Tag Archives: steve sailer

Sport and Race – Toby Gerhart

Race factors into evaluation of Gerhart – NFL – Yahoo! Sports:

If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.

Did skin color keep Stanford RB Toby Gerhart from being a first-round pick? – The Huddle: Football News from the NFL – USATODAY.com:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart said. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

Opinions seem mixed on Gerhart, who was obviously productive but also absorbs a lot of punishment and isn’t especially shifty. One scout told Silver that Gerhart’s pigmentation was definitely working against him.

Nothing to see here, move along folks. When a White guy faces race-based bias it’s a “perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed” and his “pigmentation” is “working against him”.

Just last year Michael Silver, the jewish author of the first article linked above, was offended and outraged over race-based perceptions. In No excuses: Redskins need a new nickname – NFL – Yahoo! Sports, Silver wrote:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

If the NBA placed a franchise in Hawaii, would it consider paying homage to the islands’ Asian influences by competing as the Yellowskins?

And while I’m sure we could all come up with some Jewish slurs to continue the analogy, I submit that an anti-Semitic major league owner like Marge Schott might’ve been quite comfortable fielding a team known as the Foreskins.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. And Redskin is just as absurd, whether you’ve been conditioned to regard it as normal or not.

If Toby Gerhart were a jew Silver wouldn’t describe the problem as “the perception that he lacks the foreskin to succeed in the pros”. He’d describe it as “anti-semitism”. He’d be throwing up in his mouth and wondering why there is no widespread outrage.

Gerhart isn’t a victim of his skin color. He and other White players are subjected to a different race-based standard by sports and media machers who favor “African-Americans” over “whites”. We are conditioned to regard this as normal. It’s not.

Steve Sailer wrote an article about Gerhart last October titled Blackballed? Sailer wonders:

So, why are there a lot of white starting tailbacks in high school, very few in big time college football, and none in the NFL?

There are three general explanations:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks (A.K.A., Did You Know that Jewish Players Used to Dominate Basketball?) This is the dominant public explanation put forward by the sporting press. The party line is that blacks are forced by poverty to become multimillionaire stars, while wealthy whites relax in the lap of luxury by, uh, playing center or breaking up the wedge on kickoffs or … well, never mind. The facts aren’t important.

As Tom Wolfe implied in I Am Charlotte Simmons, this theory is motivated less by any serious urge to explain reality and more by Jewish pundits’ concerns over whether honest analysis of racial differences is good for the Jews.

In Wolfe’s 2004 novel, the frat boys watch a talk show on ESPN:

… four poorly postured middle-aged white sportswriters sat slouched in little, low-backed, smack-red fiberglass swivel chairs panel-discussing the ‘sensitive’ matter of the way black players dominated basketball. “Look,” the well-known columnist Maury Fieldtree was saying, his chin resting on a pasha’s cushion of jowls, “just think about it for a second. Race, ethnicity, all that—that’s just a symptom of something else. There’s been whole cycles of different minorities using sports as a way out of the ghetto. …

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldberg ish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is, roughly, that

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening.

In contrast, the two serious theories are:

Genetics: As O.J. Simpson explained to Time in 1977: “We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks.”

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites: The website CasteFootball.us has long been single-mindedly documenting outstanding young white athletes who have been channeled by coaches from traditionally black positions such as tailback, cornerback or wide receiver to whiter, less glamorous positions such as linebacker, strong safety, or tight end.

The conventional wisdom is actually a combination of all three theories. “People of color” are discriminated against and biologically superior and it’s right and good to discriminate against Whites because of the stereotype that they’ve been discriminating against superior “people of color” for ages.

Sailer on Sherman

In “Depression v. Nervous Breakdown”, Sailer writes:

I noticed this when I was reading up on the Civil War and got to the formidable Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s psychological collapse in late 1861, in-between his strong performances at the battles of First Bull Run in 1861 and Shiloh in 1862. While organizing behind the lines for the next year’s campaigns, he had to be relieved of command so he could recuperate at home. Sherman later joked, “Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.”

The Wikipedia page on Sherman uses the old-fashioned term “nervous breakdown” and blames “the concerns of command.” In contrast, James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom sometimes uses the more modern term “depression,” and at one point suggests that Sherman was depressed by his vision of the logic of Total War.

Or was he suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder over Bull Run?

Maybe Sherman was depressed because he realized Total War would someday result in the rise to power of pushy, hostile jews and the subsequent colonization of the entire White world by unarmed Amerindian, African, and Asian peasants. Then again, it isn’t likely Sherman would have ever recovered and continued to kill his cousins if he realized that.

General Grant’s Infamy:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the “Department of the Tennessee,” an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Shaming the Shameless

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I’m glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He’s notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer’s line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, “Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you’re a nasty jew-hater.”

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don’t think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He’s wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else’s.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don’t. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as “insiders”? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I’ve always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.

. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn’t fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society’s problems are due to “the majority” simply abdicating.

The reality is that America’s jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless “anti-semites”. It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce’s Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the “Sons of Ellis Island”, see Kevin MacDonald’s Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the “Diversity Recession” and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil’s examination of Diversity in income and education.


In “The Atlantic 50:” Pundit demographics Sailer writes:

The Atlantic Monthly has put together a list it calls The Atlantic 50, which it describes as “the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates:”

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:

Anonymous said…

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].

Anonymous said…

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:

Anonymous said…

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.

Harold Meyerson – Economy? What Economy?:

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.

Harold Meyerson – Hard-liners for Jesus:

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”.

Obama Nominates Anti-White Latina for SCOTUS

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

Steve Sailer wrote about Ricci in Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci.

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record from the New York Times, 14 May 2009:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor

Note that if the ethnies were reversed and this came from a White mouth anti-Whites wouldn’t hesitate to identify such an opinion as “racist” “anti-latino” “White supremacism”. They would not only exclude such a White from consideration for SCOTUS, they would agitate to terminate whatever current employment the White enjoyed.

The penalty for Sotomayor? Nothing. It might even be a reason she got nominated. But the NYT thinks it “could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing”.

How — and why — Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court at politico.com, today:

An Obama aide said the president, who interviewed her for an hour in the Oval Office, “was blown away by her — her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge.”

As the most arguably liberal of the four finalists, Sotomayor provides the most fodder for conservative groups, which have vowed to spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Leaders hope a court brawl will help rebuild their movement.

Via Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier comes The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen, 4 May 2009:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”

UPDATE 26 May 2009: In Sotomayor hates white people and Sotomayor hates white people, pt. 2 James Edwards covers the same subject. He concludes:

Get ready, white folks. Obama is making it as clear as he can that it’s payback time for honkies. You know how he said he wants judges who have “empathy” to be on the Supreme Court? Well, “empathy” means hatred for white people, just like “equality” and “diversity” do.

Anti-Whites call euphemisms like these “dog whistles” – though as the Wiki page describes, they think this cynical label only applies to phenomena that confirm their own one-sided view of “racism”.

There is no moral equivalence between the appeal to the popular, instinctive desires of White voters that these anti-White anti-racists so detest, and the dishonest euphemisms they themselves so cherish and pretend are popular due to repetition ad nauseum by a like-minded anti-White press. But the comparison does support Edwards’ blunt observation. If the “dog whistle” people think popular sympathies for state’s rights or against immigration reflect White “racism”, then by their own reasoning it’s safe for us to conclude that their orwellian celebration of “empathy”, “equality” and “diversity” means “I hate Whites”.

UPDATE 27 May 2009: From the WSJ, dated 28 (sic) May 2009, Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up:

Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw?” asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. “New racism is no better than old racism.”

White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn’t put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn’t inevitable.

“We’re all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.

“We wanted to make sure we showed the broad support she has in the community,” said Mr. Wilkes [executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens], whose group has 115,000 members.

Ms. Sotomayor’s critics are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges, because Democrats control the Senate.

Heat? Scandal? Where? She’s anti-White and that’s “extremely pleasing”. The nomination is “right on course”.

What in the world could sink her? A quip about pubic hair? Plagiarism? Unpaid taxes? Not paying an undocumented migrant ladeeenyo employee’s social security? Starring on Celebrity Apprentice, killing a less wise White competitor with less rich experiences and eating his still beating heart, in prime time? Please. Can anybody imagine anything that might cause Obama or Schumer or Sotomayor herself to withdraw this “historic” nomination?