or was he just glad to see his shiksa girlfriend and then wife, Pam (Teri Polo)? But when the second movie brought in Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman to play Greg’s parents, any residual anxiety about the characters’ nominal cultural differences gave way to the spectacle of two legends playfully batting around the Jewish stereotypes that the stars themselves struggled against and transcended.
What Dargis calls “the cultural clash that dare not fully speak its name”, and then dances around in ewjay odecay, speaks its name quite clearly in jewish studies journals. Jews may fault everybody else for regarding them as the Other, but the truth is they freely discriminate themselves from “whites” whenever they like. When Whites distinguish ourselves from jews they act as if we’re morally or mentally defective.
Here are three more reviews of the Fockers series, with the common thread being an acute jewish awareness of the distinction between jews and Whites.
Meet the Parents: Little Fockers | SabDesi paints the Focker culture clash as one-sided “anti-semitism”:
There has always been some interesting cultural tension behind these films, an argument between race and power. Jack Byrnes (no relation, thank God) is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male force entering the domestic arena. That’s why his character worked for the CIA for 34 years, including 19 months in a Vietnamese prison camp; he is American power brought to bear on the enemy within – the schlemiel who is stealing his princess.
Greg Focker’s fool is a very old kind of Jewish comic character – a Jew who fears life among the Gentiles. Ben Stiller is its foremost practitioner in modern movies. It was clear in the first movie that a large part of Jack’s objection to Greg was anti-Semitism, along with his contempt for his caring profession. “Not a lot of men in your profession, are there Greg?” he asked in the first movie.
The second movie went further into this anti-Semitism, with Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand as Greg’s parents, Bernie and Roz. They were hippies from Florida – a tad embarrassing but open-hearted. Roz was a flamboyant TV sex therapist; Bernie’s job was to smother everyone with kisses, especially Jack. The contrast was obvious but effective: cold eastern Protestant establishment versus warm kosher humanity. Puritans versus emigrants: no wonder Spielberg was interested.
Dannielle Blumenthal, self-described “Professional communicator fascinated by all things branding”, explains How the “Little Fockers” Brand Makes Sexism, Racism, and Anti-Semitism OK:
While the character of Roz Focker (Bernie’s wife) is supposed to represent liberated femininity, she is also portrayed as emasculating, pushy (recall the stereotype of the “pushy Jew”), and even a bit crazy. The message being that “women’s libbers” are all three of these things.
In contrast, Pam Focker (Greg’s wife) and Dina Byrnes (Jack’s wife) are portrayed as “normal and stable,” wives who know their place, don’t make “trouble” (e.g. emotional demands), and support their husbands endlessly no matter how crazy and possibly even unfaithful they act.
It is precisely Pam’s endless supportiveness, as well as her stereotypical Barbie-like beauty, that leads her to be portrayed as the “one true love” of Kevin, who pursues other women, but can never forget her. The most that Pam asks of Greg is to check on the facepainter for the kids’ upcoming birthday party, and when he doesn’t do it, she simply sighs and leaves the room.
In terms of racism, there were very few African-Americans in this movie at all, much less any in power. I saw one character playing a patient, one playing an incompetent nurse, and another on the subway train as an “extra.” Do the Fockers and the Byrnes not have any African-American friends, associates, customers, and so on? Why was the movie so “White?” I’m not saying that movies have to be advertisements for diversity but the Caucasian-ness of the movie seemed extreme.
There is another example of anti-Semitism besides the writers’ antipathy toward Roz (and Bernie) but I don’t want to give away that part of the plot.
Clearly though this is very much a movie poking fun at “WASP” culture and the difference between it and the movie’s Jewish characters. It seems like WASPiness is “idolized,” but also seen as dysfunctional, whereas Jewish culture is a kind of corrective. (Interestingly I was reading the book “Stuff White People Like” yesterday and it had a similar attitude toward WASPiness. It was also hilarious.)
Blumethal is hyper-sensitive to anti-jew slights, but like Sailer anti-White slights make her laugh.
The Fockers Trinity, by Joan Alpert:
Despite the silliness, the movies portray the shifting role of Jews in American culture. Jews have previously been portrayed as outside the majority culture; their masculinity is different than the norm; they are neurotic, weak and effeminate—a continuation of the anti-Semitic tradition that questioned Jewish maleness, says Daniel Itzkovitz, director of American Studies at Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts and contributor to the 2006 Jewish Identity in Postmodern American Culture. The movies give an “unwholesome perception of Jews,” claims one commentator, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox rabbi in California, by portraying them as “heinous caricatures.”
Fockers’ writer Joe Hamburg however, defends his films’ non-Jews. They “are not anti-Semitic,” he says; it’s just that Greg “feels out of place” in a WASP world in which bulletproof Kevlar surrounding the family van is the answer to paranoia, and lie detector tests and sodium pentathlon injections are the means to truth. Life is serious. Pam warns Greg, “Humor is entirely wasted on my parents.”
Basically, the WASP, Jack, is a jerk and the Jew, Greg, is a schlemiel, and the schlemiel wins. Actually, Greg is “a post modern schlemiel,” says Itzkovitz. Although he has the attributes of the stereotypical nerdy fumbler, “American society is now identifying with him.” He adds: “Non-Jews as well as Jews are feeling unsettled in the 21st century.” They realize they are not all-powerful, like Rambo, but anxious and insecure like Greg, whose warmth, decency and caring attract Pam.
There you have it. The professional jewish bigots say, “hey, your movies are anti-jew”. The writer answers, “nope, anti-WASP”.
“[T]he shifting role of Jews in American culture” has been to steadily displace and dispossess Whites. The jew schlemiels win. The White jerks lose. That’s how and why movies like the Fockers get made. That’s why Hollywood is the way it is.
UPDATE 15 Feb 2011: Danielle “Hollywood Jew” Berrin and friends lift the veil on an Oscar-nominated “white” film, Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network, which they see as a jewish production with a central jewish theme.
Who does Aaron Sorkin really hate? | Jewish Journal:
While it is true that women in general do not shine in “The Social Network,” the critique is misguided, because Sorkin is quite specific as to which kind of women he is referencing, when he references them at all — and they come in two forms: Asian Americans and Jews. According to a surface reading, neither gets a pretty portrait; Asian women are depicted as attractive and easy, and Jewish women are brawling shrews.
Jewishness, in general, is a characteristic the fictional Zuckerberg and his friends are desperate to escape. At the Caribbean Night party at the Alpha Epsilon Pi house, one of Zuckerberg’s friends wryly remarks: “There’s an algorithm for the connection between Jewish guys and Asian girls: They’re hot, smart, not Jewish and can dance.” Sorkin would have us believe that, in the eyes of some Jewish men — or at least those run-of-the-mill Harvard scholars — one of the best things about an Asian woman is that she isn’t a Jewish woman. And in Sorkin’s story, Asians get bonus points for performing oral sex in public bathrooms.
“That’s not what you’re going to get from an Erica,” said Olivia Cohen-Cutler, referring to the film’s only female Jewish character. Cohen-Cutler, a senior executive at ABC, is the chair of Hadassah’s Morningstar Commission, which devotes attention to images of Jewish women in the media. While most are decrying the film’s treatment of women, Cohen-Cutler sees something different in the character Erica Albright.
In the film’s opening scene, the fictional Zuckerberg is on a date with Erica, who is pretty, sophisticated and exquisitely articulate. While trying to woo her, an arrogant and socially inept Zuckerberg winds up insulting her every which way, which prompts Erica to unequivocally reject him: “You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true: It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”
But her assertiveness, while well-founded, is met with a withering take-down. Zuckerberg avenges himself on his blog, her rejection providing the impetus for the creation of “Facemash” — the beginning of Facebook.
In real life, he wrote, “[So and so] is a bitch. I need to think of something to take my mind off her. Easy enough. Now I just need an idea.”
In the movie, the fictional Zuckerberg also insults the size of her breasts — and her last name, with a subtle dig about how her family changed their name from “Albrecht” to “Albright” — the only hint that she is Jewish, though it’s never explicitly confirmed.
“In one way [the Zuckerberg character] was saying, ‘She’s a fraud because her family did this and I’m not because I’m still Zuckerberg,’ “ Cohen-Cutler said in an interview. “What you saw throughout the film was a combination of Zuckerberg’s arrogance and self-loathing related to his otherness, which played into the ‘Jewish men hate Jewish women’ continuum.”
If this were pure fiction, it might sting a little less, but unfortunately it isn’t: Zuckerberg, who might be the most eligible Jewish bachelor in the world, met his real-life girlfriend, the Chinese American medical student Priscilla Chan, on erev Shabbat at an AEPi party during his sophomore year. (According to The New Yorker, friends speculate that they will marry.)
Liel Leibovitz, a writer for the online Jewish magazine Tablet and an assistant professor of communications at New York University, believes this is just more evidence that Hollywood is undeniably and irretrievably hostile to Jewish women.
“Being ‘Jewish’ in Hollywood means adhering to the stereotype, namely the smart and shlubby person who overcomes insecurities and applies wit to get ahead,” Leibovitz wrote via e-mail. “That, of course, is a stereotype that’s great for guys, but not too great for women. While Jewish men can fit right into the ‘Jewish’ niche in Hollywood’s arsenal of preconceived notions and crumbling clichés, Jewish women cannot.”
Indeed, Erica is punished, not for being the object of the male gaze, but for subverting it by being the only character in the movie who is actually smarter than Zuckerberg. Even if her rejection is the proper comeuppance for his immaturity and arrogance, it is Zuckerberg who becomes the hero, while Erica remains the heartless wench who wounded him.
Where does this animosity toward Jewish women come from?
“I am convinced by the theory that pins the blame largely on Jewish men,” Leibovitz wrote in his e-mail. His much-read 2009 article “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” postulates that both Hollywood’s executives and its leading men prefer shiksas. Period.
In that vein, Sorkin’s script and its obvious aversion to Jewish women can be seen as an indictment of Jewish women nobody likes: the entitled Jewish American Princess and the overbearing Jewish Mother. But Erica Albright-Albrecht doesn’t fit into either of those stereotypes, even if she derives, in some way, from an archetypal Jewish feminine strength.
“I long for the day when a Jewish actress would play a Jewish character that’s just the normal, uncomplicated, unremarkable love interest who also happens to be Jewish,” Leibovitz said.
An uncomplicated Jewish woman? No wonder Sorkin doesn’t deliver. He seems, instead, ambivalent about them. He can’t stand the stereotypical figures (either on screen or from his own life), but he is also trying to imagine something different. So while Erica is reproved for her boldness, it is Zuckerberg who ends up endlessly longing for her, and an ideal that doesn’t really exist.
I suppose it’s asking Hollywood too much for two smart, good-looking Jews to run off into the sunset together. Or at least, in this case, to Silicon Valley.
“It’s too bad that this movie, which is really a testament to the brilliance and single-mindedness of someone, had to flip the bird to being Jewish,” added Cohen-Cutler, who admitted she loved the movie regardless.
Too bad, indeed. The real world is full of Jewish women whose qualities run contrary to Hollywood stereotypes. Which leads me to believe that it isn’t Jewish women that are the problem; it’s that Jewish men like Mark Zuckerberg and Aaron Sorkin are hanging out with the wrong ones.
Jews like Berrin, Cohen-Cutler, and Leibovitz are obsessed with jewishness and jewish interests. They are free to observe and opine on those interests from authoritative, paid positions without being pathologized or demonized as “racists”. They are exquisitely attuned to the most subtle cues of jewishness and what they perceive to be anti-jewish slights. They personify the “stereotype” of jewish women (and neurotic, weak, effeminate jewish males) as brawling shrews.
In contrast non-jews are not similarly obsessed or attuned, or at least are strongly discouraged from being so by the pathologization and demonization they would be subjected to should they behave in such a fashion. If they see The Social Network in racial terms at all they see it as a “white” film. The subtle slights remain, but can instead be seen through White-centric eyes as evidence that Hollywood, and the jewish shrews, are undeniably and irretrievably hostile to Whites. (The word “shiksa”, for instance, is an epithet on par with “kikess”. Jews feel comfortable using such insults, confident that non-jews either don’t understand or that those who do can be dismissed as “anti-semites” for objecting to it.)
Liel Leibovitz’s Gentlemen Prefer Blondes provides more of the same hyper-aware jewish analysis:
Since the dawn of American entertainment, Jewish women were largely rendered invisible, absent everywhere from burlesque to Hollywood to prime-time television. Instead, they watched as their sons and brothers and husbands became successful producers, directors, and impresarios, powerful men who then chose to populate their works with a parade of sexy, sultry shiksas who looked nothing like their female kin.
Note that for Berrin and Leibovitz jewishness is about kinship, who a jew chooses to mate with. They do not pretend it is about religion. Their double-talk is that jewish men run Hollywood but have used their power to bash jewish women. This is an implausible rationalization offered as a substitute for the more plausible view that the jews who run Hollywood initially rendered jewish men and women alike invisible. Now that their hated competitors the WASPs have been routed jewish domination is increasingly secure, not only in Hollywood, but media in general, not to mention law, finance, education, and politics. What we are actually subjected to is “the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture” that Baskind takes note of. The large number of recent films starring Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, and Seth Rogen come to mind.
Of course through jewish eyes everything is about jews. Every situation is evaluated based on what’s good or bad for jews. Jewish dominance is never complete enough. Jewish “stereotypes” are like so many jewish Moby-Dicks, haunting jews even as they obsess over them, sniffing them out and impotently trying to slay them. Though jews are fanatically self-aware and hyper-critical the blame is inevitably transferred to someone else. They change names and get nose jobs but only because “anti-semitism” compels them to do so. They make movies portraying WASPs as buffoons, but what they actually see is cryptic “anti-semitism” glorifying “shiksas”.
No matter how self-consciously White I try to imagine being I can’t ever hope to hold a candle to such bigotry.
“While the character of Roz Focker (Bernie’s wife) is supposed to represent liberated femininity, she is also portrayed as emasculating, pushy (recall the stereotype of the “pushy Jew”), and even a bit crazy. The message being that “women’s libbers” are all three of these things.
In contrast, Pam Focker (Greg’s wife) and Dina Byrnes (Jack’s wife) are portrayed as “normal and stable,” wives who know their place, don’t make “trouble” (e.g. emotional demands), and support their husbands endlessly no matter how crazy and possibly even unfaithful they act.”
In point of fact, Blumenthal above articulates more which is archetypal than stereotypical. I mean, weren’t all the leading second wave feminists inexorable ball-busting Jewish hags and quasi-dykes?
Tan,
Why are you busting Steve’s balls so much in this entry?
He was just using humor to try to make a point, right?
Good point about jewish feminist archetypes.
I just made a longish update to the original post adding more about jewish “stereotypes”.
“He was just using humor to try to make a point, right?”
My point is that Sailer won’t apply his own “human biodiversity” to White/jew conflicts, conflicts which he instead chooses to gloss over with PC-makes-you-stupid humor.
So why are you busting my balls?
A reviewer at Wikipedia writes about Meet the Parents being just part of a Hollywood tendency that’s all about jews:
“Vincent Brook observes mainstream Hollywood cinema’s tendency since the 1990s of incorporating Jewish liminality and “popularizing the Jew.”[4] He explains the “manly Jewish triumph”[4] of characters like Jeff Goldblum’s David Levinson in Independence Day and labels it as a “certain answer to America’s yearnings for a new Jewish hero”.[4] This stands in direct contrast to the schlemiel or “the Jewish fool”[4] which was seen to have been revitalized in the mid 1990s after faltering since the 1960s. The schlemiel, Brook explains, is an anti-hero in whose humiliation the audience finds supreme pleasure. Within that context, Brook describes Greg Focker’s character as “the quintessential example of the postmodern schlemiel.”[4] The repeated embarrassing encounters that Greg faces with his girlfriend’s all-American family is compared to the example of Jason Biggs’s character Jim Levenstein of the American Pie film series where Levenstein is often the comedic centerpiece due to his repeated sexual embarrassments.[7]”
This one-sided jewish analysis neglects to note that the schlemiel, as defined above, is a role commonly assigned to Whites now, most notable on TV and especially in commercials. That is when Whites aren’t cast as straight up villains. There are exceptions, like Lord of the Rings, but they are condemned by hyper-sensitive jews specifically because they cast Whites in a good rather than bad light.
Repeated at Wikipedia is the seemingly odd interpretation of DeNiro as a “WASP”, even though he is in fact 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, and likely 1/2 jewish. I think this demonstrates not so much a lack of jewish ability to discriminate White ethnicity (most definitely don’t lack this ability) as it does the broadness with which jews use this identifier as a pejorative for any White they see as an enemy. Given the conscious jewish nature of the production, the casting of DeNiro was likely intended as just another debasing kick in the groin for conscious Anglo Saxons.
To put the situation in a reciprocal context, here’s a presumably jewish reaction to a “WASP” cast as a jew. It’s all a big joke, like Sailer might write, except in this case the jokester is quite capable of making a clear distinction between jew and Other. The humor here serves as an elaborate but transparent mask for a serious desire to see a jew (specifically Harvey Fierstein) cast instead.
Oscars night could be glorious for Israeli, Jewish-themed films | JTA – Jewish & Israel News is about last year’s Oscars. For the JTA “too jewish” is something you’d only hear from “the most unreconstructed anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist”. (See, if I was capable of thinking as ethnocentrically as a jew I would have called Manohla Dargis the most ununreconstructed anti-White conspiracy theorist rather than just anti-White.) Once again the mood is jocular, with just a little of the neurotic, effeminate, hyper-aware and eternal handwringing near the end:
“if there’s anything that the Best Picture nominees illustrate, it’s that handwringing about “what it all means” and whether it’s “good for the Jews” is seemingly destined to remain an indelible feature of Jewish moviegoing.“
For sure.
Is Tarantino good for the Jews? concerns Inglourious Basterds, which deserves special attention. Eli Roth describes the film as “kosher porn” and Jeffrey Goldberg (who recently got his jewish panties in a bunch about Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck) calls it “a fucking jewish wetdream”. The critics (and the film?) conflate Germans and “nazis”. What more can us goyim expect? The main objections are that the film maybe portrays some Germans in too positive a light, and that it “conventionalizes Jews, puts them in the same revenge motif as everyone else.” They thinking is that such an overt inversion of the usual jews-as-victims motif could be bad for “the jews”!
Steve Sailer is likely half Jewish.
Here he is on his Jewishness:
“For an extreme example of how pro-Semitism can come about within an individual merely through genes alone, consider me. Although I’m Catholic, I became very pro-Semitic at the age of 13 when my powers of logic kicked in (and my hair turned curly). I quickly noticed that a high percentage of the thinkers I either agreed with (e.g., Milton Friedman) or whom I considered it a worthy challenge to argue against were Jewish. Since I was adopted, a few years later I concluded that it was likely that I was half-Jewish biologically, (which indeed appears to be the case based on evidence my wife dug up when I was 30).”
DeNiro does not have any Jewish ancestry. The idea that he does is an urban legend.
Change “likely 1/2 jewish” to “sometimes mistaken for jewish”.
Interesting post about Amazon censorship on http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/amazon-bans-hoffmans-critical-review-of.html
I think this demonstrates not so much a lack of jewish ability to discriminate White ethnicity (most definitely don’t lack this ability) as it does the broadness with which jews use this identifier as a pejorative for any White they see as an enemy.
I think you’re right. WASP has come to mean any upper class non-progressive white.
Given the conscious jewish nature of the production, the casting of DeNiro was likely intended as just another debasing kick in the groin for conscious Anglo Saxons.
I don’t think so. His last name in the movie is Byrne, which is Irish. I imagine De Niro was casted simply because he’s a star.
Steve Sailer definitely has a passive-aggressive approach to criticizing Jewish power. He has a tendency to attack a stupid PC belief and then propose something even dumber in its place. I think it’s just a clever way of attacking these beliefs while maintaining plausible deniability and allowing the reader to fill in the blanks, but sometimes I wonder. On the whole, Steve has done more than practically anyone to get sensible ideas about race, immigration, and Jews into the mainstream even if he had to make a few compromises along the way.
One thing that is definitely nice about Steve though is that he does not triangulate by going on tirades condemning people for “anti-Semitism”, as lots of paleocons, Judeo-critical liberals, and even some WNs do.
Tanstaafl said: “Change ‘likely 1/2 jewish’ to ‘sometimes mistaken for jewish’.”
Sorry, I didn’t understand that comment. -??-
“Sorry, I didn’t understand that comment.”
I can’t edit existing comments, so I can only say what I’d change in 2/16/2011 12:12:00 AM after reexamining the search results linked there.
I heard on the Howard Stern Show that DeNiro only dates black women. This is the alleged prototypic WASP? LOL! Only in Hollyweird.
P.S. I refuse to identify as WASP because they rolled over like punks for the Jews, unlike the Krauts. So I identify as Kraut.
Can’t comment on the films because I wouldn’t ever watch them but your review of the critics gets five stars.
This essay examines the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture, using the film Meet the Parents (2000) and its sequel Meet the Fockers (2004) as a case study to demonstrate how the Jewish Jew is no longer avoided and when portrayed does not fall victim to stereotyping,
A worthwhile read is Rubin and Melnick, Immigration and American Popular Culture: An Introduction. Talks about the Jewish aversion to revealing themselves as interested parties in American life during the decades they were rising through the ranks to become the new elite. Includes some stuff on covert Jewish identity in movies, discernible to Jews but flying right over the rest of our parents’ and grandparents’ heads. Among other things it managed to create the false impression, useful to Jews in many ways, that the National Crime Syndicate was run by Italians.
Tanstaafl: “I can’t edit existing comments, so I can only say what I’d change in 2/16/2011 12:12:00 AM after reexamining the search results linked there.”
Ah-ha! Gotcha. You were referring to DeNiro. I thought you were referring to my Sailer comment. :-)
You’re right about Sailer not drawing the obvious conclusions when it comes to the Jews.
As your anonymous commenter says “I think it’s just a clever way of attacking these beliefs while maintaining plausible deniability and allowing the reader to fill in the blanks, but sometimes I wonder.”
Take this recent post of Sailers, The Necessity of Doublethink.
Sailer succintly describes Jewish hypocrisy when it comes to identifying Jews as being the source of many of our problems and at the same time we are not to identify them lest we be “anti-Semites”.
Sailer says You are supposed to know who is Jewish, but you are also supposed to not know who is Jewish. Got that?
Sailer then quotes Jeffrey Goldberg “My modest suggestion to those Jews who fear the building of mosques in American cities is that they look elsewhere for threats that seem to be gathering against them.”
Sailer notes of that Goldberg declaration of war “…how many leading figures in the press regard average Americans with atavistic dread and rage as The Other.
And what does Sailer recommend?
Guys, grow up and get over it. Fight the feeling. It’s immature and unseemly, and just because nobody is allowed to point it out in polite society doesn’t make it less so.
Jews should “grow up”? Jews should “get over it”? As if this was simply some problem of arrested adolescent development on behalf of the Jews?
Sailer in this one post rips apart Jewish deception and disingenuousness, brilliantly and succinctly, and then undercuts the whole thing by saying Jews should “grow up”.
It’s a bizarre conclusion to say the least.
At least we have a Sailer who can set up these sorts of posts and essays on which we can make the obvious and natural conclusions that he won’t. If he were to make the natural conclusions to posts like these I suppose he’d be out of a job for sure. And he does have mouths to feed. So I can’t be too harsh with him.
But you’re right. Making a joke and serving “up a comedy schtick” as the conclusion sells his well built evidence, and by extension us, down the river.
On several re-readings of Sailer’s post just quoted, I actually get the impression that Sailer considers himself to be speaking to his own tribe. Or at least that he considers Jews will listen to his urgings, as if he has some credibility and sway with them.
As quoted by Eileen, Sailer has an affinity with Jews. He thinks he is part Jewish. It is more than likely that he is conflicted between the ethnicity he feels he has and that of his adoptive parent’s ethnicity.
I get the impression that he genuinely thinks that Jewish behaviour is, at base, a misdirected fear of Whites that can be reasoned with and, thus, removed or allayed.
Tanstaafl – excellent point (almost lost as an aside) in your comment that the new “schlemiel” is the White man on TV, particularly in commercials. My husband never fails to comment on this; he mutes the commercials and drones “Here’s the dumb White man and the smart black woman, here’s the dumb White man and the smart black doctor,” and so on. It’s so blatantly in-your-face and yet so many are willfully blind to it.
If you view America through the inverted lens of Jewish Hollywood and Jewish New York television, you can see what they’re doing: the nerdy little Jewish guy is now the “hero” (I never understood how somehow as funny looking as Stiller or David Shwimmer could be considered a “leading man”) and the White Christian is the stupid, passive one who is enlightened by the blacks, the Jews, the Asians, and any and all women. Merely the movie title “The Fockers” is a blatantly Jewish “inside” joke, and all I needed to hear to know I had no interest in that filth.
The last movie my husband and I paid to watch in a theater was the Christian film “Fireproof.” I am debating whether or not I’m interested enough to go and see “The King’s Speech.” Otherwise, we don’t waste our money.
“I get the impression that he genuinely thinks that Jewish behaviour is, at base, a misdirected fear of Whites that can be reasoned with and, thus, removed or allayed.”
I think there’s some truth in that idea. However, if true it is psychology and can’t be reasoned with. The psychology might be crackable but you’d need to use psychological methods to do it. Reason won’t work.
If it is psychology we better hope it is crackable because otherwise as they increasingly screw up in both America and Europe we’re heading for the Samson option.
“If it is psychology we better hope it is crackable because otherwise as they increasingly screw up in both America and Europe we’re heading for the Samson option.”
The problem is not enough oxytocin and too much vasopressin. All we need is love.
A father walks into a room to see someone trying to kill one of the father’s kids. Said father rips the someone into little pieces.
All you need is love.
Wandrin,
I often use irony and provocation as a means to get people thinking towards a point I hope they will grasp in lieu of just making the point explicitly as the latter approach is all too often rejected out of hand. I intend no personal offense by it, although apparently you have taken said as such in the past.
Verily it was the greatest tragedy in the long history of our people that we Northern Europeans – the creme-de-la-creme of Mankind – held all the world in our hands and dashed it all to pieces. We did it to ourselves. For this, ultimately, we cannot blame the Jews. We are Nordic. What power Jews have can only ever be what power we allow them to have. And we have allowed it. Hopefully these errors can be rectified.
P.S. Vasopressin, like oxytocin, is associated with bonding, but additionally protective territoriality. Seeing as you consistently bring up the latter, you may wish to add the former to your repertoire.
CC,
It’s cool. I just have a temper. Ideally i’d rather just fight everybody and have done with it but unfortunately i think things are too far gone and diplomacy and co-operation are needed.
(Interesting on vasopressin. Ta.)
Wandrin,
“Ideally i’d rather just fight everybody and have done with it”
Not sure what you mean by that. Not another armed conflict between (the) English and Germans, I take it. That would prove rather unlikely and surely finally ruinous with nukes added to the mix, I take it you understand.
“but unfortunately i think things are too far gone and diplomacy and co-operation are needed.”
You find the prospect of cooperation between Germans and English “unfortunate”? That was not, and is not, the German take on things.
Never mind its etymology, the meaning of Shiksa is whore. And yeah, it is an example of sick Jewish self-obsession (and an example of how much they dehumanize non-Jews) when they think that portraying Whites and Asians as whores is an assault on Jewish women.
You find the prospect of cooperation between Germans and English “unfortunate”? That was not, and is not, the German take on things.
For what ts worth this English bloke agrees with the good captain.
I think we’ve seen quite enough fighting between the British & Germans in the last 97 years to last us for, well, forever.
No more fratricide.
CC,
“You find the prospect of cooperation between Germans and English “unfortunate”? That was not, and is not, the German take on things.”
No. My *temper* would prefer to just fight everybody because it’s simpler and requires less thinking. I don’t like having to think so much. I’d rather just fight people.
Off topic, let me say that my last post is titled “Nuke Jerusalem or How to Destroy The One Ring”, here:
http://caesartort.blogspot.com/2011/03/nuke-jerusalem.html
Wandrin,
“I don’t like having to think so much. I’d rather just fight people.”
Well, I’m a few years removed from that approach. A plate and screws in my right hand as a reminder.
It’s the bigger man who can extend an olive branch, especially when he knows he could win.
Chechar,
“Nuke Jerusalem or How to Destroy The One Ring”
Is that like a counterpoint to the Samson Option? Should we call it the Berlin Option?
No: it’s rather a tardive, angry reply to those silly neocons of Gates of Vienna who have shun Tan, Fellist and I since we tried to discuss the JQ there. At any event, if the current revolutions in the Middle East end up in Islamic regimes, sooner or later it will lead to a giant showdown. Bye bye Israel…
I’m a bit tired of the Jewish/Hollywood stereotype.
Jon Entine on Jewish DNA – Genetic Research and The Origins of the Jewish People:
“12:50 – Most of female DNA, that they’ve done testing of, traces back to European populations whether they’re pagan or Christian it’s not clear but they almost certainly were not semitic.
…
13:45 – The reality of it is that most of us today who are Ashkenazi are probably the descendent of a semitic jewish male and a, either a convert or a Christian or pagan who didn’t convert but quickly was assimilated into the small but soon growing jewish community, raised their children as jews, but if you ultimately trace it back, meh, they’re not so jewish.“
What Pat said: Steve is trying to get Jews to make common cause with white Christians. It probably won’t work, but then nothing else we’re doing will probably work either.
Also: I have observed the increase in stereotypical Jewish behavior among movie characters for a while now. I don’t know if my reaction is typical, but while I think it certainly makes for interesting movies, I emphatically do not find the behavior attractive. This is especially true in the movie The Social Network. Zuckerberg strikes me specifically as an anti-hero, while the WASPish twin brothers are the only truly honorable characters in the film.
Ditto the Jewish parents in The Little Fockers, although I fail to see how anybody could mistake DeNiro for a WASP.
Do Jews really run Hollywood,why are they racist against everyone but themselves?
“Most of female DNA, that they’ve done testing of, traces back to European populations whether they’re pagan or Christian it’s not clear but they almost certainly were not semitic.”
Jews basically do what gypsies would do if the latter were smart enough to – get one over on the host population any way they can for the benefit of their group. Given enough time, and the right selective pressures, the original genepool is really irrelevant. What you will get is selection for those traits that fill the ecological niche in question or extinction.
Off topic again:
is there a blogsite where the apparent closure of OD is being discussed? Just curious…
RE Chechar, OD is back online. There was some minor discussion of it in the comments here.
We are no longer treated to the Johnson vs. Wallace Internut feud at OD. Now it is Wallace vs. Covington. Clearly, Jerry Springer has had a more deleterious effect on the White psyche than all other Jews combined.
On a serious note, I think the majority of the racial disorder we observe can be chalked up to the dismantling of traditional gender roles. Pretty obviously, these need to be calibrated in such a way that the race is propagated in a manner which is not dysgenic. This can be achieved by tweaking the allocation of status (e.g., in the division of labor). If gender roles are not aligned so as to facilitate the continuity of the race, or for all intents and purposes cease to be articulated at all, then that is a crack in our racial armor wide enough for any two bit racially alien aggressor to drive a Mack truck through.
On the other hand, and I guess in effect a partial defense of Wallace’s approach, people REALLY do strongly resent having their arms twisted to adopt a hardcore racialist discourse – especially those with large yet fragile egos for whom the opinion of the herd matters. Witness my own exploits in that regard. Press too long and too hard in that vein and all of a sudden the “spam filter” starts taking a liking to one’s comments.
But why not just post contentious comments and refute them if that can indeed be done? Well, see above. It is indeed a game of chess, and not checkers, as lamentable as that may be. Which does indeed tie in to why I look a tad askance at racial idealization these days – a bit of a square peg for a round hole. Keep pounding, it still ain’t gonna fit.
Captain, you can also discuss the Wallace/Covington affaire at C-C here.
Chechar, I’m sure you’ve heard it said that when two Jews enter into a discussion as to what is good for Jews at least three opinions will emerge. Well, in truth, when a few intelligent Aryans broach the question of what is good for Aryans at least fifty opinions are likely to be expressed. The cultural/civilizational greatness of our race lies in the tendency of our genepool to produce more individuals of creative genius than other racial groups. This is the engine of our cultural/civilizational superiority. This is why White men, especially those that can think, must be free to express their views – the solution to what ails lies within us.
Now, if I read Tan a-right, he is instinctively fairly conventional in his tastes for separating truth from falsehood. It is not that he tends to view life through a relatively sardonic lens from the get-go as some do (as I do) which has led him to where he is – it is his inability to forever tolerate fundamentally irreconcilable premises even though these may cut against tradition. Yet it must be realized, that when what was taken for granted, tradition as we knew it, has been proven to be utterly ruinous and a lie, then seditious creativity must be given its due if a solution is to emerge. Meaning, effectively, that some guys, the Aryans that can actually think, ought get a free pass to say what they want. (Greg Johnson won’t go the distance on that one. Shh…don’t tell the lemmings.)
I Love Roger waters & Pink Floyd, Recently a documentary was played on SBS about the assassination of JFK- Get this, it was written by a JEW! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ! FYI-Al capone was a Jew too. & Fuck you Rothschild!