Tag Archives: steve sailer

The Nature of Jewish Power

Steve Sailer at Taki’s, on Jewish Wealth by the Numbers:

Similarly, in Israel, you can write openly about one of the more interesting and important subjects of our era: Jewish wealth. For instance, the Israeli-American centrist think tank Jewish People Policy Institute reported in 2010: “World Jewry today is at a historical zenith of absolute wealth creation.”

Forbes Israel, the Tel Aviv offshoot of the American business magazine, has a cover story on Jewish billionaires. The Israeli edition has made up a list, drawn from Forbes‘s overall ranking of the world’s 1,426 billionaires, of the 165 richest Jews in the world.

Overall, n/a states that 140 of the Forbes 400 rankings of richest Americans, or 35 percent, are Jewish.

Jews are usually said to make up about two percent of the US population and perhaps three percent of the older generation that dominates the Forbes 400. Therefore, Jews are roughly 17 times more likely per capita to make the Forbes 400 than is the rest of the American population.

This 35 percent Jewish figure has been fairly stable since n/a started his analyses in 2009. The first careful analysis of the Forbes 400 was performed by Nathaniel Weyl back in 1987, when he found 23 percent were Jewish. That suggests a sizable increase in Jewish representation among plutocrats over the last generation. Yet bear in mind that’s only one data point from the past. I’ve been casually following the Forbes 400 for 30 years, and membership shifts frequently due to various bubbles.

n/a has also done a quick and dirty look at Forbes‘s global list of 1,426 billionaires (#1, by the way, is Lebanese-Mexican Carlos Slim). Unlike Forbes Israel‘s estimate of 11 percent Jewish, n/a comes up with over 17 percent. Note that this is pretty much of a SWAG for Eastern Europe, where it’s harder for an Anglophone to look up biographical information. Still, this estimate would mean that per capita, Jews are a little over 100 times more likely to become billionaires than the rest of the human race.

Lists highlighting jewish power cause hyper-jew Jeffrey Goldberg, at Bloomberg, to cry, Stop With the Jew-Ranking Already! (the original title, evident in the URL, was dear-jewish-media-please-stop-making-lists-of-jews):

The Jerusalem Post has just published its annual ranking of the world’s 50 most influential Jews, and I’m sorry but also somewhat relieved to report that I don’t appear on it this year.

I’m sorry because one of my goals in life is to inhabit the fever dreams of neo-Nazis, and nothing gets a neo-Nazi going more than the specter of supernaturally powerful Jews. I’m relieved because, who really wants to be on a target list? At a certain point, the Post should just provide home addresses to make the roundup even easier.

Speaking of neo-Nazis: It isn’t entirely clear to me why the Jewish media (not the “Jewish-dominated media” of those aforementioned fever dreams, but the press that actually cover matters of interest to Jews) fetishizes list-making. The Forward, a national U.S. Jewish weekly, publishes a list of the top 50 American Jews

‘Jewish Power’

So the lists published by the Post and the Forward always leave me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Why are these publications aping a practice of non-Jews — singling out Jews for their special prominence in society? . . . The phenomenon of disproportionate Jewish representation in many high-profile fields . . . combined with ancient and deeply embedded anti-Semitic ideas that are still prevalent in some parts of the world, suggests that they should resist the urge to quantify “Jewish power.”

As with hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, Goldberg makes no attempt to refute the facts. Instead they crack jokes. Nervously. Jews like this realize, and realize well, that jewish power is based on lies and fraud.

The Root of “Hate”

A post by Steve Sailer, Michelle Malkin (Oberlin ’92) on Hate Hoaxes and Hate Hysteria, prompted the following anonymous comment:

If it’s a ‘hate crime’ to falsely accuse Jews of abducting Christian boys and using them for ritual slaughter, it’s a ‘hate crime’ to accuse whites of committing all sorts of horrors they haven’t.

“Hate” is a jewish construct. They’ve weaponized it.

It is possible the comment above is a troll, made by someone with a keen sense of irony. More likely it came from a mind, and made it past a moderator’s mind, wholly unconscious of the double-think it represents.

According to jews, all accusations against jews are false accusations. The jewish “blood libel” narrative is a perfect example. The presumption is that every accusation of abduction and murder ever made against jews is false. Furthermore, they regard any rejection of this or any other part of their narrative as a “hate crime”. There is no “if” about this.

Yet the jewish tales about “blood libel” are incredibly one-sided. They are a libel against Whites. A hoax. A deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. Likewise with their “holocaust”.

Here are some recent examples of jewish “hate” hoaxing I’ve run across. A more deliberate and thorough search would undoubtedly produce a much longer list.

Manalapan, N.J. Overrun With Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Other Messages Of Hate « CBS New York, Sep 2012.

Zach Tennen, Michigan State University Student, Not Attacked Because Of Religion, Police Say, Aug 2012.

Why would Jews vandalize a Holocaust memorial?, Jun 2012.

Jewish man gets caught red handed spraying anti-Jewish hate messages in New York, Dec 2011.

Lawyer suspended for falsely claiming cop called him anti-Semitic slur, Dec 2011.

Jewish student caught painting Swastikas on her own door then claiming Anti-Semitic Attack, July 2010.

Jews aren’t just going along with the “hate” hoax hysteria. They created the whole “hate” paradigm. They’ve been using it to milk Whites longest and hardest. In comparison everyone else are copy-cats, and pikers at it to boot.

The double-think in the comment quoted above is typical not only at Sailer’s blog, but also in the similarly blinkered punditry he cites – Michelle Malkin, Gucci Little Piggy and Nicholas Stix. The common theme in these forums and elsewhere in the “race realist” sphere is that blacks are the main perpetrators and “white liberals” are their evil genius co-conspirators/enablers. Stix actually claims “[t]he role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous” and that Tim Wise is White.

They deplore “hate” but don’t confront it’s source. Why?

Well, Stix is a jew, Malkin is married to one, and Sailer believes he’s part-jew. How many of the “white liberals” they finger are similarly compromised? I’m uncertain about GLC, but I know the rest of them pretend jews are “white”. It seems to me that nothing enables the “hate” hoaxing as much as this delusion does.

And it is a delusion. The jews themselves are very clear on the most salient fact about “hate”: jews are the victims and Whites are their oppressors. In other words, jews are the exact opposite of White. The premise that Whites “hate” non-Whites, and never the reverse, is only a generalization of the premise that Whites “hate” jews, and never the reverse.

P.S. Someone left a link to Oberlin Microaggressions — I’m the “white, Jewish professor” at GLP. Read it. It’s a good window into how the “white jew” game is played:

I’m sorry if you read this post as anti-Semitic. That was never the intent. You were identified as “white” because it contextualizes your use of the word in question. You were identified as “Jewish” because it was used in your justification of the educational merit and personal sensitivity that you had in the situation. I do not want this to turn into an attack but rather a way to further dialogue and be able to have productive conversations.

From one white Jew to another, I can only assume that you, being Jewish and a professor of higher learning, have background knowledge about systems of oppression and that you have some understanding about allyship and understand the importance of listening to oppressed and targeted groups.

Sweeping Explanations and the Jews

In Peter Turchin on the Big Picture, Steve Sailer writes:

Peter Turchin is a professor at the U. of Connecticut who started out in zoology and ecology and has moved over time into human history from a quantitative standpoint, searching for general patterns. He was born in Russia (his father was prominent dissident Valentin Turchin). His historical theorizing benefits from his knowing much about Russia, which few Americans do.

Ah, I thought, maybe Turchin has something to say from a quantitative standpoint about the general pattern of jew oligarchs in Russia, which Sailer has previously discussed. In The Unbearable Innocence of Economists, for example, Sailer quotes Bryan Caplan:

The oligarchs are disproportionately Jewish. 90% of Russian Jews have left the country over the last 30 years, but 6 out of the 7 leading oligarchs have Jewish ancestry. This would be hard to explain if their success were primarily due to political connections – but expected if their success largely reflected entrepreneurial ability.

Sailer, projecting his own style, describes Caplan as “astonishingly naive”. In this case Sailer indicates that he actually understands what’s going on and who’s responsible:

What happened in Russia in the 1990s was one of the great economic crimes in all history. And it happened largely with the approval of the American economists who were employed in large numbers, typically at American taxpayer expense, to advise the Yeltsin regime. Indeed, one of America’s top economists, Harvard’s Andrei Shleifer (Larry Summers’ best friend), was in on the corruption himself. Yet, the economics profession has done nothing to chastise Shleifer for his crookedness that ended up being penalized $28 million by a U.S. federal judge.

Then he retreats into sarcasm.

“Russian” oligarchs. “American” economists. In most forums this is as deep as the discussion gets. To his credit, Sailer does occasionally broach the subject of jewish disproportions, and mocks explanations like Caplan’s. His commentariat often digs even deeper, but it’s also chock full of Caplans, ever ready and willing to provide more explanations. The problem with Sailer is, when it comes to jews, he so often acts as if he has forgotten things he previously demonstrated he understands.

Reading farther into his post about Turchin, it becomes clear that Turchin doesn’t have any insights about jews, in Russia or anywhere else. Near the end Sailer quotes Turchin’s Return of the Oppressed, concerning US immigration restriction in the 1920s:

It almost goes without saying that there was a racist and xenophobic underside to all this. The co-operating group was mainly native-born white Protestants. African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and foreigners were excluded or heavily discriminated against.

This is the jewish version of history, though Sailer lets it go without saying, once again retreating into sarcasm. At any rate he doesn’t let it diminish his favorable opinion of Turchin, who he thinks is “on to something”. Much of Sailer’s commentariat responds by gushing about how fasinating and interesting Turchin’s sweeping theories are, and many pitch in with their own. Ben Tillman took issue with one of the more egregious bits of goofiness:

My thesis is that the elites made a deal with the white working class with the New Deal. This lasted until the early 60’s, when the affluence of the white working class started to worry the elite and they brought in blacks to cut them down to size, along with renewed immigration. The condition of the white working class has steadily deteriorated since then. The elite has acquired so much power through the media and law that they can’t be challenged and the white working class has no representation anyway.

You left out the part where the one elite was replaced by another in the early/mid-60’s, with the results you noted.

Indeed. This seems to be the point of such exercises. On the one hand there are lots of people, intelligent people, who are curious, interested and fascinated. They want explanations. On the other hand there are lots of other people, intelligent people, who literally make it their business to provide explanations. Explanations which conspicously avoid mentioning the jews, except perhaps to present them as hapless victims.

That’s the overall impression I get of Turchin’s work. As his Wikipedia page describes:

Peter Turchin has made contributions to population ecology and historical dynamics. According to ISIHighlyCited.com, Turchin is one of the top cited authors in the field of Ecology/Environment. He is one of the founders of cliodynamics, the new scientific discipline located at the intersection of historical macrosociology, cliometrics, and mathematical modeling of social processes. Turchin developed an original theory explaining how large historical empires evolve by the mechanism of multilevel selection.[1] His research on secular cycles[2] has contributed to our understanding of the collapse of complex societies as has his re-interpretation of Ibn Khaldun‘s asabiyya notion as “collective solidarity”.[3][4]

Of special importance is his study of the hypothesis that population pressure causes increased warfare.

As far as I can see most of this theorizing goes on without any critique of the outsized and deleterious influence of jews, whether in finance, media, law, politics or the academy, where so much of this jew-blind theorizing goes on. The problem isn’t that there’s any unwillingness to generalize about and criticize whole groups of people. Theorizing about Whites, Russians, Americans, elites, economists, etc. abounds.

As I’ve discussed on Age of Treason Radio, warfare, racial warfare, is how I interpret what’s going on. Jews, for their part, wage war steathily, disguising it with copious hasbara, explaining that it isn’t about jews, that “racism” and “xenophobia” are the real problems. In forums where race and borders are regarded as normal they argue instead that the real problem is White nationalism, neo-nazism or “anti-semitism”. Whites, for our part, are largely unwilling to accept the nature or extent of this warfare. The most intelligent Whites, most capable of actually figuring out what’s going on, are also the ones most terrified of being painted as stupid/crazy/evil. Ironically, they are eager to signal their intellect by entertaining sweeping theories, the more elaborate the better to compensate for astonishing naivete regarding the jews.

Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame

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.

Problem, What Problem?

In The Eternal Obsession, Steve Sailer quotes Sarah Kaufman’s WaPo article, Ballet series has lots of talent, little diversity:

The companies are also overwhelmingly white and dotted with Europeans — as they have always been. Diversity in ballet remains a serious problem for the small companies as well as the large, on the coasts as well as in the heartland. In the 21st century, we can put a black man in the White House, but as last week’s survey shows, we can’t put a black ballerina in the Opera House. Clearly, not enough work is being done to foster African American dancers. But with public money in their coffers, ballet companies — and the local, state and federal funders — need to make equal opportunity in the dancer ranks a priority.

Sailer then witlessly tries to dismiss this as friendly fire:

I’m always struck by how white people are constantly admonishing each other

Sarah Kaufman thinks too many “white” people in ballet is a “serious problem”, but she didn’t have anything to say about that in Israel Ballet at Silver Spring Performing Arts Center. An all-jew troupe? That’s just splendid. In fact, in Paul Taylor’s Marvelous Melting Pot Kaufman gives the distinct impression she can’t get enough of jewish “diversity”. In To strengthen Jewish identity in America through the arts and humanities Richard Siegel, “the Executive Director of the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, an organization dedicated to enhancing Jewish identity in America through the arts and humanities”, cites Kaufman’s article in defense of Taylor’s production. Defense from what? Well, it seems some jews think Taylor’s production wasn’t jewish enough.

Kaufman’s snide attack on “whites” in ballet echoes Harold Meyerson, who in Economy? What Economy? wrote about the “huge problem” of “whiteness” in politics, likewise using blackness as a proxy:

In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. 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.

Meyerson is #48 in The (shockingly jewish) Atlantic 50.

I’m struck, like many of Sailer’s commenters, by a pattern of jews attacking “whites”. That they are funded and broadcast by mainstream sources only underscores the seriousness of the problem. Contra Sailer it appears Kaufman and Meyerson don’t consider jews “white”, otherwise we could find them criticizing the more lopsided voting of jews, the bipartisan power of the Israel lobby, jewish over-representation on SCOTUS, in law generally, in finance, in media, or in pushing an anti-White agenda. It seems to me that anti-White jews behave as they do precisely because they consider their “jewishness” distinct from Whiteness.

I’m also struck by Sailer, a proponent of “human biodiversity”, lamely describing this situation as “white people constantly admonishing each other”. Is political correctness making him stupid, or is it the jewish genes he suspects he carries? Either way he can consider himself admonished.

Kaufman, meanwhile, has just been lauded by her anti-White/pro-jew peers. The Pulitzer Prizes | Citation:

Awarded to Sarah Kaufman of The Washington Post for her refreshingly imaginative approach to dance criticism, illuminating a range of issues and topics with provocative comments and original insights.

Contrast this with Helen Thomas, who was excoriated and ultimately lost her job for making a provocative comment about jews.