The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Hello Fellow Straight White Male Gentile Beneficiaries of White Privilege
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Martin Peretz: Hello fellow straight males

At age 28 in 1999, Peter Beinart was appointed editor-in-chief of The New Republic by Martin Peretz.

What entitled Peretz? Marty had married a woman who gave him the money to buy The New Republic. Marty had paid the cost to be the boss.

Beinart was merely the latest in a long line of bright young men Peretz had taken under his wing going back to a 17-year-old Al Gore at Harvard. From The Observer in 1999:

Marty Peretz Hires Nice Young Man as New Republic Editor
By Carl Swanson • 10/11/99 12:00am

… Mr. Beinart is one in a long line of New Republic wonder boys–one of many Mr. Peretz has found over the years, from Michael Kinsley, who was 26 when he took over the magazine, to Mr. Sullivan, who was 28. One Wunderkind the magazine wants to forget is the onetime star writer Stephen Glass, who at 25 wrote colorful feature articles for the magazine that should have struck an editor as perhaps too colorful, given that they were fictitious. …

“It would be damning with faint praise to say that he’s not one of Marty’s smart young men,” said Time columnist Margaret Carlson. …

But what exactly do the young men who have worn this title have in common? “It has to be someone Marty respects, it has to be a guy, and he has to come from a good university,” said Hanna Rosin, a 29-year-old Washington Post reporter who interned with Mr. Beinart at The New Republic and is friends with him. “Given all the requirements, he’s the best choice.”

With The New Republic in trouble retrospectively lately for Literary Editor Leo Wieseltier’s hands-on behavior and owner Marty Peretz’s hands-off behavior toward female employees, ex-golden boy editor Beinart has taken to the pages of The Atlantic to explain that it was all part of straight white males having too much power back in the bad old days.

Peretz & Andrew Sullivan

Beinart, who is married to a woman and has some kids, hints very vaguely in his Atlantic piece that Marty’s sexual preferences played a role in The New Republic’s “hothouse” office environment. But reading through the comments from poor, innocent Atlantic readers, only a few seem to have any clue of how how hilarious is Beinart framing how he benefited under Peretz’s biases as being like:

In the America of the 1950s, or even the 1980s, white, straight, native-born American men didn’t worry as much about competing with Salvadoran immigrants and Chinese factory workers and professional women and Joshua-generation African Americans.

Peretz being one of those misogynistic Charles Kinbote-like gays who form mutual admiration societies with young men and who doesn’t think the female sex has much to offer was always one of those open secrets in the political and intellectual world.

As Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote in New York magazine in 2010 in “Peretz in Exile” about (the genuinely Islamophobic) Marty retiring to Tel-Aviv as the Democratic Party became more Islamophilic during the Obama Years:

The New Republic also served another purpose. Peretz adores collecting people. Even early in his career, at Harvard, he had assiduously cultivated the role of mentor, and his friendships with younger men were sometimes so intense that they could seem to border on the erotic. “Every so often, we’d talk about how he would sometimes grow obsessed with young men,” says one of his friends from that time. He had an equally fierce compulsion to promote them, and The New Republic soon became a platform to turn graduate students into public intellectuals. From Harvard he brought E. J. Dionne Jr., Kinsley, Hertzberg, Wieseltier, and Andrew Sullivan. His joy in their ascent was palpable: When he hired Hertzberg the second time, Peretz impulsively took him to his own tailor and paid for a bespoke suit.

But the public wasn’t supposed to know.

After two long profiles of Peretz’s new life in Israel appeared in 2010, John Cook asked in Gawker:

Why Won’t Anyone Tell You That Marty Peretz Is Gay?

Similarly, few of the Atlantic readers seem to understand the massive Jewish subtext to Beinart’s article.

In The Atlantic, which is aimed at a naive American audience, Beinart uses the word “white” six times, while not mentioning the word “Jewish” once. To add a little perspective on the history of TNR that Mr. Beinart didn’t care to share with American audiences, however, here’s what Mr. Beinart wrote in 2014 in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

How The New Republic Stopped Being a Jewish Magazine

When it was born a century ago, Jewish intellectual influence in America was on the rise. Now it’s starting to decline.

Peter Beinart Dec 10, 2014

Last week, The New Republic, the magazine I used to edit, fell apart.

The owner

The new owner who outraged the heavily Jewish staff into resigning was a gentile gay Facebook zillionaire named Chris Hughes

ousted the top two editors, most of the senior staff resigned, and while something called The New Republic will continue, it is unlikely to bear much relationship to the crusading, literary publication founded by Walter Lippmann and other progressive intellectuals 100 years ago.

It’s an important moment not only in the history of American journalism, but in the history of American Jews.

It’s an important moment for American Jews because for the last 40 years, The New Republic has been a culturally Jewish magazine.

Jews had always worked at TNR; Lippmann himself was an assimilated German Jew.

But in 1974, when Martin Peretz bought The New Republic, it came to reflect his very public Jewish identity.

TNR became a remarkable hybrid, only possible because of the extraordinary acceptance and privilege afforded to Jews in late 20th century America: an influential liberal political magazine that was explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns.

The most obvious manifestation was the magazine’s coverage of Israel. Peretz was a fervent Zionist and made defending the Jewish state one of the magazine’s chief passions. But even when Peretz stepped down as editor in chief in 2010, TNR’s Jewish identity endured.

Under literary editor Leon Wieseltier, the magazine remained an indispensable source of commentary on Jewish history and culture.

And inside the magazine, yiddishkeit was rarely far away. I remember once hearing Wieseltier explain that he had asked an author to submit his book review by Rosh Hodesh. “That’s how Malcolm Cowley used to do it,” he added wryly. The implication was clear. Cowley had been TNR’s literary editor in the 1930s, when American Jews were still outsiders. Now his successor was a graduate of Yeshivah of Flatbush. American Jews had arrived.

As a force in American journalism, we certainly have. Jews edit The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, Buzzfeed, Politico, and the opinion pages of The New York Times and Washington Post.

Of course, “white privilege” is a Thing. In contrast, there is no such Thing as “Jewish privilege.” It’s just not a concept that Americans can begin to process in their brains, even when discussing the history of The New Republic under Peretz and Wieseltier.

The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates, just as Slate was smarter back when the editor was always a smart Jewish guy (Kinsley, Weisberg, Plotz) than it is now under a gentile woman.

 
Hide 209 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Just like black cabbies in NY moved to driving limos and left cabs to Afghanis, Jews have gone from old media to owning entire platforms like Google and Facebook.

    TNR is small potatoes now.

  2. Who ran Teen Vogue?

    Maybe that’s the way to go.

    • Replies: @guest
    Not the kind of butts they're after.
  3. Anon • Disclaimer says: • Website

    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring

    It had by far the best book reviews.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

    I haven’t read it in ages though.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    It had by far the best book reviews.

    When Jack Beatty was the literary editor, the back of the book was engaging. Wieseltier damaged it. After he took it over, tt seemed overrun with reviews of literary biographies (most of them, one might wager, written by people in Wieseltier's social circle). Literary biography is an insipid genre and I doubt anyone writes one except to please a tenure committee. Reviews of them belong in academic journals and nowhere else.

    , @Abe

    It had by far the best book reviews.
     
    Agree.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

     

    Disagree. It was kindda funny to read his review of PULP FICTION back when he was already becoming a fossil (Kauffmann often mentioned how he ALMOST joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain, making him almost a whole decade older than the typical WWII veteran). To read his review of 8 MILE when he was by-then completely fossilized, absurd (though Eminem is quite absurd on his own).
  4. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    just as Slate was smarter back when the editor was always a smart Jewish guy (Kinsley, Weisberg, Plotz) than it is now under a gentile woman.

    The across-the-board decline in journalism probably owes to clickbait competition. Even if Kingsley was still around to manage Slate, I think the fate would have been the same.
    They now all compete for clickbait with the most sensational and salacious kind of news.

  5. As one poster said up here recently, once you see the “Culture of Critique” takedown of “whites,” it’s impossible not to see it.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Moses
    Yes. You start feeling like Rowdy Roddy Piper's character with the special sunglasses in the film "They Live."
    , @Colleen Pater
    This is actually a new twist, we have the jews are the most victimized of all minorities meme, and the the jews are invisible moral force meme, you know you're not allowed to notice just accept their ubiquitous presence is secret ingredient to the moral arc. but this is new, this is jews can be used as proxy evil white males as long as its never even hinted at that they are jews, because they are simultaneously still the greatest of all victims in their jewishness.They are just coming down like christ into white male form and sacrificing their purely corporal white bodies for humanity, later their purely perfect jewish spirits will again rise into heaven. just try being a doubting thomas and ask to poke a bit and see what happens
  6. The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates, just as Slate was smarter back when the editor was always a smart Jewish guy (Kinsley, Weisberg, Plotz) than it is now under a gentile woman.

    This is an useful point that isn’t emphasized very much, because it’s sorta related to the Jewish angle but for impact more or less goes in its own direction. That is, with the last rebranding of The New Republic and maybe the one before that, the intellectual foundations of the Left become less and less the expression of intelligence and culture. And more and more the channeling of feral anger against any perceived arbitrary tradition.

    In America, this is something that should work to the benefit of the Right at the expense of the Left, and to some extent it has. Our culture and white collar advanced degree class are associated with the Left, but ultimately that’s against their interest. At least intellectually, the Left is all about statehood for Palestine, justice for Trayvon (& Michael Brown, BLM, etc), and more or less meaningless theorizing radical anticapitalist economics.

    Unfortunately for the Right, Trump throws a spanner in the works. Right now, there’s a lot of more or less apolitical, more or less nonpartisan Americans who have broken towards the GOP over the last few elections. Neither Trump nor the Left is actually liked among these people, but Left is an immediate threat: immigration and trade for the blue-collars, political correctness for the white-collars. Trump’s spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn’t hurt anybody yet.

    But I don’t expect this to continue forever, especially the part about the Left. The Left is becoming more and more feral, but that doesn’t mean people are going to be more afraid of them. If they continued to be shut out of overt political power, if any of their prior cultural gains are reversed or even their advance stopped, as the polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton fades from public view, people’s attention will go other places.

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren’t afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise. The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now. And Trump and the GOP are not winning. For the moment, they’re getting by without them. But we’re going to have to bring back some of them before we can consolidate anything.

    • Replies: @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    "The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now."

    The battle is not fought about any "sector" whatsoever. It is fought about policies - policies that win or lose elections.
    Patrick Buchanan's latest article on the recent election losses correctly pointed to healthcare as probably the most dangerous issue now. This agrees with a recent article in the NYRB, in which the author tried to deemphasize identity politics and basically said that healthcare could be the winning topic for the "resistance".
    It's not good strategy to rely on idiocy on the part of your opponents, even if it has frequently been demonstrated to be in ample supply.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    "Trump’s spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn’t hurt anybody yet."

    Hurt anyone yet?

    Have you looked at the stock-market averages, lately? Have you seen as many "help wanted" signs in your lifetime, not just for fast-food restaurants and discount retailers but for every business imaginable?

    To paraphrase President Lincoln, I would like to find out what kind of junk food Mr. Trump eats and feed it to every member of Congress to make them more spastic, narcissistic and ignorant.
    , @Laugh Track

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren’t afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise.
     
    Huh? How so? I thought they were in the hands of the Left. Or is that what you mean by "aren't afraid of the Left"?
  7. The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he’s a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can do to another Jew in private is not notice he’s a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can to another Jew in public is let the goyim know he’s a a Jew.

    • Replies: @Moses
    It's a good thing our Fellow White People always have our best interests at heart.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    You mean like Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" whistling Siegfried's Idyll?

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=larry+david+whistling+wagner&view=detail&mid=6EE7EE7F7813CB65D4DD6EE7EE7F7813CB65D4DD&FORM=VIRE
    , @Olorin
    Indeed.

    From the excerpt above:

    It’s an important moment for American Jews because for the last 40 years, The New Republic has been a culturally Jewish magazine.
     
    Up until very recently one would be banned or modded out from any and every mainstream or alternative-within-1-SD-of-mainstream outlet for observing this blue whale of obviousness, regardless of to which cleat of Abrahamism one tied one's bow line.

    Apparently now that Jews are observing it, it's OK for it to be observed. Especially as it's being spun a lit'ry pogrom of sorts.

    I just hope that our noble Two Percentian brethren can console themselves with the ironic/sarcastic humor for which they have made themselves so well known:

    May those who have rejoiced in marginalization and replacement of white men and white culture--which offered them welcome and tolerance in the 19th and 20th centuries--find succor in that same laughter as they themselves are replaced in sinecures of influence by people who couldn't care less about their ostensibly chosenic status nor capacity for vaudeville, nepotism, high finance, word games, mind games, and porn.
  8. The new owner who outraged the heavily Jewish staff into resigning was a gentile gay Facebook zillionaire named Chris Hedges

    Chris Hughes, I believe.

    • Replies: @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    If Chris Hedges were a zillionaire, he'd be the most extraordinary such person ever.
    ___________________________________________

    "As a force in American journalism, we certainly have. Jews edit The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, Buzzfeed, Politico, and the opinion pages of The New York Times and Washington Post."

    That is a rather impressive list. The WSJ is absent from it. Are there no completists in the world of finance who might rectify that situation?

  9. @for-the-record
    The new owner who outraged the heavily Jewish staff into resigning was a gentile gay Facebook zillionaire named Chris Hedges

    Chris Hughes, I believe.

    If Chris Hedges were a zillionaire, he’d be the most extraordinary such person ever.
    ___________________________________________

    “As a force in American journalism, we certainly have. Jews edit The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, Buzzfeed, Politico, and the opinion pages of The New York Times and Washington Post.”

    That is a rather impressive list. The WSJ is absent from it. Are there no completists in the world of finance who might rectify that situation?

    • Replies: @johnmark7
    Try being a gentile white guy novelist or non-fiction writer who doesn't toe the line and see how far you get in the literary world.
    , @FPD72
    Not to mention the specifically Jewish Commentary. I was a long time subscriber. The quality of their movie reviews went way down when Richard Greiner left.
  10. @Boethiuss

    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates, just as Slate was smarter back when the editor was always a smart Jewish guy (Kinsley, Weisberg, Plotz) than it is now under a gentile woman.
     
    This is an useful point that isn't emphasized very much, because it's sorta related to the Jewish angle but for impact more or less goes in its own direction. That is, with the last rebranding of The New Republic and maybe the one before that, the intellectual foundations of the Left become less and less the expression of intelligence and culture. And more and more the channeling of feral anger against any perceived arbitrary tradition.

    In America, this is something that should work to the benefit of the Right at the expense of the Left, and to some extent it has. Our culture and white collar advanced degree class are associated with the Left, but ultimately that's against their interest. At least intellectually, the Left is all about statehood for Palestine, justice for Trayvon (& Michael Brown, BLM, etc), and more or less meaningless theorizing radical anticapitalist economics.

    Unfortunately for the Right, Trump throws a spanner in the works. Right now, there's a lot of more or less apolitical, more or less nonpartisan Americans who have broken towards the GOP over the last few elections. Neither Trump nor the Left is actually liked among these people, but Left is an immediate threat: immigration and trade for the blue-collars, political correctness for the white-collars. Trump's spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn't hurt anybody yet.

    But I don't expect this to continue forever, especially the part about the Left. The Left is becoming more and more feral, but that doesn't mean people are going to be more afraid of them. If they continued to be shut out of overt political power, if any of their prior cultural gains are reversed or even their advance stopped, as the polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton fades from public view, people's attention will go other places.

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren't afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise. The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now. And Trump and the GOP are not winning. For the moment, they're getting by without them. But we're going to have to bring back some of them before we can consolidate anything.

    “The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now.”

    The battle is not fought about any “sector” whatsoever. It is fought about policies – policies that win or lose elections.
    Patrick Buchanan’s latest article on the recent election losses correctly pointed to healthcare as probably the most dangerous issue now. This agrees with a recent article in the NYRB, in which the author tried to deemphasize identity politics and basically said that healthcare could be the winning topic for the “resistance”.
    It’s not good strategy to rely on idiocy on the part of your opponents, even if it has frequently been demonstrated to be in ample supply.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    The battle is not fought about any “sector” whatsoever. It is fought about policies – policies that win or lose elections.
     
    I don't really buy this. It is about personalities as much as policies. Certainly nobody supported Donald Trump because he was some kind of policy expert. In any event, with the failure of the GOP to repeal or significantly reform ACA, that is somewhat off the table, especially for the other side.
  11. @Anon
    Who ran Teen Vogue?

    Maybe that's the way to go.

    Not the kind of butts they’re after.

  12. Poor Peter, he’ll never live down Andrew Ferguson’s takedown:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/press-man-pundit-declined/

    • Replies: @Forbes
    I wondered how many comments would pass before Commentary magazine was mentioned.

    TNR became a remarkable hybrid, only possible because of the extraordinary acceptance and privilege afforded to Jews in late 20th century America: an influential liberal political magazine that was explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns.
     
    "Cuz Lord only knows that Commentary magazine wasn't "explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns." LOL.

    I guess there can be two remarkable hybrids, no...
  13. Sorry, OT, but certainly noteworthy:

    Yesterday, in the General Silveria Honored with ADL’s “Americanism Award” thread, commenter jesse helms think-alike called our attention to a clip displayed on James Woods twitter. (scroll his page down to 13 nov)
    It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas.

    I asked if I was alone to find these pictures spine-chilling.

    Susan Wojcicki obviously shared my fears as this two year-old clip was quickly removed, (in France at least; somewhere else?)

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    It's still on YouTube in the US, and it is disturbing.
    , @Lurker
    Not American, just 'Americanism'.
    , @Corvinus
    "It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas."

    How "spine-chilling" of them to come out and celebrate Eid al-Adha, a religious holiday in the Muslim world, by purchasing material goods.
  14. OT: The NFL and the narrative bring Papa John’s to heel. In the continuing effort to blur the lines between reality and satire, part of the company’s statements reads:

    Papa John’s also says the company supports the “players’ movement to create a new platform for change” and that it is “open to ideas from all. Except neo-nazis.”

    I wonder who gets to decide who is and isn’t a “neo-nazi?”

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/papa-johns-apologizes-for-criticizing-nfl-anthem-protests.html

  15. In the America of the 1950s, or even the 1980s, white, straight, native-born American men didn’t worry as much about competing with Salvadoran immigrants and Chinese factory workers and professional women and Joshua-generation African Americans.

    Who ever said this never worked in a factory during the 1950’s – 1980’s.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    What on earth is a "Joshua-generation African American"?

    I watched the Mexican invasion into the restaurants in the 1980's. Out with the American teenagers, in with the adult Mexicans (mostly men at that time).
  16. @Nico
    As one poster said up here recently, once you see the "Culture of Critique" takedown of "whites," it's impossible not to see it.

    Yes. You start feeling like Rowdy Roddy Piper’s character with the special sunglasses in the film “They Live.”

  17. Foolish whites deserve to be Jews’ bitches.

  18. American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only ‘privileged’ people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They’re not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he’s bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn’t known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart’s mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart’s replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    • Replies: @bigduke6

    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.
     
    oy vey

    If "white privilege" is real, than Jewish privilege certainly is, which is why the term is used. But Jewish ethnic nepotism is a better term for what's going on here (and in every industry where Jews are overrepresented).
    , @Mr. Anon

    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.
     
    The usual pack of lies and obfuscation from the auto-idiot "Art Deco".

    So,...........Jews just happen to make up a third of the Supreme Court? Every Fed chairman for the last thirty years? Approximately 10% of the Congress? Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools (founded by WASPs for their own purposes of networking). They just happen to dominate Hollywood? Just happen to be predominant in Finance and the Law? Just happen to have their own lobbying organizations granted semi-official status (AIPAC, SPLC, ADL).

    As to the balance of your commentary, you could save time by not writing it, just as we all save time by not reading it, you insufferable clown.
    , @Desiderius

    nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere
     
    It would be fair to say that you ('all) are privileged in one sense, and this shouldn't be taken at all pejoratively:

    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer. We may have sold our identity/solidarity for a mess of pottage, but the fact remains that we lack what you still have, and that holds whether one speaks of the Orthodox or the cultural Jew.

    That said, to the extent you're contributing to that malady, one might be forgiven for not accepting that your motives for doing so are entirely pure.

    , @anon
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.

    That's really fascinating, considering that these non-privileged Jews just can't stop telling us that white people are privileged over blacks because of our higher incomes and better life outcomes.

    But look at all the kvetching we get from you when we point out the same about you.

    Now.

    Jews can go on and on and on about white privilege, every single day, in every magazine and on every TV news station in the country.

    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege? Are they rewarded monetarily? Does it help their careers? No. No, I don't think it does, does it?

    What do you call it when one group is allowed to insult others with impunity, while at the same time ruining the career of anyone who does the same thing to them?
    , @Laugh Track

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.).
     
    You might want to add The Nation to the exception list. It's edited by Katrina vanden Heuvel, though not particularly well, IMO. But maybe she's stretched a little thin by all the Nation Cruises she hosts.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I believe Charles Lane is Jewish. Pretty sure I remember him sending his kids to Jewish day school.
    , @Jake
    "American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere."

    That's as truthful as asserting that the sons of Old Money WASPs, such as the Bushes, are not particularly privileged.

    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group. Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs.
    , @Brutusale

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he’s bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn’t known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.
     
    Neither did Kevin Spacey. He did his cavorting with young men on Nantucket, not Provincetown, a much more genteel setting. That's why he flew under the gaydar until he was at last accused of being a molesting pedo.
  19. @whorefinder
    The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he's a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can do to another Jew in private is not notice he's a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can to another Jew in public is let the goyim know he's a a Jew.

    It’s a good thing our Fellow White People always have our best interests at heart.

  20. @Anon
    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring

    It had by far the best book reviews.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

    I haven't read it in ages though.

    It had by far the best book reviews.

    When Jack Beatty was the literary editor, the back of the book was engaging. Wieseltier damaged it. After he took it over, tt seemed overrun with reviews of literary biographies (most of them, one might wager, written by people in Wieseltier’s social circle). Literary biography is an insipid genre and I doubt anyone writes one except to please a tenure committee. Reviews of them belong in academic journals and nowhere else.

  21. I wonder what strange relationship Peretz and his goy heiress wife had. What was in it for her? Did she know? Or was Peretz just bisexual enough to get through the honeymoon?

  22. OT, NYC’s worst 100 landlords as measured by outstanding violations have something special in common with each other. See if you can spot a pattern: https://advocate.nyc.gov/landlord-watchlist/worst-landlords .

  23. The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates,

    He made some bad hires (Hendrick Hertzberg, Andrew Sullivan, Jefferson Morley). What he managed to do is collect people who had distinct voices (and often entertaining ones).

    • Replies: @peterike

    What he managed to do is collect people who had distinct voices (and often entertaining ones).

     

    Pffft. You could put together a more distinct and entertaining set of "voices" by selecting from among the Unz commenters.

    Not including you, obviously.
  24. @Nico
    As one poster said up here recently, once you see the "Culture of Critique" takedown of "whites," it's impossible not to see it.

    This is actually a new twist, we have the jews are the most victimized of all minorities meme, and the the jews are invisible moral force meme, you know you’re not allowed to notice just accept their ubiquitous presence is secret ingredient to the moral arc. but this is new, this is jews can be used as proxy evil white males as long as its never even hinted at that they are jews, because they are simultaneously still the greatest of all victims in their jewishness.They are just coming down like christ into white male form and sacrificing their purely corporal white bodies for humanity, later their purely perfect jewish spirits will again rise into heaven. just try being a doubting thomas and ask to poke a bit and see what happens

  25. @Boethiuss

    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates, just as Slate was smarter back when the editor was always a smart Jewish guy (Kinsley, Weisberg, Plotz) than it is now under a gentile woman.
     
    This is an useful point that isn't emphasized very much, because it's sorta related to the Jewish angle but for impact more or less goes in its own direction. That is, with the last rebranding of The New Republic and maybe the one before that, the intellectual foundations of the Left become less and less the expression of intelligence and culture. And more and more the channeling of feral anger against any perceived arbitrary tradition.

    In America, this is something that should work to the benefit of the Right at the expense of the Left, and to some extent it has. Our culture and white collar advanced degree class are associated with the Left, but ultimately that's against their interest. At least intellectually, the Left is all about statehood for Palestine, justice for Trayvon (& Michael Brown, BLM, etc), and more or less meaningless theorizing radical anticapitalist economics.

    Unfortunately for the Right, Trump throws a spanner in the works. Right now, there's a lot of more or less apolitical, more or less nonpartisan Americans who have broken towards the GOP over the last few elections. Neither Trump nor the Left is actually liked among these people, but Left is an immediate threat: immigration and trade for the blue-collars, political correctness for the white-collars. Trump's spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn't hurt anybody yet.

    But I don't expect this to continue forever, especially the part about the Left. The Left is becoming more and more feral, but that doesn't mean people are going to be more afraid of them. If they continued to be shut out of overt political power, if any of their prior cultural gains are reversed or even their advance stopped, as the polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton fades from public view, people's attention will go other places.

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren't afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise. The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now. And Trump and the GOP are not winning. For the moment, they're getting by without them. But we're going to have to bring back some of them before we can consolidate anything.

    “Trump’s spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn’t hurt anybody yet.”

    Hurt anyone yet?

    Have you looked at the stock-market averages, lately? Have you seen as many “help wanted” signs in your lifetime, not just for fast-food restaurants and discount retailers but for every business imaginable?

    To paraphrase President Lincoln, I would like to find out what kind of junk food Mr. Trump eats and feed it to every member of Congress to make them more spastic, narcissistic and ignorant.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Have you looked at the stock-market averages, lately? Have you seen as many “help wanted” signs in your lifetime, not just for fast-food restaurants and discount retailers but for every business imaginable?
     
    Yeah, that doesn't really fly. Besides being factually questionable, the problem is Trump taking credit for things that he has little or nothing to do with, like Obama taking credit for killing Osama bin Laden. It sounds good, but nobody is really fooled.
  26. The New Republic soon became a platform to turn graduate students into public intellectuals. From Harvard he brought E. J. Dionne Jr., Kinsley, Hertzberg, Wieseltier, and Andrew Sullivan. His joy in their ascent was palpable: When he hired Hertzberg the second time, Peretz impulsively took him to his own tailor and paid for a bespoke suit.

    Hertzberg was never a graduate student. He’d been on the staff of The New Yorker for a number of years and for some unaccountable reason had accepted a job in Jimmy Carter’s PR apparat. He was out of a job in 1981 when Peretz hired him. Kinsley was a disaffected lawyer, not a graduate student. E.J. Dionne has been regularly associated with Commonweal, not The New Republic. Sullivan could have had a satisfactory academic career if he hadn’t been enticed into journalism by Peretz.

  27. That’s one of the sad things about future America. When the Jewish intellectual class (partially) displaced the WASP intellectual class as the thought leaders of America it might have been a shift to the left but it wasn’t a shift downward in terms of intellectual quality. But the new black and female “intellectual” class, with leaders such as Genius T. Coates is full of second and third rate intellects and affirmative action hires. Much of the new discourse is in the form of “shut up, he explained” because these folks are not really in a position to offer a logically consistent defense of their ideology.

    When it comes to science and math, the fading Jews have largely been displaced by Asians so all is well, but Asians are not as interested in, and not as strong as, Jews in the verbal realm so the field is being left to our future idiocrats instead. Blacks can have a certain verbal fluency but it’s not backed by a lot of logical skill so you end up with Jesse Jackson/Tennessee Coates double talk instead.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Much of the new discourse is in the form of “shut up, he explained” because these folks are not really in a position to offer a logically consistent defense of their ideology.
     
    In one sense, I agree with you wholeheartedly that there has been a steep decline in the quality of discourse and rigor of argument.

    In another sense, though, is this really that much of a departure from "you can't say that, that's anti-semitic"?
    , @Anon
    If only there was a non-black, non-female group smart enough to replace those Jews. I seem to recall one, it's on the tip of my tongue....
    , @guest
    There was a Bernard Malamud novel, called the Tenants, which is partly about Jews attempting to bring along black intellectuals post-Civil Rights. You know, making them the New Jews. But it didn't take.

    Some, upon realizing they never would, used it as motivation to go neoconservative. (Though the main impetus for that was Israel.) I don't mean just because they were literally "mugged by reality," but because they lost faith in the whole Civil Rights religion.

    In so doing, they lost part of their edge. They could compete as just another white person, but who wants to be that in Diversitopia?
  28. @whorefinder
    The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he's a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can do to another Jew in private is not notice he's a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can to another Jew in public is let the goyim know he's a a Jew.

    You mean like Larry David of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” whistling Siegfried’s Idyll?

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=larry+david+whistling+wagner&view=detail&mid=6EE7EE7F7813CB65D4DD6EE7EE7F7813CB65D4DD&FORM=VIRE

    • Replies: @guest
    I'm not sure what connection you're drawing. What Larry's guilty of there is failing to subjugate his aesthetic taste to ethnic interests. (You're a "self-hating Jew" if you enjoy melodies created by a known anti-semite.)

    There's nothing about the goyim Noticing. In fact, whistling Wagner would be a good way to blend in, if the average white person cared about fine distinctions in classical music appreciation.
  29. American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.

    “Addled,” and yet you can’t tear yourself away.

    It’s cute how oblivious you are to the fact that you’re “protesting too much.”

    Anyway, can you think of any other groups it’s considered inherently immoral to criticize besides Jews? Blacks perhaps, but then a lot of people who find criticizing blacks permissible pale at the thought of criticizing Jews.

    I’d call that a whopping privilege.

  30. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.

    oy vey

    If “white privilege” is real, than Jewish privilege certainly is, which is why the term is used. But Jewish ethnic nepotism is a better term for what’s going on here (and in every industry where Jews are overrepresented).

  31. @Jack D
    That's one of the sad things about future America. When the Jewish intellectual class (partially) displaced the WASP intellectual class as the thought leaders of America it might have been a shift to the left but it wasn't a shift downward in terms of intellectual quality. But the new black and female "intellectual" class, with leaders such as Genius T. Coates is full of second and third rate intellects and affirmative action hires. Much of the new discourse is in the form of "shut up, he explained" because these folks are not really in a position to offer a logically consistent defense of their ideology.

    When it comes to science and math, the fading Jews have largely been displaced by Asians so all is well, but Asians are not as interested in, and not as strong as, Jews in the verbal realm so the field is being left to our future idiocrats instead. Blacks can have a certain verbal fluency but it's not backed by a lot of logical skill so you end up with Jesse Jackson/Tennessee Coates double talk instead.

    Much of the new discourse is in the form of “shut up, he explained” because these folks are not really in a position to offer a logically consistent defense of their ideology.

    In one sense, I agree with you wholeheartedly that there has been a steep decline in the quality of discourse and rigor of argument.

    In another sense, though, is this really that much of a departure from “you can’t say that, that’s anti-semitic”?

  32. “Hello, fellow goyim!”

    Still waiting for this other shoe to drop.

  33. TNR became a remarkable hybrid, only possible because of the extraordinary acceptance and privilege afforded to Jews in late 20th century America: an influential liberal political magazine that was explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns.

    As opposed to what? Every other liberal political magazine? As Beinart himself suggests:

    As a force in American journalism, we certainly have. Jews edit The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, Buzzfeed, Politico, and the opinion pages of The New York Times and Washington Post.

  34. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.

    The usual pack of lies and obfuscation from the auto-idiot “Art Deco”.

    So,………..Jews just happen to make up a third of the Supreme Court? Every Fed chairman for the last thirty years? Approximately 10% of the Congress? Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools (founded by WASPs for their own purposes of networking). They just happen to dominate Hollywood? Just happen to be predominant in Finance and the Law? Just happen to have their own lobbying organizations granted semi-official status (AIPAC, SPLC, ADL).

    As to the balance of your commentary, you could save time by not writing it, just as we all save time by not reading it, you insufferable clown.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools

    Again, not outside your imagination.
  35. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere

    It would be fair to say that you (‘all) are privileged in one sense, and this shouldn’t be taken at all pejoratively:

    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer. We may have sold our identity/solidarity for a mess of pottage, but the fact remains that we lack what you still have, and that holds whether one speaks of the Orthodox or the cultural Jew.

    That said, to the extent you’re contributing to that malady, one might be forgiven for not accepting that your motives for doing so are entirely pure.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer.


    Me personally?? No.

    I'd be skeptical that people are suffering from 'atomization' more severely now. If anything, geographic mobility (which could be astonishing in frontier zones in the 19th century) is declining in this country.
    As for 'social disintigration', Jews qua Jews aren't any more responsible for this than anyone else is. The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers' view of human relations. No one put a gun to your head and said you had to listen to them (though, to be sure, the choices people face are influenced by what's going on in their social matrix).

    Not sure what you mean by 'the most capable'. Unhappy social metrics tend to be least pronounced among the professional-managerial set.
  36. @Boethiuss

    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates, just as Slate was smarter back when the editor was always a smart Jewish guy (Kinsley, Weisberg, Plotz) than it is now under a gentile woman.
     
    This is an useful point that isn't emphasized very much, because it's sorta related to the Jewish angle but for impact more or less goes in its own direction. That is, with the last rebranding of The New Republic and maybe the one before that, the intellectual foundations of the Left become less and less the expression of intelligence and culture. And more and more the channeling of feral anger against any perceived arbitrary tradition.

    In America, this is something that should work to the benefit of the Right at the expense of the Left, and to some extent it has. Our culture and white collar advanced degree class are associated with the Left, but ultimately that's against their interest. At least intellectually, the Left is all about statehood for Palestine, justice for Trayvon (& Michael Brown, BLM, etc), and more or less meaningless theorizing radical anticapitalist economics.

    Unfortunately for the Right, Trump throws a spanner in the works. Right now, there's a lot of more or less apolitical, more or less nonpartisan Americans who have broken towards the GOP over the last few elections. Neither Trump nor the Left is actually liked among these people, but Left is an immediate threat: immigration and trade for the blue-collars, political correctness for the white-collars. Trump's spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn't hurt anybody yet.

    But I don't expect this to continue forever, especially the part about the Left. The Left is becoming more and more feral, but that doesn't mean people are going to be more afraid of them. If they continued to be shut out of overt political power, if any of their prior cultural gains are reversed or even their advance stopped, as the polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton fades from public view, people's attention will go other places.

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren't afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise. The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now. And Trump and the GOP are not winning. For the moment, they're getting by without them. But we're going to have to bring back some of them before we can consolidate anything.

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren’t afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise.

    Huh? How so? I thought they were in the hands of the Left. Or is that what you mean by “aren’t afraid of the Left”?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Huh? How so? I thought they were in the hands of the Left. Or is that what you mean by “aren’t afraid of the Left”?
     
    Yeah, pretty much. The point being that those groups in some world ought to be afraid of the Left and its feral anger (eg, minority criminality, Islamic terrorism, etc). But they're not, they're more afraid of us because of Trump and other things.
  37. @Desiderius

    nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere
     
    It would be fair to say that you ('all) are privileged in one sense, and this shouldn't be taken at all pejoratively:

    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer. We may have sold our identity/solidarity for a mess of pottage, but the fact remains that we lack what you still have, and that holds whether one speaks of the Orthodox or the cultural Jew.

    That said, to the extent you're contributing to that malady, one might be forgiven for not accepting that your motives for doing so are entirely pure.

    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer.

    Me personally?? No.

    I’d be skeptical that people are suffering from ‘atomization’ more severely now. If anything, geographic mobility (which could be astonishing in frontier zones in the 19th century) is declining in this country.
    As for ‘social disintigration’, Jews qua Jews aren’t any more responsible for this than anyone else is. The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers’ view of human relations. No one put a gun to your head and said you had to listen to them (though, to be sure, the choices people face are influenced by what’s going on in their social matrix).

    Not sure what you mean by ‘the most capable’. Unhappy social metrics tend to be least pronounced among the professional-managerial set.

    • Replies: @anon
    The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers’ view of human relations.

    But, obviously, this would have happened regardless of who dominated these professions, right?
    , @Samuel Skinner

    No one put a gun to your head and said you had to listen to them (though, to be sure, the choices people face are influenced by what’s going on in their social matrix).
     
    The 101st Airborne is a rather clear counter example.
  38. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.

    That’s really fascinating, considering that these non-privileged Jews just can’t stop telling us that white people are privileged over blacks because of our higher incomes and better life outcomes.

    But look at all the kvetching we get from you when we point out the same about you.

    Now.

    Jews can go on and on and on about white privilege, every single day, in every magazine and on every TV news station in the country.

    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege? Are they rewarded monetarily? Does it help their careers? No. No, I don’t think it does, does it?

    What do you call it when one group is allowed to insult others with impunity, while at the same time ruining the career of anyone who does the same thing to them?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The only people I've ever encountered who yap about 'white privilege' were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty. Neither occupational group in my experience is notably Jewish.



    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege?

    It doesn't exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.
  39. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.).

    You might want to add The Nation to the exception list. It’s edited by Katrina vanden Heuvel, though not particularly well, IMO. But maybe she’s stretched a little thin by all the Nation Cruises she hosts.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    True. Forgot about here. Freda Kirchwey edited The Nation from 1939 to 1951. I think she was more responsible than anyone other than Victor Navasky for making it a cheesy red-haze publication.

    You've still got the New York Review of Books, The Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday Review (d. 1986), The New Leader, Commonweal, the UTNE Reader, In These Times, Dissent, Working Papers (d. 1982), Monthly Review, National Review, the American Spectator, Commentary, the Public Interest, Policy Review, Human Events, City Journal, First Things, the Weekly Standard, &c. &c. on the other side of the ledger.
    , @Hibernian
    Ms. Vanden Heuvel bought that leftist fishwrap with inherited money. Or, excuse me, "a controlling interest."
  40. @Art Deco
    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer.


    Me personally?? No.

    I'd be skeptical that people are suffering from 'atomization' more severely now. If anything, geographic mobility (which could be astonishing in frontier zones in the 19th century) is declining in this country.
    As for 'social disintigration', Jews qua Jews aren't any more responsible for this than anyone else is. The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers' view of human relations. No one put a gun to your head and said you had to listen to them (though, to be sure, the choices people face are influenced by what's going on in their social matrix).

    Not sure what you mean by 'the most capable'. Unhappy social metrics tend to be least pronounced among the professional-managerial set.

    The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers’ view of human relations.

    But, obviously, this would have happened regardless of who dominated these professions, right?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?
  41. Unhappy social metrics tend to be least pronounced among the professional-managerial set.

    Unhappy slavery metrics tended to have been least pronounced among the planters.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    A 19 year old woman who gets herself knocked-up, her 20 year-old squeeze-du-saison, and the 32 year old woman who gives her husband his walking papers because of formless dissatisfaction, are not doing these things because they are 'enslaved' or because the boss's boss's boss's of one or another among them is Jedi-mind tricking them into doing these things.
  42. Peretz being one of those misogynistic Charles Kinbote-like gays who form mutual admiration societies with young men and who doesn’t think the female sex has much to offer was always one of those open secrets in the political and intellectual world.

    The gay influence at TNR goes back at least as far as the Jewish influence. In the post-WWII period, TNR was edited and published by Michael Straight. Straight (who was apparently bisexual), the son of a fabulously wealthy family, had been recruited to the Communist Party at Cambridge by the gay Anthony Blunt, who had also recruited the very gay Guy Burgess. After Cambridge, Straight was sent back to the U.S. and, through his family’s social connections, given a place in the Roosevelt administration; following the war it was decided that he would serve the Soviets better at TNR, which was originally bankrolled by his parents.

    The Soviet agent Straight was, during the heyday of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, one of the leading lights of the Committee for an Effective Congress, which was in the vanguard of efforts to discredit the Senator. According to William F. Buckley, Jr., this group was behind the speech in which “an elderly and prudish Senator from Vermont [Ralph Flanders] dutifully read from a script prepared by an organization composed of many of the nation’s mighty, imputing sexual perversions to Senator McCarthy and members of his staff… Senator Flanders’ speech, it transpired, was prepared by the Committee for an Effective Congress…” [Up From Liberalism (New Rochelle, NY, 1973: Arlington House), p. 53].

    Of course, McCarthy’s staff counsel Roy Cohn was gay, and so the imputations of Sen. Flanders had some veracity. It is highly likely that they made their way into his speech thanks to Straight, and sources of Soviet intelligence in the fairly secretive gay subculture of that time and place.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Whatever Michael Straight did do or did not do, he only edited the publication for a half-dozen years and his family sold it in 1951.
    , @syonredux

    The gay influence at TNR goes back at least as far as the Jewish influence. In the post-WWII period, TNR was edited and published by Michael Straight. Straight (who was apparently bisexual), the son of a fabulously wealthy family, had been recruited to the Communist Party at Cambridge by the gay Anthony Blunt, who had also recruited the very gay Guy Burgess.
     
    Michael Straight's a rather interesting guy: Haute-WASP background (his mother was Dorothy Payne Whitney), Cambridge-educated (after his father's death, his mother married a Brit, Leonard Knight Elmhirst), minor novelist (he wrote two Westerns that got decent reviews), etc. He was also responsible for cracking Anthony Blunt's (the so-called "Fourth Man" of the "Cambridge Five" spy ring) cover in 1963 when he decided to come clean.

    His siblings are also of note. His brother was Whitney Willard Straight, (a Grand Prix driver and Air Commodore in the RAF during WW2), and his sister was the Academy Award Winning actress Beatrice Straight (Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Network).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Straight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Straight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Straight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt

  43. The New Republic soon became a platform to turn graduate students into public intellectuals.

    Actually lots of the 1980s TNR staffers and contributor got their start working for Charlie Peters’s The Washington Monthly. For about 20 years The Washington Monthly was a worthwhile magazine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monthly#History

    Back in the 80s through mid nineties both the The Washington Monthly and The Atlantic were still relatively gentile publications that were able to publish for example articles critical of the Jewish agenda on topics like opposition to Open Borders.

  44. In The Atlantic, which is aimed at a naive American audience, Beinart uses the word “white” six times, while not mentioning the word “Jewish” once.

    That’s the standard Timothy Wise strategy. BTW, where is Timothy Wise? I haven’t heard much from or about him since the Trump candidacy and election, which is very much the opposite of what you’d expect.

  45. @Reg Cæsar

    Unhappy social metrics tend to be least pronounced among the professional-managerial set.
     
    Unhappy slavery metrics tended to have been least pronounced among the planters.

    A 19 year old woman who gets herself knocked-up, her 20 year-old squeeze-du-saison, and the 32 year old woman who gives her husband his walking papers because of formless dissatisfaction, are not doing these things because they are ‘enslaved’ or because the boss’s boss’s boss’s of one or another among them is Jedi-mind tricking them into doing these things.

  46. @Crawfurdmuir

    Peretz being one of those misogynistic Charles Kinbote-like gays who form mutual admiration societies with young men and who doesn’t think the female sex has much to offer was always one of those open secrets in the political and intellectual world.
     
    The gay influence at TNR goes back at least as far as the Jewish influence. In the post-WWII period, TNR was edited and published by Michael Straight. Straight (who was apparently bisexual), the son of a fabulously wealthy family, had been recruited to the Communist Party at Cambridge by the gay Anthony Blunt, who had also recruited the very gay Guy Burgess. After Cambridge, Straight was sent back to the U.S. and, through his family's social connections, given a place in the Roosevelt administration; following the war it was decided that he would serve the Soviets better at TNR, which was originally bankrolled by his parents.

    The Soviet agent Straight was, during the heyday of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, one of the leading lights of the Committee for an Effective Congress, which was in the vanguard of efforts to discredit the Senator. According to William F. Buckley, Jr., this group was behind the speech in which "an elderly and prudish Senator from Vermont [Ralph Flanders] dutifully read from a script prepared by an organization composed of many of the nation's mighty, imputing sexual perversions to Senator McCarthy and members of his staff... Senator Flanders' speech, it transpired, was prepared by the Committee for an Effective Congress..." [Up From Liberalism (New Rochelle, NY, 1973: Arlington House), p. 53].

    Of course, McCarthy's staff counsel Roy Cohn was gay, and so the imputations of Sen. Flanders had some veracity. It is highly likely that they made their way into his speech thanks to Straight, and sources of Soviet intelligence in the fairly secretive gay subculture of that time and place.

    Whatever Michael Straight did do or did not do, he only edited the publication for a half-dozen years and his family sold it in 1951.

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    Straight may have been editor of TNR for just half-a-dozen years, but at other times he was its publisher, and he did not leave the magazine until 1956. In any event, he was ensconced there during the entire McCarthy era, using his position and influence to discredit the Senator, whose characterizations of Communist infiltration in the United States were in fact substantially correct.

    See for further information Roland Perry's Last of the Cold War Spies (2006) and M. Stanton Evans's Blacklisted by History (2009).

  47. @Jack D
    That's one of the sad things about future America. When the Jewish intellectual class (partially) displaced the WASP intellectual class as the thought leaders of America it might have been a shift to the left but it wasn't a shift downward in terms of intellectual quality. But the new black and female "intellectual" class, with leaders such as Genius T. Coates is full of second and third rate intellects and affirmative action hires. Much of the new discourse is in the form of "shut up, he explained" because these folks are not really in a position to offer a logically consistent defense of their ideology.

    When it comes to science and math, the fading Jews have largely been displaced by Asians so all is well, but Asians are not as interested in, and not as strong as, Jews in the verbal realm so the field is being left to our future idiocrats instead. Blacks can have a certain verbal fluency but it's not backed by a lot of logical skill so you end up with Jesse Jackson/Tennessee Coates double talk instead.

    If only there was a non-black, non-female group smart enough to replace those Jews. I seem to recall one, it’s on the tip of my tongue….

  48. @Art Deco
    You seem relatively immune to the social disintegration/atomization from which most gentiles, particularity the most capable, suffer.


    Me personally?? No.

    I'd be skeptical that people are suffering from 'atomization' more severely now. If anything, geographic mobility (which could be astonishing in frontier zones in the 19th century) is declining in this country.
    As for 'social disintigration', Jews qua Jews aren't any more responsible for this than anyone else is. The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers' view of human relations. No one put a gun to your head and said you had to listen to them (though, to be sure, the choices people face are influenced by what's going on in their social matrix).

    Not sure what you mean by 'the most capable'. Unhappy social metrics tend to be least pronounced among the professional-managerial set.

    No one put a gun to your head and said you had to listen to them (though, to be sure, the choices people face are influenced by what’s going on in their social matrix).

    The 101st Airborne is a rather clear counter example.

  49. Thumbs up to Jacob Weisberg? Hmm, I may have to re-evaluate, but I really don’t think so.

  50. Gawker writes an article about gay Marty Peretz and is later sued into non existence gay by Peter Thiel (for invading the privacy or something of comic book character Hulk Hogan). Also worth noting is that other than gay male there does not appear to be any other similarity between the two.

    It can’t be that only one person was after Gawker for only one reason. The murder of Gawker is basically the plot of Murder on the Orient express minus Inspector Hercule Poirot to explain it to you at the end.

  51. @anon
    The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers’ view of human relations.

    But, obviously, this would have happened regardless of who dominated these professions, right?

    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    • Replies: @anon
    because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    Partially, yeah. They all get American movies.

    Why didn't you answer my question?
    , @Prof. Woland
    The media is much more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason they don't allow cigarette commercials on TV any longer.

    My wife is Russian and I get a steady diet of what Putin churns out to contrast with what Hollywood produces. They don't have the constant out-grouping, endless nit-picking, poz culture piped into everyone's homes like we do. It helps allow the majority population to reach a consensus on many basic things that are necessary in a cohesive society. Here, the object is to attack the majority relentlessly and elevate newcomers, refugees, minorities above the general population.

    Also, if you don't think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.
    , @anon
    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    You know what I find most amusing about this? YOU are the one who singled out the "legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media". Those were YOUR words. All I did was agree with you. Then I pointed out who controls the "legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media", and all of a sudden, it's a completely ridiculous idea that they could have anything to do with anything! It's all a crazed anti-Semitic consipiracy theory now!

  52. @anon
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.

    That's really fascinating, considering that these non-privileged Jews just can't stop telling us that white people are privileged over blacks because of our higher incomes and better life outcomes.

    But look at all the kvetching we get from you when we point out the same about you.

    Now.

    Jews can go on and on and on about white privilege, every single day, in every magazine and on every TV news station in the country.

    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege? Are they rewarded monetarily? Does it help their careers? No. No, I don't think it does, does it?

    What do you call it when one group is allowed to insult others with impunity, while at the same time ruining the career of anyone who does the same thing to them?

    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty. Neither occupational group in my experience is notably Jewish.

    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege?

    It doesn’t exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    • Replies: @anon
    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.

    Oh? You mean you didn't catch that article Steve wrote less than a day ago, about Peter Beinart talking about his white privilege?

    You want to see what happens when you do a New York Times search for "white privilege"?

    You seem to have a really hard time being honest, Art. What should I chalk this predisposition towards dishonesty up to?

    It doesn’t exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    You don't think so? Tell me something. If you went on a TV interview and started bitching about white privilege, and I went on TV and started bitching about Jewish privilege, which one of us would be essentially unemployable, starting the next day?

    (Note: I do not expect an honest answer to that question, for obvious reasons.)

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.
     
    For this to be true, you'd have to have limited your human interaction to only student affairs apparatchiks and perpheral faculty, never read a book, never perused a magazine or newspaper, never browsed the internet, never watched a movie and never turned on a TV.

    That's quite the sheltered live there, Art. You need to get out more.
    , @Hibernian
    "...people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion."

    I had one, maybe two, Jewish professor(s) in college. I can't remember having a Jewish boss (direct supervisor.) College was an A&M type school in a rural state; my adult working life has been in the big city. There have been high ranking, influential Jews in the organization I work for; also there have been Irish people, Italians, African-Americans, Polish people, Chinese, Indians, Muslims, and women, who fit the same description. I don't think Mr. Goldberg has that great a direct influence on my life. I'm also aware that Chicago's North Shore, the most affluent suburban area around here, is largely WASP and Jewish, with an increasing Lace Curtain Irish Catholic element. (There goes the neighborhood.) Draw your own conclusions.

    , @anon
    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.

    Just them and the occasional presidential candidate.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/video/hillary-clinton-we-white-americans-need-to-recognize-our-privilege-727176259735

    Nobody with any real influence. Nothing worth paying attention to.

  53. @Art Deco
    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    Partially, yeah. They all get American movies.

    Why didn’t you answer my question?

  54. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    I believe Charles Lane is Jewish. Pretty sure I remember him sending his kids to Jewish day school.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You're right. His wife had a still born child in 2002 and he discussed the funeral preparations. ("Under Jewish Law").
  55. @Laugh Track

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.).
     
    You might want to add The Nation to the exception list. It's edited by Katrina vanden Heuvel, though not particularly well, IMO. But maybe she's stretched a little thin by all the Nation Cruises she hosts.

    True. Forgot about here. Freda Kirchwey edited The Nation from 1939 to 1951. I think she was more responsible than anyone other than Victor Navasky for making it a cheesy red-haze publication.

    You’ve still got the New York Review of Books, The Atlantic, Harper’s, Saturday Review (d. 1986), The New Leader, Commonweal, the UTNE Reader, In These Times, Dissent, Working Papers (d. 1982), Monthly Review, National Review, the American Spectator, Commentary, the Public Interest, Policy Review, Human Events, City Journal, First Things, the Weekly Standard, &c. &c. on the other side of the ledger.

  56. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    The only people I've ever encountered who yap about 'white privilege' were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty. Neither occupational group in my experience is notably Jewish.



    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege?

    It doesn't exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.

    Oh? You mean you didn’t catch that article Steve wrote less than a day ago, about Peter Beinart talking about his white privilege?

    You want to see what happens when you do a New York Times search for “white privilege”?

    You seem to have a really hard time being honest, Art. What should I chalk this predisposition towards dishonesty up to?

    It doesn’t exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    You don’t think so? Tell me something. If you went on a TV interview and started bitching about white privilege, and I went on TV and started bitching about Jewish privilege, which one of us would be essentially unemployable, starting the next day?

    (Note: I do not expect an honest answer to that question, for obvious reasons.)

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You don’t think so? Tell me something. If you went on a TV interview and started bitching about white privilege, and I went on TV and started bitching about Jewish privilege, which one of us would be essentially unemployable, starting the next day?

    If you went on television babbling about 'Jewish privilege', you'd just sound like a poisonous crank. You believe that mess. The general public doesn't when they think about it for the obvious reason that Jews are less than 2% of the population (about 1% outside of the New York and Miami commuter belts) and because the kookery about Israel tricking the U.S. Government into fighting the Iraq War and Israel being responsible for the political dysfunctions of Muslim societies is recognized as kookery by people without a pre-existing animus.

    The babble about 'white privilege' is humbug. It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set. Doesn't have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

  57. @Mr. Anon

    American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.
     
    The usual pack of lies and obfuscation from the auto-idiot "Art Deco".

    So,...........Jews just happen to make up a third of the Supreme Court? Every Fed chairman for the last thirty years? Approximately 10% of the Congress? Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools (founded by WASPs for their own purposes of networking). They just happen to dominate Hollywood? Just happen to be predominant in Finance and the Law? Just happen to have their own lobbying organizations granted semi-official status (AIPAC, SPLC, ADL).

    As to the balance of your commentary, you could save time by not writing it, just as we all save time by not reading it, you insufferable clown.

    Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Again, not outside your imagination.
     
    Imagination? Please help me understand. The numbers don't back you up so help me understand why the numbers are wrong.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Again, not outside your imagination.
     
    No, Jews are disproportionately represented among both students and the professoriate of the Ivys. Some of that can certainly be chalked up to intelligence, but probably not all of it. Anyway, it is interesting that you are so selective in your rebuttal. What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?
    , @Mr. Anon
    No, Jews are disproportionately represented among both students and the professoriate of the Ivys. Some of that can certainly be chalked up to intelligence, but probably not all of it. Anyway, it is interesting that you are so selective in your rebuttal. What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?
    , @ben tillman
    That is an absolute easily provable fact. You're not arguing in good faith.
  58. With The New Republic in trouble retrospectively lately for Literary Editor Leo Wieseltier’s hands-on behavior and owner Marty Peretz’s hands-off behavior toward female employees, ex-golden boy editor Beinart has taken to the pages of The Atlantic to explain that it was all part of straight white males having too much power back in the bad old days.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapparot

  59. @Art Deco
    The only people I've ever encountered who yap about 'white privilege' were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty. Neither occupational group in my experience is notably Jewish.



    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege?

    It doesn't exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.

    For this to be true, you’d have to have limited your human interaction to only student affairs apparatchiks and perpheral faculty, never read a book, never perused a magazine or newspaper, never browsed the internet, never watched a movie and never turned on a TV.

    That’s quite the sheltered live there, Art. You need to get out more.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Who writes the books and articles to which you're referring? Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.
  60. @Art Deco
    Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    Imagination? Please help me understand. The numbers don’t back you up so help me understand why the numbers are wrong.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    What numbers? Other than perhaps Yeshiva or Brandeis, you're not going to find a school outside some rabbinical academy 'dominated' by Jews. (Mr. Unz attempted to promote the idea that the Jewish population of Harvard was round 25% of the total and wasn't gracious about it when a statistician demonstrated he was in error).
  61. @Art Deco
    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    The media is much more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason they don’t allow cigarette commercials on TV any longer.

    My wife is Russian and I get a steady diet of what Putin churns out to contrast with what Hollywood produces. They don’t have the constant out-grouping, endless nit-picking, poz culture piped into everyone’s homes like we do. It helps allow the majority population to reach a consensus on many basic things that are necessary in a cohesive society. Here, the object is to attack the majority relentlessly and elevate newcomers, refugees, minorities above the general population.

    Also, if you don’t think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.

    • Replies: @Selvar
    Russia has one of the highest divorce and abortion rates in the world, even factoring in recent declines. That would seem to cut against your argument.
    , @Art Deco
    Also, if you don’t think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.


    No it wouldn't. An you know it wouldn't because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    And, again, you're confusing the contemporary media with film studios ca. 1940.
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When the Jewish intellectual class (partially) displaced the WASP intellectual class as the thought leaders of America it might have been a shift to the left but it wasn’t a shift downward in terms of intellectual quality.

    Ludicrous.

    A SHIFT TO THE LEFT IS A SHIFT DOWNWARD IN INTELLECTUAL QUALITY. OBVIOUSLY.

    The left is built on lies. The rejection of natural law, rejection of the accumulated wisdom OF ANY HOST CULTURE.

    The left is a scam at the granular level all the way up to the godhead, Marx. It’s ultimately a political vehicle for dispossessing the rightful leaders of any society. Duh. The patina of leftist pseudo intellectualism is a necessary tactic in the transition to power.

    Notice how once a leftist regime takes over there is real no intellectual output and there is no prestige for intellectual professions other than as mouthpieces for The Party.

  63. The newly appointed editor of Gay Times has been suspended after it emerged he tweeted a series of antisemitic, misogynist and offensive comments as well as attacking gay people, homeless people and disabled children.

    Josh Rivers, who took the position in October, is the first BME editor of a gay men’s magazine, and took on the role with a mandate to promote inclusivity and diversity.

    Ha, ha, ha!

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/15/gay-times-suspends-editor-as-antisemitic-tweets-emerge-josh-rivers

    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
  64. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    You know what I find most amusing about this? YOU are the one who singled out the “legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media”. Those were YOUR words. All I did was agree with you. Then I pointed out who controls the “legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media”, and all of a sudden, it’s a completely ridiculous idea that they could have anything to do with anything! It’s all a crazed anti-Semitic consipiracy theory now!

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    OK. I'll. Speak. Real. Slow. So. Maybe. You. Understand.

    1. Various professional sectors promote a particular type of behavior. They cannot induce people to engage in that behavior.

    2. Jews control the media, the mental health trade, and the legal profession in the addled minds of the unzosphere, not in the world that actually exists.

    3. The number of Jewish lawyers in America is not going to cause Scandinavians to go whole hog for bastardy.
  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    TNR was WASPish back in the Herb Croley/John Dewey days. The New Yorker was quite goyish in the Thurber/Addams Family era. What would cause it to go Jewy specifically, versus all the other American magazines of the 20th century? It’s clear that magazine jobs are exalted by The Jews.

    But increasingly they are falling down on the job, with symbol manipulator Q.A. and opinionator efficiency cratering; viz. Anne Applebaum calling Marine Le Pen a neo-Bolshevik–HUH?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/bolshevism-then-and-now/2017/11/06/830aecaa-bf41-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    I know someone professionally who was a newspaper reporter for most of his career, and then as a second career, came to work in my industry. He is Jewish / gay and quite liberal. It is pretty amazing to think that this guy was writing dispassionately about anything. No enemies on the left and no friends on the right.

    But now, thanks to the internet, he is unemployed and working in a right of center / Republican industry in the age of Trump. I think what gets this guys goat more than anything is that he was beaten at his own game. We don't need clever guys like him to tell us what to think or what we are allowed to know. He has been replaced, just like all the goys he resents so much. disinter-mediation will hit these guys the hardest.

    Never underestimate how much the internet will displace / replace / disrupt intermediaries that managed to elbow their way to the levers of power and monopolize what we saw and heard. With the exception of the tech platforms, it is going to be a very hard slide into the mosh pit with the rest of the deplorables as they retreat out of the area they have controlled for 100 years.

    My pet theory is that this is why Steve Bannon is so roundly hated. He is the face of the internet, this amorphous, anonymous, free exchange of information that has put much of the print newspapers / magazines out of business. There are 210 million white people in America having a conversation without having to ask permission or look over their shoulders.
  66. My favorite bits from Beinart’s “How The New Republic Stopped Being a Jewish Magazine”:

    The other factor eroding Jewish influence in American journalistic and literary life is demographic change. In recent decades, the percentage of Jews in the United States has declined. The percentage of Latinos and Asians, by contrast, has shot up. Numbers don’t automatically translate into influence.

    Yeah, see, Jewish influence will decline because the Jewish percentage of the population is declining…..Yeah, that’s the ticket….

    Today, four of the 11 regular columnists on The New York Times op-ed page are Jewish while none are Asian or Latino. In the coming years, that will almost certainly change.

    Yeah, in the future, the there might be 4 Jews , 2 Asians, and one Conquistador Class Hispanic. ” O brave new world, / That has such people in ‘t!”

    In my mid-20s, when I came to The New Republic full time, I remember being delighted that I could so easily integrate my Jewishness into my work. After two years at Oxford, where being Jewish was considered something best kept to oneself, I felt like I could finally exhale.

    The flyover Goys will never understand how unbearable my time at Oxford was!

    On the other hand, I can imagine a day when an editor at The New York Times or The New Yorker or maybe even The New Republic wryly tells a colleague that her article is due by Diwali, Chinese New Year, Eid al-Fitr or the Day of the Dead. The thought makes me smile.

    Well, the idea of Hispanics running elite media in the USA certainly made me laugh…..

    • Replies: @anon

    On the other hand, I can imagine a day when an editor at The New York Times or The New Yorker or maybe even The New Republic wryly tells a colleague that her article is due by Diwali, Chinese New Year, Eid al-Fitr or the Day of the Dead. The thought makes me smile.
     
    Then he should quit, so that day can come just a little bit sooner.

    In fact, I think he should encourage all of his fellow Jews in the media to vacate their positions, so we can have that wonderful diversity ASAP.

    Want to take bets on whether or not they will?
  67. @Inquiring Mind
    "Trump’s spastic, narcissistic, ignorant character hasn’t hurt anybody yet."

    Hurt anyone yet?

    Have you looked at the stock-market averages, lately? Have you seen as many "help wanted" signs in your lifetime, not just for fast-food restaurants and discount retailers but for every business imaginable?

    To paraphrase President Lincoln, I would like to find out what kind of junk food Mr. Trump eats and feed it to every member of Congress to make them more spastic, narcissistic and ignorant.

    Have you looked at the stock-market averages, lately? Have you seen as many “help wanted” signs in your lifetime, not just for fast-food restaurants and discount retailers but for every business imaginable?

    Yeah, that doesn’t really fly. Besides being factually questionable, the problem is Trump taking credit for things that he has little or nothing to do with, like Obama taking credit for killing Osama bin Laden. It sounds good, but nobody is really fooled.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    I take it from your prior comment that you are more sympathetic to the Right as it is represented here than the Left, as it trolls here. I also take it that you are sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Trump's politics have broken free many in the working class from being strictly beholden to the Left or to the Leftish Democrats? But you regard Mr. Trump as an imperfect leader for the genuine concerns of the people he is championing?

    My remarks regarding the Trump Economic Boom are factually questionable? The stock market, yes, perhaps only an indicator of economic sentiment, but it suggests that Moldbug's Visaya Caste (do I have Moldbug's caste descriptions correct?), you know, Paul Fussell's "high proles", the Sinclair's Babbitts, the moneyed Deplorables, these people really, really love Mr. Trump and what he is doing.

    As to the help-wanted signs, in my sector of Flyover U.S.A., those signs have sprouted up all up and down the majors highways in this state, something I had not seen in over 30 years of living here. Furthermore, all of the correct-thinking people I know who follow finance were certain that Mr. Trump's election would bring a stock market crash -- one of them told of purchasing options or other financial interests to "hedge" against the possibility of Mr. Trump's election. The week after, I had never seen such sour faces before. He spent, he wasted a lot of money on that financial insurance and Mr. Trump got elected.

    And do you honestly and seriously believe that if Ms. Clinton were elected that we would be seeing anywhere near this level of economic exuberance?
  68. @Art Deco
    Whatever Michael Straight did do or did not do, he only edited the publication for a half-dozen years and his family sold it in 1951.

    Straight may have been editor of TNR for just half-a-dozen years, but at other times he was its publisher, and he did not leave the magazine until 1956. In any event, he was ensconced there during the entire McCarthy era, using his position and influence to discredit the Senator, whose characterizations of Communist infiltration in the United States were in fact substantially correct.

    See for further information Roland Perry’s Last of the Cold War Spies (2006) and M. Stanton Evans’s Blacklisted by History (2009).

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    and he did not leave the magazine until 1956.

    He had a spot on the masthead with an honorific title, 'Editor at Large'. The publication was owned and edited by Gilbert Harrison at that point.
  69. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    “American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere.”

    That’s as truthful as asserting that the sons of Old Money WASPs, such as the Bushes, are not particularly privileged.

    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group. Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That’s as truthful as asserting that the sons of Old Money WASPs, such as the Bushes, are not particularly privileged.

    You're confusing your categories, comparing wealthy bluebloods with the general run of the Jewish population.



    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group.

    So what?



    Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs

    Sez who?
  70. @Laugh Track

    We already know that the culture industries, the public sector, and unmarried white women aren’t afraid of the Left, feral or otherwise.
     
    Huh? How so? I thought they were in the hands of the Left. Or is that what you mean by "aren't afraid of the Left"?

    Huh? How so? I thought they were in the hands of the Left. Or is that what you mean by “aren’t afraid of the Left”?

    Yeah, pretty much. The point being that those groups in some world ought to be afraid of the Left and its feral anger (eg, minority criminality, Islamic terrorism, etc). But they’re not, they’re more afraid of us because of Trump and other things.

  71. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    My favorite bits from Beinart's "How The New Republic Stopped Being a Jewish Magazine":

    The other factor eroding Jewish influence in American journalistic and literary life is demographic change. In recent decades, the percentage of Jews in the United States has declined. The percentage of Latinos and Asians, by contrast, has shot up. Numbers don’t automatically translate into influence.
     
    Yeah, see, Jewish influence will decline because the Jewish percentage of the population is declining.....Yeah, that's the ticket....

    Today, four of the 11 regular columnists on The New York Times op-ed page are Jewish while none are Asian or Latino. In the coming years, that will almost certainly change.

     

    Yeah, in the future, the there might be 4 Jews , 2 Asians, and one Conquistador Class Hispanic. " O brave new world, / That has such people in 't!"

    In my mid-20s, when I came to The New Republic full time, I remember being delighted that I could so easily integrate my Jewishness into my work. After two years at Oxford, where being Jewish was considered something best kept to oneself, I felt like I could finally exhale.
     
    The flyover Goys will never understand how unbearable my time at Oxford was!

    On the other hand, I can imagine a day when an editor at The New York Times or The New Yorker or maybe even The New Republic wryly tells a colleague that her article is due by Diwali, Chinese New Year, Eid al-Fitr or the Day of the Dead. The thought makes me smile.
     
    Well, the idea of Hispanics running elite media in the USA certainly made me laugh.....

    On the other hand, I can imagine a day when an editor at The New York Times or The New Yorker or maybe even The New Republic wryly tells a colleague that her article is due by Diwali, Chinese New Year, Eid al-Fitr or the Day of the Dead. The thought makes me smile.

    Then he should quit, so that day can come just a little bit sooner.

    In fact, I think he should encourage all of his fellow Jews in the media to vacate their positions, so we can have that wonderful diversity ASAP.

    Want to take bets on whether or not they will?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "...Day of the Dead"

    "Dia de los Muertos."

    A Spanish name for Halloween and/or All Saints Day and/or All Souls Day. An ethnically based take on a Catholic holiday or holidays.
  72. @Art Deco
    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring based on what appeared to be his hunches of who might prove a worthy Alcibiades to his Socrates,

    He made some bad hires (Hendrick Hertzberg, Andrew Sullivan, Jefferson Morley). What he managed to do is collect people who had distinct voices (and often entertaining ones).

    What he managed to do is collect people who had distinct voices (and often entertaining ones).

    Pffft. You could put together a more distinct and entertaining set of “voices” by selecting from among the Unz commenters.

    Not including you, obviously.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You could put together a more distinct and entertaining set of “voices” by selecting from among the Unz commenters.

    I don't think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year, or that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.
  73. You know, Martin Peretz could have been a secret coprophile/cannibal/thrill-kill sado-masochist who made it clear to his new hires that the only way to get ahead at the THE NEW REPUBLIC was by becoming his coprophile/cannibal/thrill-kill (not power-)bottom in twisted scenarios that make Passolini’s SALO: 120 DAYS OF SODOM look like a Disney Jr. Channel family night movie.

    And it would STILL be less humiliating than having to acknowledge, in print, one’s intellectual indebtedness to Ta Genius Coates (hey there, Michael Chabon!)

  74. @Anon
    The funny thing is that The New Republic really was a pretty smart (if often absurd — e.g., Stephen Glass) magazine back when Marty was hiring

    It had by far the best book reviews.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

    I haven't read it in ages though.

    It had by far the best book reviews.

    Agree.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

    Disagree. It was kindda funny to read his review of PULP FICTION back when he was already becoming a fossil (Kauffmann often mentioned how he ALMOST joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain, making him almost a whole decade older than the typical WWII veteran). To read his review of 8 MILE when he was by-then completely fossilized, absurd (though Eminem is quite absurd on his own).

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.
     
    Really, I remember back in 1990 Kauffmann giving a negative review to Goodfellas while praising the now unwatchable Dances with Wolves.

    Goodfellas was in many ways a landmark film in that it went the long Hollywood Marxist narrative that criminals were the product of society's ills instead of more often the case born sociopaths.

    "As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgHIPq-BDLc

    After being redpilled years later Kauffmann comes across as just another Jewish leftist critic.

    Steve Sailer he ain't!!!!
    , @Anon
    I've never known a film critic with whom I've agreed half the time.

    I've given up on other people's tastes and views correlating with mine. I accept that people see things differently and have their own reasons why.

    So, a critic is to be judged by erudition, sensibility, intelligence, style, and insight(even if in disagreement with the reader). Kauffmann had a highly civilized sensibility, possessed deep and wide knowledge of arts and history, wrote incisively, and was generally perceptive about directors and trends(even if at odds with the zeitgeist).

    I can go on and on about Kauffmann's opinions or judgements that I found to be utterly wrong. He had no use for BARRY LYNDON. He highly praised NATURAL BORN KILLERS; he thought people didn't get the satire when the problem was it rubbed our noses in the satire. He thinks 2001 the novel is superior to the movie. (Godzilla palm slap). He loathed Robert Altman, even the great MCCABE AND MRS MILLER. (I dislike many Altman films, but MCCABE and NASHVILLE are for all time.) He had little use for THE GODFATHER.
    But he usually gave intelligent and interesting reasons for why he thought the way he did. And while I sometimes thought he was simply wrongheaded, I thought he gave compelling reasons for liking or not liking a film when when I disagreed with him.
    (Sometimes, Kauffmann surprised Kauffmann. He later wrote he doesn't recognize the self that wrote the lukewarm review of THE LEOPARD. An obvious masterpiece, how did he so spectacularly fail to notice its virtues?)

    One thing for sure, there will never be a critic like him again. The new sensibility simply doesn't allow it. He was one of the last gentleman critics.

    Some yrs back, I re-read his collections: World on Film, Figures of Light, Living Images, Before My Eyes, etc. and they are a marvel. While Kauffmann was excited with the direction of cinema when it dominated cultural discourse from high to low -- from 50s foreign cinema to rise of 70s New Hollywood -- he usually kept a level-head(with the possible exception for Peckinpah's THE GETAWAY). His relative detachment denied him the relevance of, say, Pauline Kael who threw herself into the fight. But then, he kept sight of the forest as well as the trees unlike other critics who lost themselves in the fashions of the moment.

    Kael, Simon, Sarris, MacDonald, and Kauffmann were the best of 60s/70s criticism in English language. Penelope Gilliatt was pretty good too, but her books are hard to find.
  75. I remember once hearing Wieseltier explain that he had asked an author to submit his book review by Rosh Hodesh.

    I assume this was meant as a joke. Most non-Orthodox American Jews (meaning most of the Jews who write for publications such as TNR) would have no idea when the next Rosh Chodesh is. “Rosh Chodesh” is the head of the month, i.e. the 1st of day of each month of the Hebrew (lunar) calendar, which is also the date of the new moon. It is of minor liturgical importance to the Orthodox and of zero importance to the non-Orthodox.

    I think the joke was this – most Jews (at least the ones who have been to Hebrew school) at least know what Rosh Chodesh means if not when the next one is, but most non-Jews wouldn’t even know what he is talking about. This was to even the score for all the centuries when Christian editors told their Jewish employees to hand in their reviews before the Feast of the Transfiguration.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "This was to even the score for all the centuries when Christian editors told their Jewish employees to hand in their reviews before the Feast of the Transfiguration."

    High Church Anglicans plus maybe Irish Catholic sports and police beat editors.
  76. Mock white privilege all you want

    All People of Color know it to be true and in need of destruction

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Tiny says, "Mock white privilege all you want".

    Who's mocking it? It is a privilege to be white. We don't deny it.

    It's a challenge as well. We have a great deal to be proud of and equally, to live up to. "Ever onward in greatness" is our motto. Sorry, we're too busy to be bothered with those we have lapped. Just don't get in our way, sonny boy, or try to trip us up.
    , @fish

    Ohs Tinys…..axe not fo who da pribilege tolze…..it tolz fo un yous.


    Le Nerd "Po Et Lory Et at teh Unz Show" PiTz
     

  77. @Anonymous
    TNR was WASPish back in the Herb Croley/John Dewey days. The New Yorker was quite goyish in the Thurber/Addams Family era. What would cause it to go Jewy specifically, versus all the other American magazines of the 20th century? It's clear that magazine jobs are exalted by The Jews.

    But increasingly they are falling down on the job, with symbol manipulator Q.A. and opinionator efficiency cratering; viz. Anne Applebaum calling Marine Le Pen a neo-Bolshevik--HUH?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/bolshevism-then-and-now/2017/11/06/830aecaa-bf41-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html

    I know someone professionally who was a newspaper reporter for most of his career, and then as a second career, came to work in my industry. He is Jewish / gay and quite liberal. It is pretty amazing to think that this guy was writing dispassionately about anything. No enemies on the left and no friends on the right.

    But now, thanks to the internet, he is unemployed and working in a right of center / Republican industry in the age of Trump. I think what gets this guys goat more than anything is that he was beaten at his own game. We don’t need clever guys like him to tell us what to think or what we are allowed to know. He has been replaced, just like all the goys he resents so much. disinter-mediation will hit these guys the hardest.

    Never underestimate how much the internet will displace / replace / disrupt intermediaries that managed to elbow their way to the levers of power and monopolize what we saw and heard. With the exception of the tech platforms, it is going to be a very hard slide into the mosh pit with the rest of the deplorables as they retreat out of the area they have controlled for 100 years.

    My pet theory is that this is why Steve Bannon is so roundly hated. He is the face of the internet, this amorphous, anonymous, free exchange of information that has put much of the print newspapers / magazines out of business. There are 210 million white people in America having a conversation without having to ask permission or look over their shoulders.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Yes and now the once mighty Atlantic Monthly is reduced to putting hit pieces on its cover over a flyover country high school drop put millennial like Andrew Anglin.
  78. I don’t know if Steve has ever done an article on the word “nice” and it’s role in American Jewish Culture.

    The concept of Nice Jewish boy is fairly well known, and the only instances in which I have seen the words Nice Boy are when they are code for Nice Jewish Boy.

    • Replies: @helena
    My english teacher was a fairly old and dour woman but like several of my teachers she had lost a fiancé in ww1 so one forgave her dourness. Anyway, the word 'nice' was banned from essays because it is not descriptive; it is an unsubstantiated personal value judgement. Unfortunately, PC has reduced our range of adjectives to just one - 'nice' - because that way no one gets offended. Brain rot.
  79. @Abe

    It had by far the best book reviews.
     
    Agree.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

     

    Disagree. It was kindda funny to read his review of PULP FICTION back when he was already becoming a fossil (Kauffmann often mentioned how he ALMOST joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain, making him almost a whole decade older than the typical WWII veteran). To read his review of 8 MILE when he was by-then completely fossilized, absurd (though Eminem is quite absurd on his own).

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

    Really, I remember back in 1990 Kauffmann giving a negative review to Goodfellas while praising the now unwatchable Dances with Wolves.

    Goodfellas was in many ways a landmark film in that it went the long Hollywood Marxist narrative that criminals were the product of society’s ills instead of more often the case born sociopaths.

    “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.”

    After being redpilled years later Kauffmann comes across as just another Jewish leftist critic.

    Steve Sailer he ain’t!!!!

    • Replies: @Anon
    Really, I remember back in 1990 Kauffmann giving a negative review to Goodfellas while praising the now unwatchable Dances with Wolves. Goodfellas was in many ways a landmark film in that it went the long Hollywood Marxist narrative that criminals were the product of society’s ills instead of more often the case born sociopaths.

    Yeah, I see your point. I also think GOODFELLAS is one of the greatest films ever, and even though I enjoyed DANCES WITH WOLVES on first viewing, it was obviously little more than a pictorialist neo-Western, the kind of movie(like TITANIC and GANDHI) that sweeps the Oscar. (When I saw DANCES again on video, I found it insufferable, esp what with white woman gone 'native' with the name 'Uppercut to Nasty Squaw').

    But here's the problem. So many intelligent, knowledgeable, and sophisticated have been as wrong-headed(in my opinion) as Kauffmann on GOODFELLAS. Recently, I couldn't believe both Douthat and Sailer think MOULIN ROUGE is a great movie. How is it that TWO sane and smart people could fall for that total piece of caca? It's was a Daffy Moment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoR731Sq_ns

    I've come to accept that people are simply going to disagree, even on what seems so obvious(at least to whom it seems so obvious; it is obvious to me that 13th WARRIOR is a great movie, but so many disagree. Oh well).
    Of course, there are limits to this. If someone sincerely thinks PORKY'S is better than CITIZEN KANE or that Michael Bay is a greater director than David Lean or Kubrick, then he needs to have his head examined.
    Granted a critic may prefer a film by Bay over a film by Kubrick on grounds that the former usually hit his intended mark whereas Kubrick, for all his brilliance and mastery, was more smoke than fire. Still, there are general rules in cinema.
    And I would say most superior critics understand this.. despite their personal tastes and biases. So, even if a critic prefers a lesser director or lesser film, he may still recognize the other director or film as 'objectively' more impressive. Even people who don't care for Kubrick do recognize him as one of the great masters of the form. For some critics, ingenuity with formal aspects of film-making is enough to win their admiration. For other critics, esp with more literary bent or humanist concerns, it is never enough... which is why John Simon usually scoffed at films with impressive technique but insufficient human element.

    Film reviewing was never just about assessment of professionalism, artistry, technique, or originality. Rather, each critic focuses on something in the movie -- any given movie offers myriad stimuli and signals -- that has special meaning to him for reasons aesthetic, personal, quirky, or just plain mysterious.
    So, while a critic may be impressed by composition and use of montage, another critic may be less interested in such and be, say, offended by its political content. Or a critic may see real intelligence and vision in a work but serious moral failing, as many did with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. And there are more than one way to approach a film like THE GODFATHER. One can praise it as superior entertainment or as popular art. Or one can denounce it as morally unfeasible on grounds that it falsely reflects the real crime world. A critic approaches a film like an elephant. While every critic may see the whole elephant, their responses and emotions tend to focus on certain parts of the elephant.

    I love GOODFELLAS, but I can see where the detractors are coming from.
    On the one hand, Scorsese pulled off an artistic(and moral) heist by slipping us into the dazzling and dizzying mafia world while also keeping just enough distance -- even millimeters are crucial here -- for a clear cold-eyed view. GOODFELLAS isn't moralistic, but it's that element of icy coldness that allows space for moral perspective, that is IF we choose to hold one. It isn't forced on us but there if we want it.
    Maybe Kauffmann got this side of GOODFELLAS but wasn't convinced. Maybe he found the violence and mayhem too easy-going and entertaining. (I don't recall the review.)
    Also, maybe there are personal biases. Maybe growing up Jewish in NY, he recalled some of these lowlife hoodlums, and the mere sight of them sickened him.
    His movie reviews of the 70s reflected on the rising crime. Though he didn't think highly of DEATH WISH, he was partly sympathetic because of the troubling times in NY. And he expressed his revulsion of THE WARRIORS(in his review of LONG RIDERS) because it seemed to romanticize the worst aspects of NY as street crime and gangs were spreading like a cancer. Kauffmann always had this moralistic side even though it was never upfront as with Bosley Crowther or Jeffrey Lyons(who usually gushed about social issues movies like ELENI and SALVADOR). Kauffmann thought WEST SIDE STORY the greatest musical for its fantastic music and message, the very reasons Kael disparaged it. She found it over-elaborate and heavy with sermonizing when her ideal of the musical was about sparkle and speed. Kauffmann had little use for the bloodbath movies of Brian DePalma(beloved by Kael), but he found Depalma's THE UNTOUCHABLES marvelous. That side of Kauffmann was, one might say, a bit old-fashioned. But it wasn't so much that he hated violence per se. He wrote one of the most rave reviews for THE WILD BUNCH. Rather, he took violence seriously and thought movies had to justify the bloodletting, and he thought Peckinpah did so at his best. But he had little regard for violence that merely exulted in sensationalism or left him cold and numb. John Boorman was also taken aback by GOODFELLAS. He found it overly fast and furious, too fun for a sober reflection of what crime really entails. He made the grim corrective with THE GENERAL, a very good film(though I stand my view of GOODFELLAS a total masterpiece).

    Another thing about critics is some just have certain fetishes. Sarris loved tracking shots so much that he deemed LOLA MONTEZ the greatest film ever at one time. Kehr has an auteurish thing for Classic Hollywood, which explains why he's been so infatuated with Eastwood as the torch-bearer of the nearly lost art of film-making as a honest craft. Rosenbaum has a fetish for long foreign movies with stretches of silence. I can see the virtue of some of these films, but with Rosenbaum it's really a fetish. He sees or hears profundity in the 'silence' of these obscure films that he berates everyone else of ignoring.
    And it's incredible but many intelligent critics really think the dreadful Chantal Akerman was a great profound film-maker. If I subscribe to your rule of what constitutes a good critic -- Kauffmann is suspect because he preferred DANCES over GOODFELLAS -- , then every critic who praised Akerman must be a total idiot. I would like to believe this, but it's not true as they've made wonderful sense about other films. So, I just live by the rule Vive le Difference. (And then, a film-maker as intelligent as Ingmar Bergman sees almost nothing good about Orson Welles who, in turn, couldn't stand Antonioni. Tarkovsky did attain greatness, but he could be the biggest prick when it came to passing judgement on other film-makers.)

    The way I see it, most sane critics have a general sense of what constitutes great cinema. So, if you ask them to list their top 100, there will be Fords, Hawks, Bressons, Kurosawas, Renoirs, Ozus, Kubricks, and etc. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, there will be differences, even when it comes to great films and directors. And some of these differences will be HUGE. I think TREE OF LIFE sucks! But Roger Ebert, who became an expert on cinema, listed it as one of the top 10 greatest films. But then, maybe it had special meaning for him near the end of his life when he was mostly bed-ridden and thinking back on childhood. Oftentimes, critics are like TV antennas. Some pick up signals that others don't. It's like that scene in FARGO where the Buscemi character is having a hissy fit messing with the antennae that won't work pick up the signals. Same with the antennae in SERIOUS MAN. But the sullen other guy seems to be picking up signals from a dark place unknown to most. This explains the cult film phenom. The cult fans of a certain films pick up signals that others do not. I get it from HAROLD AND MAUDE whereas those who don't are annoyed by that film. But I don't get DONNIE DARKO, but others love that movie. Movie viewing is like MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. Some are more tuned to certain signals while shut to others. Also, people come with different references, cultural and political. Someone who is a fan of Walter Hill will approach GERONIMO differently than someone who has no idea who he is.. or generally thinks he's an awful director.

    Also, perspectives change over time. Neither Ebert nor Siskel cared much for BLADE RUNNER upon release. Both appreciated it a lot more later. THE SHINING got mostly mixed reviews. It was later that critics began to see its greatness, almost universally. Also, some films are likeable or powerful on first viewing but wear off over time.
    I found PLATOON and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN over-powering on first viewings because of the violence, but once the shock wore off, there wasn't much in terms of characters or thematic development.
    Some movies that did nothing to me on first view grew over the yrs. THE HIT by Stephen Frears is a good example; I like it a lot more now. I also like LAST TANGO and LAST EMPEROR much more now than in the past.
    I also underrated NO WAY OUT and MANHUNTER. TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA was such a gold-standard of 80s action-film-making that I tended to compare other action thrillers(unfavorably of course) to Friedkin's instant classic. But now, I can value the other films for their particular strengths.
    And there are some movies I loved, hated, loved, hate, loved. Milos Forman's movies have done this to me, not least because he tried to have it both ways: personal film-making and populist pandering. So, I loved HAIR, hated HAIR, loved HAIR, hate HAIR, loved HAIR, and am back to hating it so much I will never see it again probably. Same with AMADEUS. Loved it, hated it, loved it, hated it, now I don't know. RAGTIME too, though that is currently on my love list, along with ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO's NEST, as well as his Czech New Wave films that were, in some ways, his most personal.
  80. @Prof. Woland
    The media is much more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason they don't allow cigarette commercials on TV any longer.

    My wife is Russian and I get a steady diet of what Putin churns out to contrast with what Hollywood produces. They don't have the constant out-grouping, endless nit-picking, poz culture piped into everyone's homes like we do. It helps allow the majority population to reach a consensus on many basic things that are necessary in a cohesive society. Here, the object is to attack the majority relentlessly and elevate newcomers, refugees, minorities above the general population.

    Also, if you don't think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.

    Russia has one of the highest divorce and abortion rates in the world, even factoring in recent declines. That would seem to cut against your argument.

    • Replies: @Rod1963
    Actually it's not. Anyone whose studied advertising and PR know how powerful of a medium TV is in manipulating people in believing they need the latest product, political candidate or even a march to war as in the invasion of Iraq on both occasions.
  81. @Prof. Woland
    I know someone professionally who was a newspaper reporter for most of his career, and then as a second career, came to work in my industry. He is Jewish / gay and quite liberal. It is pretty amazing to think that this guy was writing dispassionately about anything. No enemies on the left and no friends on the right.

    But now, thanks to the internet, he is unemployed and working in a right of center / Republican industry in the age of Trump. I think what gets this guys goat more than anything is that he was beaten at his own game. We don't need clever guys like him to tell us what to think or what we are allowed to know. He has been replaced, just like all the goys he resents so much. disinter-mediation will hit these guys the hardest.

    Never underestimate how much the internet will displace / replace / disrupt intermediaries that managed to elbow their way to the levers of power and monopolize what we saw and heard. With the exception of the tech platforms, it is going to be a very hard slide into the mosh pit with the rest of the deplorables as they retreat out of the area they have controlled for 100 years.

    My pet theory is that this is why Steve Bannon is so roundly hated. He is the face of the internet, this amorphous, anonymous, free exchange of information that has put much of the print newspapers / magazines out of business. There are 210 million white people in America having a conversation without having to ask permission or look over their shoulders.

    Yes and now the once mighty Atlantic Monthly is reduced to putting hit pieces on its cover over a flyover country high school drop put millennial like Andrew Anglin.

  82. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    If Chris Hedges were a zillionaire, he'd be the most extraordinary such person ever.
    ___________________________________________

    "As a force in American journalism, we certainly have. Jews edit The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, Buzzfeed, Politico, and the opinion pages of The New York Times and Washington Post."

    That is a rather impressive list. The WSJ is absent from it. Are there no completists in the world of finance who might rectify that situation?

    Try being a gentile white guy novelist or non-fiction writer who doesn’t toe the line and see how far you get in the literary world.

  83. @Tiny Duck
    Mock white privilege all you want

    All People of Color know it to be true and in need of destruction

    Tiny says, “Mock white privilege all you want”.

    Who’s mocking it? It is a privilege to be white. We don’t deny it.

    It’s a challenge as well. We have a great deal to be proud of and equally, to live up to. “Ever onward in greatness” is our motto. Sorry, we’re too busy to be bothered with those we have lapped. Just don’t get in our way, sonny boy, or try to trip us up.

  84. @peterike

    What he managed to do is collect people who had distinct voices (and often entertaining ones).

     

    Pffft. You could put together a more distinct and entertaining set of "voices" by selecting from among the Unz commenters.

    Not including you, obviously.

    You could put together a more distinct and entertaining set of “voices” by selecting from among the Unz commenters.

    I don’t think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year, or that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.

    • Replies: @anon
    I don’t think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year,

    This is clearly false, if you just look at the number of comments we produce every year.

    that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.

    Why so nasty all of a sudden, Artie? You get your feelings hurt?

    I'm sorry we offended you, but you're letting your Jewish fragility show. It's most unbecoming.
  85. @Jake
    "American Jews qua Jews were not notably ‘privileged’ in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere."

    That's as truthful as asserting that the sons of Old Money WASPs, such as the Bushes, are not particularly privileged.

    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group. Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs.

    That’s as truthful as asserting that the sons of Old Money WASPs, such as the Bushes, are not particularly privileged.

    You’re confusing your categories, comparing wealthy bluebloods with the general run of the Jewish population.

    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group.

    So what?

    Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs

    Sez who?

  86. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    You could put together a more distinct and entertaining set of “voices” by selecting from among the Unz commenters.

    I don't think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year, or that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.

    I don’t think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year,

    This is clearly false, if you just look at the number of comments we produce every year.

    that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.

    Why so nasty all of a sudden, Artie? You get your feelings hurt?

    I’m sorry we offended you, but you’re letting your Jewish fragility show. It’s most unbecoming.

  87. @Crawfurdmuir
    Straight may have been editor of TNR for just half-a-dozen years, but at other times he was its publisher, and he did not leave the magazine until 1956. In any event, he was ensconced there during the entire McCarthy era, using his position and influence to discredit the Senator, whose characterizations of Communist infiltration in the United States were in fact substantially correct.

    See for further information Roland Perry's Last of the Cold War Spies (2006) and M. Stanton Evans's Blacklisted by History (2009).

    and he did not leave the magazine until 1956.

    He had a spot on the masthead with an honorific title, ‘Editor at Large’. The publication was owned and edited by Gilbert Harrison at that point.

  88. @anon
    I take it you fancy the illegitimacy rate is north of 25% in just about every occidental country in the world and the probability of eventual divorce among married couples is around 40% in the United States, France, Britain, &c. because da Joos have tricked everyone into behaving this way?

    You know what I find most amusing about this? YOU are the one who singled out the "legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media". Those were YOUR words. All I did was agree with you. Then I pointed out who controls the "legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media", and all of a sudden, it's a completely ridiculous idea that they could have anything to do with anything! It's all a crazed anti-Semitic consipiracy theory now!

    OK. I’ll. Speak. Real. Slow. So. Maybe. You. Understand.

    1. Various professional sectors promote a particular type of behavior. They cannot induce people to engage in that behavior.

    2. Jews control the media, the mental health trade, and the legal profession in the addled minds of the unzosphere, not in the world that actually exists.

    3. The number of Jewish lawyers in America is not going to cause Scandinavians to go whole hog for bastardy.

    • Replies: @anon
    1. Various professional sectors promote a particular type of behavior.

    Agreed. Especially Jews, like you helpfully pointed out.

    They cannot induce people to engage in that behavior.

    Never said they could, did I?

    2. Jews control the media, the mental health trade, and the legal profession in the addled minds of the unzosphere, not in the world that actually exists

    HA! Who does control the media, then?

    This ought to be a good one.

    Be careful. Remember the legend of Pinocchio here. Lies make your nose grow.

    3. The number of Jewish lawyers in America is not going to cause Scandinavians to go whole hog for bastardy.

    Then why did YOU point the finger at them, then? Hmm? Remember. All I did was agree with YOUR statement about who did what to whom.

    Here is what YOU said:

    The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers’ view of human relations.

    Why did YOU say that if you didn't think it was true?

  89. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    OK. I'll. Speak. Real. Slow. So. Maybe. You. Understand.

    1. Various professional sectors promote a particular type of behavior. They cannot induce people to engage in that behavior.

    2. Jews control the media, the mental health trade, and the legal profession in the addled minds of the unzosphere, not in the world that actually exists.

    3. The number of Jewish lawyers in America is not going to cause Scandinavians to go whole hog for bastardy.

    1. Various professional sectors promote a particular type of behavior.

    Agreed. Especially Jews, like you helpfully pointed out.

    They cannot induce people to engage in that behavior.

    Never said they could, did I?

    2. Jews control the media, the mental health trade, and the legal profession in the addled minds of the unzosphere, not in the world that actually exists

    HA! Who does control the media, then?

    This ought to be a good one.

    Be careful. Remember the legend of Pinocchio here. Lies make your nose grow.

    3. The number of Jewish lawyers in America is not going to cause Scandinavians to go whole hog for bastardy.

    Then why did YOU point the finger at them, then? Hmm? Remember. All I did was agree with YOUR statement about who did what to whom.

    Here is what YOU said:

    The legal profession, the mental health trade, and the media have certainly promoted a consumers’ view of human relations.

    Why did YOU say that if you didn’t think it was true?

  90. @Boethiuss

    Have you looked at the stock-market averages, lately? Have you seen as many “help wanted” signs in your lifetime, not just for fast-food restaurants and discount retailers but for every business imaginable?
     
    Yeah, that doesn't really fly. Besides being factually questionable, the problem is Trump taking credit for things that he has little or nothing to do with, like Obama taking credit for killing Osama bin Laden. It sounds good, but nobody is really fooled.

    I take it from your prior comment that you are more sympathetic to the Right as it is represented here than the Left, as it trolls here. I also take it that you are sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Trump’s politics have broken free many in the working class from being strictly beholden to the Left or to the Leftish Democrats? But you regard Mr. Trump as an imperfect leader for the genuine concerns of the people he is championing?

    My remarks regarding the Trump Economic Boom are factually questionable? The stock market, yes, perhaps only an indicator of economic sentiment, but it suggests that Moldbug’s Visaya Caste (do I have Moldbug’s caste descriptions correct?), you know, Paul Fussell’s “high proles”, the Sinclair’s Babbitts, the moneyed Deplorables, these people really, really love Mr. Trump and what he is doing.

    As to the help-wanted signs, in my sector of Flyover U.S.A., those signs have sprouted up all up and down the majors highways in this state, something I had not seen in over 30 years of living here. Furthermore, all of the correct-thinking people I know who follow finance were certain that Mr. Trump’s election would bring a stock market crash — one of them told of purchasing options or other financial interests to “hedge” against the possibility of Mr. Trump’s election. The week after, I had never seen such sour faces before. He spent, he wasted a lot of money on that financial insurance and Mr. Trump got elected.

    And do you honestly and seriously believe that if Ms. Clinton were elected that we would be seeing anywhere near this level of economic exuberance?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    I also take it that you are sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Trump’s politics have broken free many in the working class from being strictly beholden to the Left or to the Leftish Democrats? But you regard Mr. Trump as an imperfect leader for the genuine concerns of the people he is championing?
     
    Sort of, but it's a much bigger deal than that. Among other things, Trump can't ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona. That means, for friend, foe and indifferent alike, that he cannot present his orders or his initiatives as being normal, and thereby go into effect just by the ordinary course of events. Not only is there resistance that we can see, there is also the perception that Trump is a temporary aberration, and whenever he leaves all his half-cocked measures will simply be unwound.

    And, it also has to be said that the problem is significantly bigger than Trump as well. Specifically, there is a strong appetite among important factions of the Right for factional antagonism for other factions of the Right. This applies to the populists, of course, but it also applies to the radical conservatives against the more mainstream variety. This is what is going on in the Alabama Senate race which is currently dominating the news. It's not that Alabama conservatives have some particular love for Roy Moore. Instead, they really want to fight a factional battle inside the Right, and Roy Moore just happens to be today's platform to do it.


    My remarks regarding the Trump Economic Boom are factually questionable?
     
    That's the way it looks from here. I was around from say, 1995-2000, and what we're seeing today is nothing remotely like the way it was then. In any event, I don't think there's anything relating to the economy that President Trump can take the credit or blame for. The policy has more or less been on autopilot since the Inauguration.
  91. @anon
    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.

    Oh? You mean you didn't catch that article Steve wrote less than a day ago, about Peter Beinart talking about his white privilege?

    You want to see what happens when you do a New York Times search for "white privilege"?

    You seem to have a really hard time being honest, Art. What should I chalk this predisposition towards dishonesty up to?

    It doesn’t exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    You don't think so? Tell me something. If you went on a TV interview and started bitching about white privilege, and I went on TV and started bitching about Jewish privilege, which one of us would be essentially unemployable, starting the next day?

    (Note: I do not expect an honest answer to that question, for obvious reasons.)

    You don’t think so? Tell me something. If you went on a TV interview and started bitching about white privilege, and I went on TV and started bitching about Jewish privilege, which one of us would be essentially unemployable, starting the next day?

    If you went on television babbling about ‘Jewish privilege’, you’d just sound like a poisonous crank. You believe that mess. The general public doesn’t when they think about it for the obvious reason that Jews are less than 2% of the population (about 1% outside of the New York and Miami commuter belts) and because the kookery about Israel tricking the U.S. Government into fighting the Iraq War and Israel being responsible for the political dysfunctions of Muslim societies is recognized as kookery by people without a pre-existing animus.

    The babble about ‘white privilege’ is humbug. It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set. Doesn’t have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

    • Replies: @anon
    If you went on television babbling about ‘Jewish privilege’, you’d just sound like a poisonous crank.

    Possibly. But why don't you think the members of your tribe sound like poisonous cranks when they talk about white privilege? Which they do. All the time.

    That's the point, Artie. If such a thing as "white privilege" exists, then "Jewish privilege" ALSO certainly exists.

    But you and your co-ethnics get away with saying it about us. We wouldn't get away with saying it about you.

    If you don't want to call that "privilege", then what word do you suggest we use?

    The babble about ‘white privilege’ is humbug.

    But they do it anyway, and they get away with it.

    It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set.

    But your denial of Jewish privilege doesn't have that effect on your status. What do you make of that, Artie?

    If a Jewish person makes an accusation, and it lowers my status to defend myself against that accusation, then who would you say has more "privilege" in that situation?

    Doesn’t have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

    You really seem to think saying the word "qua" makes you sound smart.

  92. @Percy Gryce
    Poor Peter, he'll never live down Andrew Ferguson's takedown:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/press-man-pundit-declined/

    I wondered how many comments would pass before Commentary magazine was mentioned.

    TNR became a remarkable hybrid, only possible because of the extraordinary acceptance and privilege afforded to Jews in late 20th century America: an influential liberal political magazine that was explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns.

    “Cuz Lord only knows that Commentary magazine wasn’t “explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns.” LOL.

    I guess there can be two remarkable hybrids, no…

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Commentary is an explicitly Jewish magazine , underwritten for the vast majority of it's history by the American Jewish Committee. Nothing hybrid about it.
  93. @Jack D
    That's one of the sad things about future America. When the Jewish intellectual class (partially) displaced the WASP intellectual class as the thought leaders of America it might have been a shift to the left but it wasn't a shift downward in terms of intellectual quality. But the new black and female "intellectual" class, with leaders such as Genius T. Coates is full of second and third rate intellects and affirmative action hires. Much of the new discourse is in the form of "shut up, he explained" because these folks are not really in a position to offer a logically consistent defense of their ideology.

    When it comes to science and math, the fading Jews have largely been displaced by Asians so all is well, but Asians are not as interested in, and not as strong as, Jews in the verbal realm so the field is being left to our future idiocrats instead. Blacks can have a certain verbal fluency but it's not backed by a lot of logical skill so you end up with Jesse Jackson/Tennessee Coates double talk instead.

    There was a Bernard Malamud novel, called the Tenants, which is partly about Jews attempting to bring along black intellectuals post-Civil Rights. You know, making them the New Jews. But it didn’t take.

    Some, upon realizing they never would, used it as motivation to go neoconservative. (Though the main impetus for that was Israel.) I don’t mean just because they were literally “mugged by reality,” but because they lost faith in the whole Civil Rights religion.

    In so doing, they lost part of their edge. They could compete as just another white person, but who wants to be that in Diversitopia?

  94. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    You don’t think so? Tell me something. If you went on a TV interview and started bitching about white privilege, and I went on TV and started bitching about Jewish privilege, which one of us would be essentially unemployable, starting the next day?

    If you went on television babbling about 'Jewish privilege', you'd just sound like a poisonous crank. You believe that mess. The general public doesn't when they think about it for the obvious reason that Jews are less than 2% of the population (about 1% outside of the New York and Miami commuter belts) and because the kookery about Israel tricking the U.S. Government into fighting the Iraq War and Israel being responsible for the political dysfunctions of Muslim societies is recognized as kookery by people without a pre-existing animus.

    The babble about 'white privilege' is humbug. It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set. Doesn't have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

    If you went on television babbling about ‘Jewish privilege’, you’d just sound like a poisonous crank.

    Possibly. But why don’t you think the members of your tribe sound like poisonous cranks when they talk about white privilege? Which they do. All the time.

    That’s the point, Artie. If such a thing as “white privilege” exists, then “Jewish privilege” ALSO certainly exists.

    But you and your co-ethnics get away with saying it about us. We wouldn’t get away with saying it about you.

    If you don’t want to call that “privilege”, then what word do you suggest we use?

    The babble about ‘white privilege’ is humbug.

    But they do it anyway, and they get away with it.

    It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set.

    But your denial of Jewish privilege doesn’t have that effect on your status. What do you make of that, Artie?

    If a Jewish person makes an accusation, and it lowers my status to defend myself against that accusation, then who would you say has more “privilege” in that situation?

    Doesn’t have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

    You really seem to think saying the word “qua” makes you sound smart.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You really seem to think saying the word “qua” makes you sound smart.
     
    And "Quondam". Don't forget "quondam". He really likes that word (it means "former"). I guess he paid a lot for his education, and though all it got him was a job as a university librarian (apparently), he's going to squeeze every nickel out of every ten-dollar word he ever looked up.

    Art Deco isn't merely a liar. He is also the most insufferable kind of smug, pedantic prig.
    , @Brutusale
    No bull mastiff with a tasty bone is more single-mindedly dogged about protecting theirs than AD.

    And c'mon, anon, it IS 1938, right?

  95. @Inquiring Mind
    You mean like Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" whistling Siegfried's Idyll?

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=larry+david+whistling+wagner&view=detail&mid=6EE7EE7F7813CB65D4DD6EE7EE7F7813CB65D4DD&FORM=VIRE

    I’m not sure what connection you’re drawing. What Larry’s guilty of there is failing to subjugate his aesthetic taste to ethnic interests. (You’re a “self-hating Jew” if you enjoy melodies created by a known anti-semite.)

    There’s nothing about the goyim Noticing. In fact, whistling Wagner would be a good way to blend in, if the average white person cared about fine distinctions in classical music appreciation.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    Walter assumes that Larry is Jewish and calls him out for whistling Wagner, but Larry's first reaction is that Walter is an anti-Semite for demanding to know if Larry is Jewish -- a Gentile demanding to know if one is Jewish is the first category of offense.

    Walter is further worked up that Larry doesn't recognize immediately that Walter is also Jewish, which is the second category of offense.

    Finally, Walter is making a scene in public about Larry's improper expression of his Jewish identity, which is the third category of offense.

    Larry David's sketch has all three levels of "noticing."

  96. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I believe Charles Lane is Jewish. Pretty sure I remember him sending his kids to Jewish day school.

    You’re right. His wife had a still born child in 2002 and he discussed the funeral preparations. (“Under Jewish Law”).

  97. @Prof. Woland
    The media is much more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason they don't allow cigarette commercials on TV any longer.

    My wife is Russian and I get a steady diet of what Putin churns out to contrast with what Hollywood produces. They don't have the constant out-grouping, endless nit-picking, poz culture piped into everyone's homes like we do. It helps allow the majority population to reach a consensus on many basic things that are necessary in a cohesive society. Here, the object is to attack the majority relentlessly and elevate newcomers, refugees, minorities above the general population.

    Also, if you don't think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.

    Also, if you don’t think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.

    No it wouldn’t. An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    And, again, you’re confusing the contemporary media with film studios ca. 1940.

    • Replies: @anon
    An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    More than half the public voted for the Democratic party in the past three presidential elections.
    , @Mr. Anon

    No it wouldn’t. An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.
     
    And yet, the national media within a span of some thirty to forty years was able to normalize homosexuality, including homosexual marriage and even transsexuality.

    You are a deluded fool.
  98. @Tiny Duck
    Mock white privilege all you want

    All People of Color know it to be true and in need of destruction

    Ohs Tinys…..axe not fo who da pribilege tolze…..it tolz fo un yous.

    Le Nerd “Po Et Lory Et at teh Unz Show” PiTz

  99. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Again, not outside your imagination.
     
    Imagination? Please help me understand. The numbers don't back you up so help me understand why the numbers are wrong.

    What numbers? Other than perhaps Yeshiva or Brandeis, you’re not going to find a school outside some rabbinical academy ‘dominated’ by Jews. (Mr. Unz attempted to promote the idea that the Jewish population of Harvard was round 25% of the total and wasn’t gracious about it when a statistician demonstrated he was in error).

  100. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.
     
    For this to be true, you'd have to have limited your human interaction to only student affairs apparatchiks and perpheral faculty, never read a book, never perused a magazine or newspaper, never browsed the internet, never watched a movie and never turned on a TV.

    That's quite the sheltered live there, Art. You need to get out more.

    Who writes the books and articles to which you’re referring? Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    • Replies: @anon
    Who writes the books and articles to which you’re referring?

    You were here just the other day when Steve wrote that piece about those two ice cream Cohens out in Vermont who wrote about "white privilege". And I know you saw it too, because you left comments on it, kvetching about how pointing out Jewish privilege was some huge conspiracy theory, while treating their comments about white privilege as no big deal, and nothing to worry about.

    Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    Even if those really WERE the only people doing it, those people still have a lot more influence than the commenters on iSteve. And you seem like you have a pretty big bug up your butt about them, so why is it so weird when we take umbrage at people who are actually famous doing the same thing to us?

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Now you're just being a dick - or a purposeful idiot.

    You're like Corvinus with a larger vocabulary. Your whole schtick is to continually demand finer information until nobody remembers what the hell we were talking about. That's fine for some purposes but not for honest debate.

    Me: Leaves are generally green in the summer.

    Art: But some leaves are not, how can you say that?

    Me: Here's a detailed list of plants with green leaves in the summer showing that the overwhelming number of plants in the summer have green leaves.

    Art: Well, that depends on how you define green. Some are a bit reddish, others more of a bit brown. Besides, there's no accepted definition of green. Please prove what the color green is.

    I grew up around academics but have lived my adult life with doers. I know your type. And I know your worth outside of academia.

    If you don't know what I'm talking about in my previous comment, you're not worth talking to because, to use the classic line, you're either an idiot or a liar.
    , @Johann Ricke

    I don’t think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year, or that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.
     
    I'd have to agree. As Jack D wrote earlier, the number of people willing to get on a soapbox for free is simply too high, and the number of people interested in paying for the musings of people on soapboxes is too low. That applies to every variety of commentary. It's probably why journalists are so left-wing. They need a sugar daddy to provide them the security that their jobs lack. Same deal with people in the entertainment industry.

    However, that's not necessarily a knock on these people. Going back thousands of years, creative people have generally required wealthy patrons. It would be nice, however, if those wealthy patrons weren't actually the average taxpaying Joe Blow through his Federal income tax. There are plenty of wealthy people willing to sponsor talents they find worthy.
  101. @Art Deco
    Also, if you don’t think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.


    No it wouldn't. An you know it wouldn't because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    And, again, you're confusing the contemporary media with film studios ca. 1940.

    An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    More than half the public voted for the Democratic party in the past three presidential elections.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    For the record, they did not in the most recent presidential election. That aside, they lose and lose lower down on the ballot.
  102. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Who writes the books and articles to which you're referring? Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    Who writes the books and articles to which you’re referring?

    You were here just the other day when Steve wrote that piece about those two ice cream Cohens out in Vermont who wrote about “white privilege”. And I know you saw it too, because you left comments on it, kvetching about how pointing out Jewish privilege was some huge conspiracy theory, while treating their comments about white privilege as no big deal, and nothing to worry about.

    Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    Even if those really WERE the only people doing it, those people still have a lot more influence than the commenters on iSteve. And you seem like you have a pretty big bug up your butt about them, so why is it so weird when we take umbrage at people who are actually famous doing the same thing to us?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    "ice cream Cohens out in Vermont "

    Ice cream Cohen is a wonderful formulation. No, strike that, I'm offended! No, outraged! Yep outraged, that's the ticket.
    , @Rod1963
    Arty is just being intellectually dishonest. You can't debate such people, because they are so dishonest and change the goal posts at a whim.
  103. @Crawfurdmuir

    Peretz being one of those misogynistic Charles Kinbote-like gays who form mutual admiration societies with young men and who doesn’t think the female sex has much to offer was always one of those open secrets in the political and intellectual world.
     
    The gay influence at TNR goes back at least as far as the Jewish influence. In the post-WWII period, TNR was edited and published by Michael Straight. Straight (who was apparently bisexual), the son of a fabulously wealthy family, had been recruited to the Communist Party at Cambridge by the gay Anthony Blunt, who had also recruited the very gay Guy Burgess. After Cambridge, Straight was sent back to the U.S. and, through his family's social connections, given a place in the Roosevelt administration; following the war it was decided that he would serve the Soviets better at TNR, which was originally bankrolled by his parents.

    The Soviet agent Straight was, during the heyday of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, one of the leading lights of the Committee for an Effective Congress, which was in the vanguard of efforts to discredit the Senator. According to William F. Buckley, Jr., this group was behind the speech in which "an elderly and prudish Senator from Vermont [Ralph Flanders] dutifully read from a script prepared by an organization composed of many of the nation's mighty, imputing sexual perversions to Senator McCarthy and members of his staff... Senator Flanders' speech, it transpired, was prepared by the Committee for an Effective Congress..." [Up From Liberalism (New Rochelle, NY, 1973: Arlington House), p. 53].

    Of course, McCarthy's staff counsel Roy Cohn was gay, and so the imputations of Sen. Flanders had some veracity. It is highly likely that they made their way into his speech thanks to Straight, and sources of Soviet intelligence in the fairly secretive gay subculture of that time and place.

    The gay influence at TNR goes back at least as far as the Jewish influence. In the post-WWII period, TNR was edited and published by Michael Straight. Straight (who was apparently bisexual), the son of a fabulously wealthy family, had been recruited to the Communist Party at Cambridge by the gay Anthony Blunt, who had also recruited the very gay Guy Burgess.

    Michael Straight’s a rather interesting guy: Haute-WASP background (his mother was Dorothy Payne Whitney), Cambridge-educated (after his father’s death, his mother married a Brit, Leonard Knight Elmhirst), minor novelist (he wrote two Westerns that got decent reviews), etc. He was also responsible for cracking Anthony Blunt’s (the so-called “Fourth Man” of the “Cambridge Five” spy ring) cover in 1963 when he decided to come clean.

    His siblings are also of note. His brother was Whitney Willard Straight, (a Grand Prix driver and Air Commodore in the RAF during WW2), and his sister was the Academy Award Winning actress Beatrice Straight (Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Network).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Straight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Straight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Straight

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt

  104. @Art Deco
    Who writes the books and articles to which you're referring? Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    Now you’re just being a dick – or a purposeful idiot.

    You’re like Corvinus with a larger vocabulary. Your whole schtick is to continually demand finer information until nobody remembers what the hell we were talking about. That’s fine for some purposes but not for honest debate.

    Me: Leaves are generally green in the summer.

    Art: But some leaves are not, how can you say that?

    Me: Here’s a detailed list of plants with green leaves in the summer showing that the overwhelming number of plants in the summer have green leaves.

    Art: Well, that depends on how you define green. Some are a bit reddish, others more of a bit brown. Besides, there’s no accepted definition of green. Please prove what the color green is.

    I grew up around academics but have lived my adult life with doers. I know your type. And I know your worth outside of academia.

    If you don’t know what I’m talking about in my previous comment, you’re not worth talking to because, to use the classic line, you’re either an idiot or a liar.

    • Replies: @anon
    His argument seems to be something like "Only academics ever write books about white privilege! And how influential can a book by an academic possibly be? It's not like they're as influential as random, anonymous internet commenters or something! Those are the guys we should be worrying about!".
    , @Hibernian
    He and Corvinus and some others also masquerade as Conservatives from time to time, which Mr. Duck has never done, to my knowledge.
    , @Art Deco
    Now you’re just being a dick – or a purposeful idiot.

    No, you're having trouble understanding a straightforward point. Which is your problem, not mine.
  105. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Now you're just being a dick - or a purposeful idiot.

    You're like Corvinus with a larger vocabulary. Your whole schtick is to continually demand finer information until nobody remembers what the hell we were talking about. That's fine for some purposes but not for honest debate.

    Me: Leaves are generally green in the summer.

    Art: But some leaves are not, how can you say that?

    Me: Here's a detailed list of plants with green leaves in the summer showing that the overwhelming number of plants in the summer have green leaves.

    Art: Well, that depends on how you define green. Some are a bit reddish, others more of a bit brown. Besides, there's no accepted definition of green. Please prove what the color green is.

    I grew up around academics but have lived my adult life with doers. I know your type. And I know your worth outside of academia.

    If you don't know what I'm talking about in my previous comment, you're not worth talking to because, to use the classic line, you're either an idiot or a liar.

    His argument seems to be something like “Only academics ever write books about white privilege! And how influential can a book by an academic possibly be? It’s not like they’re as influential as random, anonymous internet commenters or something! Those are the guys we should be worrying about!”.

  106. @Laugh Track

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.).
     
    You might want to add The Nation to the exception list. It's edited by Katrina vanden Heuvel, though not particularly well, IMO. But maybe she's stretched a little thin by all the Nation Cruises she hosts.

    Ms. Vanden Heuvel bought that leftist fishwrap with inherited money. Or, excuse me, “a controlling interest.”

  107. @a reader
    Sorry, OT, but certainly noteworthy:

    Yesterday, in the General Silveria Honored with ADL's "Americanism Award" thread, commenter jesse helms think-alike called our attention to a clip displayed on James Woods twitter. (scroll his page down to 13 nov)
    It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas.

    I asked if I was alone to find these pictures spine-chilling.

    Susan Wojcicki obviously shared my fears as this two year-old clip was quickly removed, (in France at least; somewhere else?)

    It’s still on YouTube in the US, and it is disturbing.

    • Replies: @a reader
    Here is a screenshot of the page as it appears in France:

    This video is not available.

    I guess our overseers ain't to keen on letting us deplorables know what to expect in the very near future. Here's a map of the latest sickle cell disease numbers in France; the bold ones are the percentage of [black] babies tested in 2016.

    The average for France is 39,39%, while it reaches 73,56% in the Paris area.

    The numbers come from the official government agency for birth defects' prevention, AFDPHE. [full report]

  108. @Art Deco
    Who writes the books and articles to which you're referring? Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    I don’t think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year, or that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.

    I’d have to agree. As Jack D wrote earlier, the number of people willing to get on a soapbox for free is simply too high, and the number of people interested in paying for the musings of people on soapboxes is too low. That applies to every variety of commentary. It’s probably why journalists are so left-wing. They need a sugar daddy to provide them the security that their jobs lack. Same deal with people in the entertainment industry.

    However, that’s not necessarily a knock on these people. Going back thousands of years, creative people have generally required wealthy patrons. It would be nice, however, if those wealthy patrons weren’t actually the average taxpaying Joe Blow through his Federal income tax. There are plenty of wealthy people willing to sponsor talents they find worthy.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    They aided and abetted their own deaths. The press in America has the responsibility to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". They became the comfortable and have spent the last 40 years hectoring the afflicted, which is why they now depend on writing encomiums to the more comfortable for their daily bread.

    They're dying a well-deserved death. We have a couple generations now whose price point for news and entertainment is essentially zero.
  109. @Art Deco
    The only people I've ever encountered who yap about 'white privilege' were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty. Neither occupational group in my experience is notably Jewish.



    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege?

    It doesn't exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    “…people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.”

    I had one, maybe two, Jewish professor(s) in college. I can’t remember having a Jewish boss (direct supervisor.) College was an A&M type school in a rural state; my adult working life has been in the big city. There have been high ranking, influential Jews in the organization I work for; also there have been Irish people, Italians, African-Americans, Polish people, Chinese, Indians, Muslims, and women, who fit the same description. I don’t think Mr. Goldberg has that great a direct influence on my life. I’m also aware that Chicago’s North Shore, the most affluent suburban area around here, is largely WASP and Jewish, with an increasing Lace Curtain Irish Catholic element. (There goes the neighborhood.) Draw your own conclusions.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    My conclusion is that there are a mess of people whose worldview is constructed around a resentment of Jews, which, in turn, is constructed around a caricature of Jews (their pretensions aside). Why they are this way only they can answer (and, just as likely, most of them really cannot).
  110. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Now you're just being a dick - or a purposeful idiot.

    You're like Corvinus with a larger vocabulary. Your whole schtick is to continually demand finer information until nobody remembers what the hell we were talking about. That's fine for some purposes but not for honest debate.

    Me: Leaves are generally green in the summer.

    Art: But some leaves are not, how can you say that?

    Me: Here's a detailed list of plants with green leaves in the summer showing that the overwhelming number of plants in the summer have green leaves.

    Art: Well, that depends on how you define green. Some are a bit reddish, others more of a bit brown. Besides, there's no accepted definition of green. Please prove what the color green is.

    I grew up around academics but have lived my adult life with doers. I know your type. And I know your worth outside of academia.

    If you don't know what I'm talking about in my previous comment, you're not worth talking to because, to use the classic line, you're either an idiot or a liar.

    He and Corvinus and some others also masquerade as Conservatives from time to time, which Mr. Duck has never done, to my knowledge.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Ms. Vanden Heuvel's grandpa, Dr. Jules Stein, was a Chicago eye doctor who got bored with doctoring and went into the speakeasy music booking business in association with Al Capone.
  111. @a reader
    Sorry, OT, but certainly noteworthy:

    Yesterday, in the General Silveria Honored with ADL's "Americanism Award" thread, commenter jesse helms think-alike called our attention to a clip displayed on James Woods twitter. (scroll his page down to 13 nov)
    It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas.

    I asked if I was alone to find these pictures spine-chilling.

    Susan Wojcicki obviously shared my fears as this two year-old clip was quickly removed, (in France at least; somewhere else?)

    Not American, just ‘Americanism’.

  112. @Jack D

    I remember once hearing Wieseltier explain that he had asked an author to submit his book review by Rosh Hodesh.
     
    I assume this was meant as a joke. Most non-Orthodox American Jews (meaning most of the Jews who write for publications such as TNR) would have no idea when the next Rosh Chodesh is. "Rosh Chodesh" is the head of the month, i.e. the 1st of day of each month of the Hebrew (lunar) calendar, which is also the date of the new moon. It is of minor liturgical importance to the Orthodox and of zero importance to the non-Orthodox.

    I think the joke was this - most Jews (at least the ones who have been to Hebrew school) at least know what Rosh Chodesh means if not when the next one is, but most non-Jews wouldn't even know what he is talking about. This was to even the score for all the centuries when Christian editors told their Jewish employees to hand in their reviews before the Feast of the Transfiguration.

    “This was to even the score for all the centuries when Christian editors told their Jewish employees to hand in their reviews before the Feast of the Transfiguration.”

    High Church Anglicans plus maybe Irish Catholic sports and police beat editors.

  113. @anon

    On the other hand, I can imagine a day when an editor at The New York Times or The New Yorker or maybe even The New Republic wryly tells a colleague that her article is due by Diwali, Chinese New Year, Eid al-Fitr or the Day of the Dead. The thought makes me smile.
     
    Then he should quit, so that day can come just a little bit sooner.

    In fact, I think he should encourage all of his fellow Jews in the media to vacate their positions, so we can have that wonderful diversity ASAP.

    Want to take bets on whether or not they will?

    “…Day of the Dead”

    “Dia de los Muertos.”

    A Spanish name for Halloween and/or All Saints Day and/or All Souls Day. An ethnically based take on a Catholic holiday or holidays.

  114. @Art Deco
    The only people I've ever encountered who yap about 'white privilege' were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty. Neither occupational group in my experience is notably Jewish.



    But what happens to white people when they point out the same thing about Jewish privilege?

    It doesn't exist, except in the heads of people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion.

    The only people I’ve ever encountered who yap about ‘white privilege’ were student affairs apparatchiks and peripheral faculty.

    Just them and the occasional presidential candidate.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/video/hillary-clinton-we-white-americans-need-to-recognize-our-privilege-727176259735

    Nobody with any real influence. Nothing worth paying attention to.

  115. @guest
    I'm not sure what connection you're drawing. What Larry's guilty of there is failing to subjugate his aesthetic taste to ethnic interests. (You're a "self-hating Jew" if you enjoy melodies created by a known anti-semite.)

    There's nothing about the goyim Noticing. In fact, whistling Wagner would be a good way to blend in, if the average white person cared about fine distinctions in classical music appreciation.

    Walter assumes that Larry is Jewish and calls him out for whistling Wagner, but Larry’s first reaction is that Walter is an anti-Semite for demanding to know if Larry is Jewish — a Gentile demanding to know if one is Jewish is the first category of offense.

    Walter is further worked up that Larry doesn’t recognize immediately that Walter is also Jewish, which is the second category of offense.

    Finally, Walter is making a scene in public about Larry’s improper expression of his Jewish identity, which is the third category of offense.

    Larry David’s sketch has all three levels of “noticing.”

    • Replies: @guest
    "Larry's first reaction is that Walter is an anti-Semite for demanding to know if Larry is Jewish"

    That I'll grant, though Larry is the type of person who could say something like "wanna check my foreskin?" to a fellow Jew.

    "Walter is further worked up that Larry doesn't recognize immediately that Walter is also Jewish"

    That's not clear to me.

    "Finally, Walter is making a scene in public"

    Yes, but no one appears to be paying much attention besides his wife and the wheelchair guy. I think Larry is more affronted by Walter presuming to dictate his choice in music than the fact that non-Jews are listening in on him being called out for self-hatred.
  116. @anon
    An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    More than half the public voted for the Democratic party in the past three presidential elections.

    For the record, they did not in the most recent presidential election. That aside, they lose and lose lower down on the ballot.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    For the record, they did not in the most recent presidential election.
     
    You've never heard of the electoral college up there in your library perch? Clinton won the popular vote, you nitwit.
  117. @Forbes
    I wondered how many comments would pass before Commentary magazine was mentioned.

    TNR became a remarkable hybrid, only possible because of the extraordinary acceptance and privilege afforded to Jews in late 20th century America: an influential liberal political magazine that was explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns.
     
    "Cuz Lord only knows that Commentary magazine wasn't "explicitly informed by Jewish sensibilities and concerns." LOL.

    I guess there can be two remarkable hybrids, no...

    Commentary is an explicitly Jewish magazine , underwritten for the vast majority of it’s history by the American Jewish Committee. Nothing hybrid about it.

  118. @Hibernian
    "...people who fancy Hy Goldberg cheated them out of that promotion."

    I had one, maybe two, Jewish professor(s) in college. I can't remember having a Jewish boss (direct supervisor.) College was an A&M type school in a rural state; my adult working life has been in the big city. There have been high ranking, influential Jews in the organization I work for; also there have been Irish people, Italians, African-Americans, Polish people, Chinese, Indians, Muslims, and women, who fit the same description. I don't think Mr. Goldberg has that great a direct influence on my life. I'm also aware that Chicago's North Shore, the most affluent suburban area around here, is largely WASP and Jewish, with an increasing Lace Curtain Irish Catholic element. (There goes the neighborhood.) Draw your own conclusions.

    My conclusion is that there are a mess of people whose worldview is constructed around a resentment of Jews, which, in turn, is constructed around a caricature of Jews (their pretensions aside). Why they are this way only they can answer (and, just as likely, most of them really cannot).

  119. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Now you're just being a dick - or a purposeful idiot.

    You're like Corvinus with a larger vocabulary. Your whole schtick is to continually demand finer information until nobody remembers what the hell we were talking about. That's fine for some purposes but not for honest debate.

    Me: Leaves are generally green in the summer.

    Art: But some leaves are not, how can you say that?

    Me: Here's a detailed list of plants with green leaves in the summer showing that the overwhelming number of plants in the summer have green leaves.

    Art: Well, that depends on how you define green. Some are a bit reddish, others more of a bit brown. Besides, there's no accepted definition of green. Please prove what the color green is.

    I grew up around academics but have lived my adult life with doers. I know your type. And I know your worth outside of academia.

    If you don't know what I'm talking about in my previous comment, you're not worth talking to because, to use the classic line, you're either an idiot or a liar.

    Now you’re just being a dick – or a purposeful idiot.

    No, you’re having trouble understanding a straightforward point. Which is your problem, not mine.

    • Replies: @anon
    If your "straightforward point" is that only academics talk about white privilege, then it's simply not true. Politicians, CEOs, celebrities and people like that do too. And rabbis.

    https://rodephshalom.org/confronting-white-privilege-blindspots-discussion-waking-white-and-finding-myself-story-race

    Go ahead. Tell me an influential group of people, and I'll find you a member of that group talking about "white privilege".

    I don't think he's having a hard time understanding anything. I think you're just being dishonest.

    , @Anon

    You’re confusing your categories, comparing wealthy bluebloods with the general run of the Jewish population.


    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group.
     
    So what?
     
    No comment necessary.



    Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs

     

    Sez who?
     
    Call it the null hypothesis. Is yours that they network less successfully?
    , @Anon

    No it wouldn’t.
     
    Why not?
  120. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Now you’re just being a dick – or a purposeful idiot.

    No, you're having trouble understanding a straightforward point. Which is your problem, not mine.

    If your “straightforward point” is that only academics talk about white privilege, then it’s simply not true. Politicians, CEOs, celebrities and people like that do too. And rabbis.

    https://rodephshalom.org/confronting-white-privilege-blindspots-discussion-waking-white-and-finding-myself-story-race

    Go ahead. Tell me an influential group of people, and I’ll find you a member of that group talking about “white privilege”.

    I don’t think he’s having a hard time understanding anything. I think you’re just being dishonest.

  121. @anon
    Who writes the books and articles to which you’re referring?

    You were here just the other day when Steve wrote that piece about those two ice cream Cohens out in Vermont who wrote about "white privilege". And I know you saw it too, because you left comments on it, kvetching about how pointing out Jewish privilege was some huge conspiracy theory, while treating their comments about white privilege as no big deal, and nothing to worry about.

    Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    Even if those really WERE the only people doing it, those people still have a lot more influence than the commenters on iSteve. And you seem like you have a pretty big bug up your butt about them, so why is it so weird when we take umbrage at people who are actually famous doing the same thing to us?

    “ice cream Cohens out in Vermont ”

    Ice cream Cohen is a wonderful formulation. No, strike that, I’m offended! No, outraged! Yep outraged, that’s the ticket.

  122. @Selvar
    Russia has one of the highest divorce and abortion rates in the world, even factoring in recent declines. That would seem to cut against your argument.

    Actually it’s not. Anyone whose studied advertising and PR know how powerful of a medium TV is in manipulating people in believing they need the latest product, political candidate or even a march to war as in the invasion of Iraq on both occasions.

  123. So, Beinert uses his experience of homosexual Jewish ethnocentrism to support the standard Alt-Right caricature.

  124. @anon
    Who writes the books and articles to which you’re referring?

    You were here just the other day when Steve wrote that piece about those two ice cream Cohens out in Vermont who wrote about "white privilege". And I know you saw it too, because you left comments on it, kvetching about how pointing out Jewish privilege was some huge conspiracy theory, while treating their comments about white privilege as no big deal, and nothing to worry about.

    Higher ed apparatchiks and faculty members.

    Even if those really WERE the only people doing it, those people still have a lot more influence than the commenters on iSteve. And you seem like you have a pretty big bug up your butt about them, so why is it so weird when we take umbrage at people who are actually famous doing the same thing to us?

    Arty is just being intellectually dishonest. You can’t debate such people, because they are so dishonest and change the goal posts at a whim.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    I favor the opinion that Art Deco is both dishonest and stupid.
  125. @Art Deco
    Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    No, Jews are disproportionately represented among both students and the professoriate of the Ivys. Some of that can certainly be chalked up to intelligence, but probably not all of it. Anyway, it is interesting that you are so selective in your rebuttal. What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You're having trouble, betwixt and between emotional outbursts, in discerning the difference between 'disproportionate' and 'dominate'. The Ivy League is not dominated by Jews. The Ivy League might be 8% Jewish rather than 2%. That's of absolutely no interest to anyone not in a snit for some other reason.
    , @Art Deco
    What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. "Studio executive" and "bond trader" are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations. As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan. That these three are Jews is not consequential. What they fancy the Constitution requires is the problem.
  126. @Art Deco
    Also, if you don’t think that is important, imagine for a minute what it would look like if the right wing fascists took control of a US television network; not that that would ever be allowed to happen. In one year being Jewish / minority would be considered on par with smoking.


    No it wouldn't. An you know it wouldn't because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    And, again, you're confusing the contemporary media with film studios ca. 1940.

    No it wouldn’t. An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.

    And yet, the national media within a span of some thirty to forty years was able to normalize homosexuality, including homosexual marriage and even transsexuality.

    You are a deluded fool.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    And yet, the national media within a span of some thirty to forty years was able to normalize homosexuality, including homosexual marriage and even transsexuality.

    I suggest you ask yourself what's behind the collapse of volition among elites. See AM McConnell. I don't think that's the media at work.
  127. @Art Deco
    For the record, they did not in the most recent presidential election. That aside, they lose and lose lower down on the ballot.

    For the record, they did not in the most recent presidential election.

    You’ve never heard of the electoral college up there in your library perch? Clinton won the popular vote, you nitwit.

  128. @Rod1963
    Arty is just being intellectually dishonest. You can't debate such people, because they are so dishonest and change the goal posts at a whim.

    I favor the opinion that Art Deco is both dishonest and stupid.

  129. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Abe

    It had by far the best book reviews.
     
    Agree.

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.

     

    Disagree. It was kindda funny to read his review of PULP FICTION back when he was already becoming a fossil (Kauffmann often mentioned how he ALMOST joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain, making him almost a whole decade older than the typical WWII veteran). To read his review of 8 MILE when he was by-then completely fossilized, absurd (though Eminem is quite absurd on his own).

    I’ve never known a film critic with whom I’ve agreed half the time.

    I’ve given up on other people’s tastes and views correlating with mine. I accept that people see things differently and have their own reasons why.

    So, a critic is to be judged by erudition, sensibility, intelligence, style, and insight(even if in disagreement with the reader). Kauffmann had a highly civilized sensibility, possessed deep and wide knowledge of arts and history, wrote incisively, and was generally perceptive about directors and trends(even if at odds with the zeitgeist).

    I can go on and on about Kauffmann’s opinions or judgements that I found to be utterly wrong. He had no use for BARRY LYNDON. He highly praised NATURAL BORN KILLERS; he thought people didn’t get the satire when the problem was it rubbed our noses in the satire. He thinks 2001 the novel is superior to the movie. (Godzilla palm slap). He loathed Robert Altman, even the great MCCABE AND MRS MILLER. (I dislike many Altman films, but MCCABE and NASHVILLE are for all time.) He had little use for THE GODFATHER.
    But he usually gave intelligent and interesting reasons for why he thought the way he did. And while I sometimes thought he was simply wrongheaded, I thought he gave compelling reasons for liking or not liking a film when when I disagreed with him.
    (Sometimes, Kauffmann surprised Kauffmann. He later wrote he doesn’t recognize the self that wrote the lukewarm review of THE LEOPARD. An obvious masterpiece, how did he so spectacularly fail to notice its virtues?)

    One thing for sure, there will never be a critic like him again. The new sensibility simply doesn’t allow it. He was one of the last gentleman critics.

    Some yrs back, I re-read his collections: World on Film, Figures of Light, Living Images, Before My Eyes, etc. and they are a marvel. While Kauffmann was excited with the direction of cinema when it dominated cultural discourse from high to low — from 50s foreign cinema to rise of 70s New Hollywood — he usually kept a level-head(with the possible exception for Peckinpah’s THE GETAWAY). His relative detachment denied him the relevance of, say, Pauline Kael who threw herself into the fight. But then, he kept sight of the forest as well as the trees unlike other critics who lost themselves in the fashions of the moment.

    Kael, Simon, Sarris, MacDonald, and Kauffmann were the best of 60s/70s criticism in English language. Penelope Gilliatt was pretty good too, but her books are hard to find.

  130. @anon
    If you went on television babbling about ‘Jewish privilege’, you’d just sound like a poisonous crank.

    Possibly. But why don't you think the members of your tribe sound like poisonous cranks when they talk about white privilege? Which they do. All the time.

    That's the point, Artie. If such a thing as "white privilege" exists, then "Jewish privilege" ALSO certainly exists.

    But you and your co-ethnics get away with saying it about us. We wouldn't get away with saying it about you.

    If you don't want to call that "privilege", then what word do you suggest we use?

    The babble about ‘white privilege’ is humbug.

    But they do it anyway, and they get away with it.

    It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set.

    But your denial of Jewish privilege doesn't have that effect on your status. What do you make of that, Artie?

    If a Jewish person makes an accusation, and it lowers my status to defend myself against that accusation, then who would you say has more "privilege" in that situation?

    Doesn’t have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

    You really seem to think saying the word "qua" makes you sound smart.

    You really seem to think saying the word “qua” makes you sound smart.

    And “Quondam”. Don’t forget “quondam”. He really likes that word (it means “former”). I guess he paid a lot for his education, and though all it got him was a job as a university librarian (apparently), he’s going to squeeze every nickel out of every ten-dollar word he ever looked up.

    Art Deco isn’t merely a liar. He is also the most insufferable kind of smug, pedantic prig.

  131. @a reader
    Sorry, OT, but certainly noteworthy:

    Yesterday, in the General Silveria Honored with ADL's "Americanism Award" thread, commenter jesse helms think-alike called our attention to a clip displayed on James Woods twitter. (scroll his page down to 13 nov)
    It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas.

    I asked if I was alone to find these pictures spine-chilling.

    Susan Wojcicki obviously shared my fears as this two year-old clip was quickly removed, (in France at least; somewhere else?)

    “It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas.”

    How “spine-chilling” of them to come out and celebrate Eid al-Adha, a religious holiday in the Muslim world, by purchasing material goods.

    • Replies: @a reader
    Hope they soon move to Borough Park or Kiryas Joel.

    I would then buy a couple shares of Depo-Provera.
  132. @Buzz Mohawk
    It's still on YouTube in the US, and it is disturbing.

    Here is a screenshot of the page as it appears in France:

    This video is not available.

    I guess our overseers ain’t to keen on letting us deplorables know what to expect in the very near future. Here’s a map of the latest sickle cell disease numbers in France; the bold ones are the percentage of [black] babies tested in 2016.

    The average for France is 39,39%, while it reaches 73,56% in the Paris area.

    The numbers come from the official government agency for birth defects’ prevention, AFDPHE. [full report]

  133. How “spine-chilling” of them to come out and celebrate Eid al-Adha, a religious holiday in the Muslim world, by purchasing material goods.

    It was never, nor never meant to be, a muslim country. These people are alien and hostile to the rest of us. They will not assimilate. They will, instead, demand that we begin to accomodate them.

    You want to live amongst Somalians? Then YOU go live in Somalia. The rest of us like the country the way it has historically been.

  134. @Corvinus
    "It shows hords of Somali families strolling the Mall of Americas."

    How "spine-chilling" of them to come out and celebrate Eid al-Adha, a religious holiday in the Muslim world, by purchasing material goods.

    Hope they soon move to Borough Park or Kiryas Joel.

    I would then buy a couple shares of Depo-Provera.

  135. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    And it had the legendary Stanley Kauffmann, one of the best film critics ever.
     
    Really, I remember back in 1990 Kauffmann giving a negative review to Goodfellas while praising the now unwatchable Dances with Wolves.

    Goodfellas was in many ways a landmark film in that it went the long Hollywood Marxist narrative that criminals were the product of society's ills instead of more often the case born sociopaths.

    "As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgHIPq-BDLc

    After being redpilled years later Kauffmann comes across as just another Jewish leftist critic.

    Steve Sailer he ain't!!!!

    Really, I remember back in 1990 Kauffmann giving a negative review to Goodfellas while praising the now unwatchable Dances with Wolves. Goodfellas was in many ways a landmark film in that it went the long Hollywood Marxist narrative that criminals were the product of society’s ills instead of more often the case born sociopaths.

    Yeah, I see your point. I also think GOODFELLAS is one of the greatest films ever, and even though I enjoyed DANCES WITH WOLVES on first viewing, it was obviously little more than a pictorialist neo-Western, the kind of movie(like TITANIC and GANDHI) that sweeps the Oscar. (When I saw DANCES again on video, I found it insufferable, esp what with white woman gone ‘native’ with the name ‘Uppercut to Nasty Squaw’).

    But here’s the problem. So many intelligent, knowledgeable, and sophisticated have been as wrong-headed(in my opinion) as Kauffmann on GOODFELLAS. Recently, I couldn’t believe both Douthat and Sailer think MOULIN ROUGE is a great movie. How is it that TWO sane and smart people could fall for that total piece of caca? It’s was a Daffy Moment.

    I’ve come to accept that people are simply going to disagree, even on what seems so obvious(at least to whom it seems so obvious; it is obvious to me that 13th WARRIOR is a great movie, but so many disagree. Oh well).
    Of course, there are limits to this. If someone sincerely thinks PORKY’S is better than CITIZEN KANE or that Michael Bay is a greater director than David Lean or Kubrick, then he needs to have his head examined.
    Granted a critic may prefer a film by Bay over a film by Kubrick on grounds that the former usually hit his intended mark whereas Kubrick, for all his brilliance and mastery, was more smoke than fire. Still, there are general rules in cinema.
    And I would say most superior critics understand this.. despite their personal tastes and biases. So, even if a critic prefers a lesser director or lesser film, he may still recognize the other director or film as ‘objectively’ more impressive. Even people who don’t care for Kubrick do recognize him as one of the great masters of the form. For some critics, ingenuity with formal aspects of film-making is enough to win their admiration. For other critics, esp with more literary bent or humanist concerns, it is never enough… which is why John Simon usually scoffed at films with impressive technique but insufficient human element.

    Film reviewing was never just about assessment of professionalism, artistry, technique, or originality. Rather, each critic focuses on something in the movie — any given movie offers myriad stimuli and signals — that has special meaning to him for reasons aesthetic, personal, quirky, or just plain mysterious.
    So, while a critic may be impressed by composition and use of montage, another critic may be less interested in such and be, say, offended by its political content. Or a critic may see real intelligence and vision in a work but serious moral failing, as many did with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. And there are more than one way to approach a film like THE GODFATHER. One can praise it as superior entertainment or as popular art. Or one can denounce it as morally unfeasible on grounds that it falsely reflects the real crime world. A critic approaches a film like an elephant. While every critic may see the whole elephant, their responses and emotions tend to focus on certain parts of the elephant.

    I love GOODFELLAS, but I can see where the detractors are coming from.
    On the one hand, Scorsese pulled off an artistic(and moral) heist by slipping us into the dazzling and dizzying mafia world while also keeping just enough distance — even millimeters are crucial here — for a clear cold-eyed view. GOODFELLAS isn’t moralistic, but it’s that element of icy coldness that allows space for moral perspective, that is IF we choose to hold one. It isn’t forced on us but there if we want it.
    Maybe Kauffmann got this side of GOODFELLAS but wasn’t convinced. Maybe he found the violence and mayhem too easy-going and entertaining. (I don’t recall the review.)
    Also, maybe there are personal biases. Maybe growing up Jewish in NY, he recalled some of these lowlife hoodlums, and the mere sight of them sickened him.
    His movie reviews of the 70s reflected on the rising crime. Though he didn’t think highly of DEATH WISH, he was partly sympathetic because of the troubling times in NY. And he expressed his revulsion of THE WARRIORS(in his review of LONG RIDERS) because it seemed to romanticize the worst aspects of NY as street crime and gangs were spreading like a cancer. Kauffmann always had this moralistic side even though it was never upfront as with Bosley Crowther or Jeffrey Lyons(who usually gushed about social issues movies like ELENI and SALVADOR). Kauffmann thought WEST SIDE STORY the greatest musical for its fantastic music and message, the very reasons Kael disparaged it. She found it over-elaborate and heavy with sermonizing when her ideal of the musical was about sparkle and speed. Kauffmann had little use for the bloodbath movies of Brian DePalma(beloved by Kael), but he found Depalma’s THE UNTOUCHABLES marvelous. That side of Kauffmann was, one might say, a bit old-fashioned. But it wasn’t so much that he hated violence per se. He wrote one of the most rave reviews for THE WILD BUNCH. Rather, he took violence seriously and thought movies had to justify the bloodletting, and he thought Peckinpah did so at his best. But he had little regard for violence that merely exulted in sensationalism or left him cold and numb. John Boorman was also taken aback by GOODFELLAS. He found it overly fast and furious, too fun for a sober reflection of what crime really entails. He made the grim corrective with THE GENERAL, a very good film(though I stand my view of GOODFELLAS a total masterpiece).

    Another thing about critics is some just have certain fetishes. Sarris loved tracking shots so much that he deemed LOLA MONTEZ the greatest film ever at one time. Kehr has an auteurish thing for Classic Hollywood, which explains why he’s been so infatuated with Eastwood as the torch-bearer of the nearly lost art of film-making as a honest craft. Rosenbaum has a fetish for long foreign movies with stretches of silence. I can see the virtue of some of these films, but with Rosenbaum it’s really a fetish. He sees or hears profundity in the ‘silence’ of these obscure films that he berates everyone else of ignoring.
    And it’s incredible but many intelligent critics really think the dreadful Chantal Akerman was a great profound film-maker. If I subscribe to your rule of what constitutes a good critic — Kauffmann is suspect because he preferred DANCES over GOODFELLAS — , then every critic who praised Akerman must be a total idiot. I would like to believe this, but it’s not true as they’ve made wonderful sense about other films. So, I just live by the rule Vive le Difference. (And then, a film-maker as intelligent as Ingmar Bergman sees almost nothing good about Orson Welles who, in turn, couldn’t stand Antonioni. Tarkovsky did attain greatness, but he could be the biggest prick when it came to passing judgement on other film-makers.)

    The way I see it, most sane critics have a general sense of what constitutes great cinema. So, if you ask them to list their top 100, there will be Fords, Hawks, Bressons, Kurosawas, Renoirs, Ozus, Kubricks, and etc. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, there will be differences, even when it comes to great films and directors. And some of these differences will be HUGE. I think TREE OF LIFE sucks! But Roger Ebert, who became an expert on cinema, listed it as one of the top 10 greatest films. But then, maybe it had special meaning for him near the end of his life when he was mostly bed-ridden and thinking back on childhood. Oftentimes, critics are like TV antennas. Some pick up signals that others don’t. It’s like that scene in FARGO where the Buscemi character is having a hissy fit messing with the antennae that won’t work pick up the signals. Same with the antennae in SERIOUS MAN. But the sullen other guy seems to be picking up signals from a dark place unknown to most. This explains the cult film phenom. The cult fans of a certain films pick up signals that others do not. I get it from HAROLD AND MAUDE whereas those who don’t are annoyed by that film. But I don’t get DONNIE DARKO, but others love that movie. Movie viewing is like MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. Some are more tuned to certain signals while shut to others. Also, people come with different references, cultural and political. Someone who is a fan of Walter Hill will approach GERONIMO differently than someone who has no idea who he is.. or generally thinks he’s an awful director.

    Also, perspectives change over time. Neither Ebert nor Siskel cared much for BLADE RUNNER upon release. Both appreciated it a lot more later. THE SHINING got mostly mixed reviews. It was later that critics began to see its greatness, almost universally. Also, some films are likeable or powerful on first viewing but wear off over time.
    I found PLATOON and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN over-powering on first viewings because of the violence, but once the shock wore off, there wasn’t much in terms of characters or thematic development.
    Some movies that did nothing to me on first view grew over the yrs. THE HIT by Stephen Frears is a good example; I like it a lot more now. I also like LAST TANGO and LAST EMPEROR much more now than in the past.
    I also underrated NO WAY OUT and MANHUNTER. TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA was such a gold-standard of 80s action-film-making that I tended to compare other action thrillers(unfavorably of course) to Friedkin’s instant classic. But now, I can value the other films for their particular strengths.
    And there are some movies I loved, hated, loved, hate, loved. Milos Forman’s movies have done this to me, not least because he tried to have it both ways: personal film-making and populist pandering. So, I loved HAIR, hated HAIR, loved HAIR, hate HAIR, loved HAIR, and am back to hating it so much I will never see it again probably. Same with AMADEUS. Loved it, hated it, loved it, hated it, now I don’t know. RAGTIME too, though that is currently on my love list, along with ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’s NEST, as well as his Czech New Wave films that were, in some ways, his most personal.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Goodfellas" didn't get uniformly rave reviews when it came out, so I didn't see it in the movie theater. I can recall being surprised in October 1990 when an Italian-American friend raved about it after it had been out for a couple of weekends.

    Finally seeing it on video later, yeah, it was great, but by the time I finally saw, the consensus had come around to that so I wasn't doing anything amazing by noticing it was really good then.

    I don't know why Goodfellas didn't get all that good reviews initially. Perhaps the studio kind of dumped the movie into a national release on September 21, 1990, rather than giving it a more prestigious date later in the year or giving it a limited release. Maybe critics assumed from the ho-hum specifics given the release that the studio wasn't excited about it.

    I also vaguely recall initial reviewers being ho-hum about yet another Scorese-DeNiro gangster movie, which they'd been seeing since Mean Streets about 17 years before. Could these guys really top all the fine movies they'd done in the past. (Yes, it turns out, they did.)

    Today, obviously, it stands out as a peak Scorsese-DeNiro gangster movie, while people think of Casino five years later as being the too much of a good thing release. But maybe a lot of reviewers in 1990 were treating Goodfellas the way the public came to view Casino.

  136. @Inquiring Mind
    Walter assumes that Larry is Jewish and calls him out for whistling Wagner, but Larry's first reaction is that Walter is an anti-Semite for demanding to know if Larry is Jewish -- a Gentile demanding to know if one is Jewish is the first category of offense.

    Walter is further worked up that Larry doesn't recognize immediately that Walter is also Jewish, which is the second category of offense.

    Finally, Walter is making a scene in public about Larry's improper expression of his Jewish identity, which is the third category of offense.

    Larry David's sketch has all three levels of "noticing."

    “Larry’s first reaction is that Walter is an anti-Semite for demanding to know if Larry is Jewish”

    That I’ll grant, though Larry is the type of person who could say something like “wanna check my foreskin?” to a fellow Jew.

    “Walter is further worked up that Larry doesn’t recognize immediately that Walter is also Jewish”

    That’s not clear to me.

    “Finally, Walter is making a scene in public”

    Yes, but no one appears to be paying much attention besides his wife and the wheelchair guy. I think Larry is more affronted by Walter presuming to dictate his choice in music than the fact that non-Jews are listening in on him being called out for self-hatred.

  137. @Anon
    Really, I remember back in 1990 Kauffmann giving a negative review to Goodfellas while praising the now unwatchable Dances with Wolves. Goodfellas was in many ways a landmark film in that it went the long Hollywood Marxist narrative that criminals were the product of society’s ills instead of more often the case born sociopaths.

    Yeah, I see your point. I also think GOODFELLAS is one of the greatest films ever, and even though I enjoyed DANCES WITH WOLVES on first viewing, it was obviously little more than a pictorialist neo-Western, the kind of movie(like TITANIC and GANDHI) that sweeps the Oscar. (When I saw DANCES again on video, I found it insufferable, esp what with white woman gone 'native' with the name 'Uppercut to Nasty Squaw').

    But here's the problem. So many intelligent, knowledgeable, and sophisticated have been as wrong-headed(in my opinion) as Kauffmann on GOODFELLAS. Recently, I couldn't believe both Douthat and Sailer think MOULIN ROUGE is a great movie. How is it that TWO sane and smart people could fall for that total piece of caca? It's was a Daffy Moment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoR731Sq_ns

    I've come to accept that people are simply going to disagree, even on what seems so obvious(at least to whom it seems so obvious; it is obvious to me that 13th WARRIOR is a great movie, but so many disagree. Oh well).
    Of course, there are limits to this. If someone sincerely thinks PORKY'S is better than CITIZEN KANE or that Michael Bay is a greater director than David Lean or Kubrick, then he needs to have his head examined.
    Granted a critic may prefer a film by Bay over a film by Kubrick on grounds that the former usually hit his intended mark whereas Kubrick, for all his brilliance and mastery, was more smoke than fire. Still, there are general rules in cinema.
    And I would say most superior critics understand this.. despite their personal tastes and biases. So, even if a critic prefers a lesser director or lesser film, he may still recognize the other director or film as 'objectively' more impressive. Even people who don't care for Kubrick do recognize him as one of the great masters of the form. For some critics, ingenuity with formal aspects of film-making is enough to win their admiration. For other critics, esp with more literary bent or humanist concerns, it is never enough... which is why John Simon usually scoffed at films with impressive technique but insufficient human element.

    Film reviewing was never just about assessment of professionalism, artistry, technique, or originality. Rather, each critic focuses on something in the movie -- any given movie offers myriad stimuli and signals -- that has special meaning to him for reasons aesthetic, personal, quirky, or just plain mysterious.
    So, while a critic may be impressed by composition and use of montage, another critic may be less interested in such and be, say, offended by its political content. Or a critic may see real intelligence and vision in a work but serious moral failing, as many did with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. And there are more than one way to approach a film like THE GODFATHER. One can praise it as superior entertainment or as popular art. Or one can denounce it as morally unfeasible on grounds that it falsely reflects the real crime world. A critic approaches a film like an elephant. While every critic may see the whole elephant, their responses and emotions tend to focus on certain parts of the elephant.

    I love GOODFELLAS, but I can see where the detractors are coming from.
    On the one hand, Scorsese pulled off an artistic(and moral) heist by slipping us into the dazzling and dizzying mafia world while also keeping just enough distance -- even millimeters are crucial here -- for a clear cold-eyed view. GOODFELLAS isn't moralistic, but it's that element of icy coldness that allows space for moral perspective, that is IF we choose to hold one. It isn't forced on us but there if we want it.
    Maybe Kauffmann got this side of GOODFELLAS but wasn't convinced. Maybe he found the violence and mayhem too easy-going and entertaining. (I don't recall the review.)
    Also, maybe there are personal biases. Maybe growing up Jewish in NY, he recalled some of these lowlife hoodlums, and the mere sight of them sickened him.
    His movie reviews of the 70s reflected on the rising crime. Though he didn't think highly of DEATH WISH, he was partly sympathetic because of the troubling times in NY. And he expressed his revulsion of THE WARRIORS(in his review of LONG RIDERS) because it seemed to romanticize the worst aspects of NY as street crime and gangs were spreading like a cancer. Kauffmann always had this moralistic side even though it was never upfront as with Bosley Crowther or Jeffrey Lyons(who usually gushed about social issues movies like ELENI and SALVADOR). Kauffmann thought WEST SIDE STORY the greatest musical for its fantastic music and message, the very reasons Kael disparaged it. She found it over-elaborate and heavy with sermonizing when her ideal of the musical was about sparkle and speed. Kauffmann had little use for the bloodbath movies of Brian DePalma(beloved by Kael), but he found Depalma's THE UNTOUCHABLES marvelous. That side of Kauffmann was, one might say, a bit old-fashioned. But it wasn't so much that he hated violence per se. He wrote one of the most rave reviews for THE WILD BUNCH. Rather, he took violence seriously and thought movies had to justify the bloodletting, and he thought Peckinpah did so at his best. But he had little regard for violence that merely exulted in sensationalism or left him cold and numb. John Boorman was also taken aback by GOODFELLAS. He found it overly fast and furious, too fun for a sober reflection of what crime really entails. He made the grim corrective with THE GENERAL, a very good film(though I stand my view of GOODFELLAS a total masterpiece).

    Another thing about critics is some just have certain fetishes. Sarris loved tracking shots so much that he deemed LOLA MONTEZ the greatest film ever at one time. Kehr has an auteurish thing for Classic Hollywood, which explains why he's been so infatuated with Eastwood as the torch-bearer of the nearly lost art of film-making as a honest craft. Rosenbaum has a fetish for long foreign movies with stretches of silence. I can see the virtue of some of these films, but with Rosenbaum it's really a fetish. He sees or hears profundity in the 'silence' of these obscure films that he berates everyone else of ignoring.
    And it's incredible but many intelligent critics really think the dreadful Chantal Akerman was a great profound film-maker. If I subscribe to your rule of what constitutes a good critic -- Kauffmann is suspect because he preferred DANCES over GOODFELLAS -- , then every critic who praised Akerman must be a total idiot. I would like to believe this, but it's not true as they've made wonderful sense about other films. So, I just live by the rule Vive le Difference. (And then, a film-maker as intelligent as Ingmar Bergman sees almost nothing good about Orson Welles who, in turn, couldn't stand Antonioni. Tarkovsky did attain greatness, but he could be the biggest prick when it came to passing judgement on other film-makers.)

    The way I see it, most sane critics have a general sense of what constitutes great cinema. So, if you ask them to list their top 100, there will be Fords, Hawks, Bressons, Kurosawas, Renoirs, Ozus, Kubricks, and etc. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, there will be differences, even when it comes to great films and directors. And some of these differences will be HUGE. I think TREE OF LIFE sucks! But Roger Ebert, who became an expert on cinema, listed it as one of the top 10 greatest films. But then, maybe it had special meaning for him near the end of his life when he was mostly bed-ridden and thinking back on childhood. Oftentimes, critics are like TV antennas. Some pick up signals that others don't. It's like that scene in FARGO where the Buscemi character is having a hissy fit messing with the antennae that won't work pick up the signals. Same with the antennae in SERIOUS MAN. But the sullen other guy seems to be picking up signals from a dark place unknown to most. This explains the cult film phenom. The cult fans of a certain films pick up signals that others do not. I get it from HAROLD AND MAUDE whereas those who don't are annoyed by that film. But I don't get DONNIE DARKO, but others love that movie. Movie viewing is like MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. Some are more tuned to certain signals while shut to others. Also, people come with different references, cultural and political. Someone who is a fan of Walter Hill will approach GERONIMO differently than someone who has no idea who he is.. or generally thinks he's an awful director.

    Also, perspectives change over time. Neither Ebert nor Siskel cared much for BLADE RUNNER upon release. Both appreciated it a lot more later. THE SHINING got mostly mixed reviews. It was later that critics began to see its greatness, almost universally. Also, some films are likeable or powerful on first viewing but wear off over time.
    I found PLATOON and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN over-powering on first viewings because of the violence, but once the shock wore off, there wasn't much in terms of characters or thematic development.
    Some movies that did nothing to me on first view grew over the yrs. THE HIT by Stephen Frears is a good example; I like it a lot more now. I also like LAST TANGO and LAST EMPEROR much more now than in the past.
    I also underrated NO WAY OUT and MANHUNTER. TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA was such a gold-standard of 80s action-film-making that I tended to compare other action thrillers(unfavorably of course) to Friedkin's instant classic. But now, I can value the other films for their particular strengths.
    And there are some movies I loved, hated, loved, hate, loved. Milos Forman's movies have done this to me, not least because he tried to have it both ways: personal film-making and populist pandering. So, I loved HAIR, hated HAIR, loved HAIR, hate HAIR, loved HAIR, and am back to hating it so much I will never see it again probably. Same with AMADEUS. Loved it, hated it, loved it, hated it, now I don't know. RAGTIME too, though that is currently on my love list, along with ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO's NEST, as well as his Czech New Wave films that were, in some ways, his most personal.

    “Goodfellas” didn’t get uniformly rave reviews when it came out, so I didn’t see it in the movie theater. I can recall being surprised in October 1990 when an Italian-American friend raved about it after it had been out for a couple of weekends.

    Finally seeing it on video later, yeah, it was great, but by the time I finally saw, the consensus had come around to that so I wasn’t doing anything amazing by noticing it was really good then.

    I don’t know why Goodfellas didn’t get all that good reviews initially. Perhaps the studio kind of dumped the movie into a national release on September 21, 1990, rather than giving it a more prestigious date later in the year or giving it a limited release. Maybe critics assumed from the ho-hum specifics given the release that the studio wasn’t excited about it.

    I also vaguely recall initial reviewers being ho-hum about yet another Scorese-DeNiro gangster movie, which they’d been seeing since Mean Streets about 17 years before. Could these guys really top all the fine movies they’d done in the past. (Yes, it turns out, they did.)

    Today, obviously, it stands out as a peak Scorsese-DeNiro gangster movie, while people think of Casino five years later as being the too much of a good thing release. But maybe a lot of reviewers in 1990 were treating Goodfellas the way the public came to view Casino.

    • Replies: @guest
    There's a million little things that impinge on critical judgement. Not all critics are about the same thing, and if movies were like other firms of art, their criticism could take a any number of forms. But professional film critics with any real influence over the public should be at least a little objective and do their job. Which is to recommend seeing the movie, or not, and tell us ahead of time what it is, exactly, without spoiling it. The recommendation could be for the general audience, fans of the genre, or just people who like what pretentious critics like. Whatever, so long as they're honest. As in, "I hated it, but so-and-so will love it." Too much of that missing.

    Goodfellas is a classic, and beyond that perhaps a once in a lifetime movie for the subgenre (low-level street crime vernacular Italian-American crime drama). Though I don't really blame them for missing just how rewatchable it is, and how influential it would become. Because that's a test of time thing. But they really shouldn't be mixed. It should have been obvious it's the perfect movie for that kind of movie.

    I was like 8 when it came out, so I didn't see it until years later. I knew it was supposed to be good, but I didn't really know much about it when I eventually saw it. And I was transported immediately. It's the sort of thing they invented the term "tour de force" to describe. And even if it had been devoid of all theme and morally empty (which it wasn't) that much at least would be obvious to anyone who wasn't a critic with something else on his mind.
    , @Anon
    I was skeptical about GOODFELLAS because the 80s was a wobbly decade for Scorsese. He seemed spent, out of gas.

    He began strong with RAGING BULL. Though KING OF COMEDY failed at box office, a very interesting work. AFTER HOURS did get good reviews, but it was rather slight, all show and no tell. Just narcissism of NY neurosis. Then, he did hack work with COLOR OF MONEY. Then the mostly dreadful LAST TEMPTATION, though obviously a labor of love with some great moments.
    Then, a short in NEW YORK STORIES. Not bad but minor.

    So, when GOODFELLAS came out, I had rather low expectations. But then, the very hard-to-please John Simon gave it a total rave, and that got me interested. And it was truly amazing on every level.

    And the 90s turned out to be a great decade for Scorsese. He also made CASINO.
    AGE OF INNOCENCE has problem but is the work of a master. KUNDUN is a fascinating work, a forerunner of SILENCE.
    Didn't care much for CAPE FEAR and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, but four great movies a decade is very impressive.

    And for that reason, I expected Scorsese to go even higher in the 2000s, and GANGS OF NY was one of the most eagerly anticipated movies ever... but it was a total mess, like NY NY and LAST TEMPTATION. Then, AVIATOR never got liftoff. THE DEPARTED, though a big hit and finally an oscar win, was a big dumb movie.

    But then, SHUTTER ISLAND was pretty good, WOLF OF WALL STREET was certainly impressive, and THE SILENCE is a masterpiece.

    Another director I gave up early in the 90s was Spielberg.

    He had a fabulous start with RAIDERS and ET but then sputtered with a short in TWILIGHT ZONE, made DisneyLand out of Alice Walker novel, and made two Indy sequels.
    EMPIRE OF THE SUN had a great first act but then succumbed to Spielbergism and turned WWII into Coney Island.
    And he began the 90s with HOOK, so I thought he ran out of gas.
    Who would have known he was embarking on the great second act of his career with JURASSIC PARK, SCHINDLER, SAVING, AI, and the rest.

    Walter Hill is another notable director of the 90s though he didn't have any hits unfortunately.
    GERONIMO, WILD BILL, and LAST MAN STANDING. Three scalps in a decade. Not bad.
  138. @whorefinder
    The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he's a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can do to another Jew in private is not notice he's a Jew.

    The worst thing a Jew can to another Jew in public is let the goyim know he's a a Jew.

    Indeed.

    From the excerpt above:

    It’s an important moment for American Jews because for the last 40 years, The New Republic has been a culturally Jewish magazine.

    Up until very recently one would be banned or modded out from any and every mainstream or alternative-within-1-SD-of-mainstream outlet for observing this blue whale of obviousness, regardless of to which cleat of Abrahamism one tied one’s bow line.

    Apparently now that Jews are observing it, it’s OK for it to be observed. Especially as it’s being spun a lit’ry pogrom of sorts.

    I just hope that our noble Two Percentian brethren can console themselves with the ironic/sarcastic humor for which they have made themselves so well known:

    May those who have rejoiced in marginalization and replacement of white men and white culture–which offered them welcome and tolerance in the 19th and 20th centuries–find succor in that same laughter as they themselves are replaced in sinecures of influence by people who couldn’t care less about their ostensibly chosenic status nor capacity for vaudeville, nepotism, high finance, word games, mind games, and porn.

  139. @Hibernian
    He and Corvinus and some others also masquerade as Conservatives from time to time, which Mr. Duck has never done, to my knowledge.

    Ms. Vanden Heuvel’s grandpa, Dr. Jules Stein, was a Chicago eye doctor who got bored with doctoring and went into the speakeasy music booking business in association with Al Capone.

  140. @Steve Sailer
    "Goodfellas" didn't get uniformly rave reviews when it came out, so I didn't see it in the movie theater. I can recall being surprised in October 1990 when an Italian-American friend raved about it after it had been out for a couple of weekends.

    Finally seeing it on video later, yeah, it was great, but by the time I finally saw, the consensus had come around to that so I wasn't doing anything amazing by noticing it was really good then.

    I don't know why Goodfellas didn't get all that good reviews initially. Perhaps the studio kind of dumped the movie into a national release on September 21, 1990, rather than giving it a more prestigious date later in the year or giving it a limited release. Maybe critics assumed from the ho-hum specifics given the release that the studio wasn't excited about it.

    I also vaguely recall initial reviewers being ho-hum about yet another Scorese-DeNiro gangster movie, which they'd been seeing since Mean Streets about 17 years before. Could these guys really top all the fine movies they'd done in the past. (Yes, it turns out, they did.)

    Today, obviously, it stands out as a peak Scorsese-DeNiro gangster movie, while people think of Casino five years later as being the too much of a good thing release. But maybe a lot of reviewers in 1990 were treating Goodfellas the way the public came to view Casino.

    There’s a million little things that impinge on critical judgement. Not all critics are about the same thing, and if movies were like other firms of art, their criticism could take a any number of forms. But professional film critics with any real influence over the public should be at least a little objective and do their job. Which is to recommend seeing the movie, or not, and tell us ahead of time what it is, exactly, without spoiling it. The recommendation could be for the general audience, fans of the genre, or just people who like what pretentious critics like. Whatever, so long as they’re honest. As in, “I hated it, but so-and-so will love it.” Too much of that missing.

    Goodfellas is a classic, and beyond that perhaps a once in a lifetime movie for the subgenre (low-level street crime vernacular Italian-American crime drama). Though I don’t really blame them for missing just how rewatchable it is, and how influential it would become. Because that’s a test of time thing. But they really shouldn’t be mixed. It should have been obvious it’s the perfect movie for that kind of movie.

    I was like 8 when it came out, so I didn’t see it until years later. I knew it was supposed to be good, but I didn’t really know much about it when I eventually saw it. And I was transported immediately. It’s the sort of thing they invented the term “tour de force” to describe. And even if it had been devoid of all theme and morally empty (which it wasn’t) that much at least would be obvious to anyone who wasn’t a critic with something else on his mind.

    • Replies: @guest
    Also, I was recently reading about Dr. Zhivago, which is one of the biggest hits of all time and a beloved classic and all that. Though it won Oscars and such, the critics weren't very nice to it, at least compared to David Lean's previous movies. Because it was a sometimes candy-colored love story starring a poet who doesn't really do much besides stare at things with Disney Eyes, with an occasionally annoying theme tune played incessantly?
    Maybe. But also because there are unwritten rules like "You can't go ga-ga over three epic Lean movies in a row."

    I don't believe it's possible for critics to have been as hard as they were on Zhivago come out before Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. Though it's possible partisanship for the novel, and the intelligentsia's sense of ownership over it, interfered with their enjoyment, as I've heard suggested.

    Robert Wise won Best Director for Sound of Music over David Lean that year. Sound of Music is a fine movie, but come on. If directing is like being a general, David Lean was Napoleon without a Waterloo.
    , @Steve Sailer
    In general, movie reviewers get most movies about right. It's easy to make up a list of movies that were oddly overlooked upon theatrical release, such as Goodfellas and The Big Lebowski (both of which were directed by critical darlings), but that only happens often enough that everybody remembers Goodfellas and The Big Lebowski belong on this list.

    I've reviewed, what, a few hundred movies? How many times did I make a big deal about a movie being overlooked and I turned out right and now it's a pretty famous movie? There was "Idiocracy" and ... uh ... uh ... well, hey, Idiocracy was a good call.

    , @Anon
    And I was transported immediately.

    Yeah, that is the key term.

    Most movies are escapist. They seem to take us away... but escapism is really about familiarism. We 'escape' to the comfort zone with conventional heroes and villains, dramatic ups and downs, happy endings. It's like going on a cruise or some vacation resort that caters to recreation and leisure. We escape to a kind of home away from home. It's like we want to feel AWAY but don't really want surprises.
    This is true of amusement parks too. Some rides are scary but we know we will be safe and it will be fun. It's all within expectation.

    Most historical movies are escapist. Even if they take place 100s or 1000s of yrs away, it looks very Hollywood. We know we are getting all the familiar tropes of what an epic movie is supposed to entail. We know we are watching make-believe or a star vehicle. We don't really feel we are in another place and time.

    But then, there are films like ANDREI RUBLEV, BARRY LYNDON, and GOODFELLAS that really seem to transport us to a different world, real one with people and situations that don't play by genre rules we've become accustomed to.
    Films that really transport us are rare. 2001 is one of the few sci-fi films that did.
  141. @guest
    There's a million little things that impinge on critical judgement. Not all critics are about the same thing, and if movies were like other firms of art, their criticism could take a any number of forms. But professional film critics with any real influence over the public should be at least a little objective and do their job. Which is to recommend seeing the movie, or not, and tell us ahead of time what it is, exactly, without spoiling it. The recommendation could be for the general audience, fans of the genre, or just people who like what pretentious critics like. Whatever, so long as they're honest. As in, "I hated it, but so-and-so will love it." Too much of that missing.

    Goodfellas is a classic, and beyond that perhaps a once in a lifetime movie for the subgenre (low-level street crime vernacular Italian-American crime drama). Though I don't really blame them for missing just how rewatchable it is, and how influential it would become. Because that's a test of time thing. But they really shouldn't be mixed. It should have been obvious it's the perfect movie for that kind of movie.

    I was like 8 when it came out, so I didn't see it until years later. I knew it was supposed to be good, but I didn't really know much about it when I eventually saw it. And I was transported immediately. It's the sort of thing they invented the term "tour de force" to describe. And even if it had been devoid of all theme and morally empty (which it wasn't) that much at least would be obvious to anyone who wasn't a critic with something else on his mind.

    Also, I was recently reading about Dr. Zhivago, which is one of the biggest hits of all time and a beloved classic and all that. Though it won Oscars and such, the critics weren’t very nice to it, at least compared to David Lean’s previous movies. Because it was a sometimes candy-colored love story starring a poet who doesn’t really do much besides stare at things with Disney Eyes, with an occasionally annoying theme tune played incessantly?
    Maybe. But also because there are unwritten rules like “You can’t go ga-ga over three epic Lean movies in a row.”

    I don’t believe it’s possible for critics to have been as hard as they were on Zhivago come out before Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. Though it’s possible partisanship for the novel, and the intelligentsia’s sense of ownership over it, interfered with their enjoyment, as I’ve heard suggested.

    Robert Wise won Best Director for Sound of Music over David Lean that year. Sound of Music is a fine movie, but come on. If directing is like being a general, David Lean was Napoleon without a Waterloo.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Goodfellas" was the sixth Scorsese-DeNiro movie. The idea that it was the best was heresy at the time, because it would be saying it topped critics' favorites Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

    Really, it was pretty improbable that Scorsese would be getting better after a long career.

    Reviewers have a Bayesian aspect. As you are walking in you are making up a little story about how Scorsese peaked in 1976-1980 and this new film Goodfellas ...

    - Confirms his long decline
    or
    - Isn't as good as Taki Driver and Raging Bull, of course, but is a nice comeback.

    The third alternative -- Scorsese blows away all expectations -- is harder to deal with.

  142. @guest
    There's a million little things that impinge on critical judgement. Not all critics are about the same thing, and if movies were like other firms of art, their criticism could take a any number of forms. But professional film critics with any real influence over the public should be at least a little objective and do their job. Which is to recommend seeing the movie, or not, and tell us ahead of time what it is, exactly, without spoiling it. The recommendation could be for the general audience, fans of the genre, or just people who like what pretentious critics like. Whatever, so long as they're honest. As in, "I hated it, but so-and-so will love it." Too much of that missing.

    Goodfellas is a classic, and beyond that perhaps a once in a lifetime movie for the subgenre (low-level street crime vernacular Italian-American crime drama). Though I don't really blame them for missing just how rewatchable it is, and how influential it would become. Because that's a test of time thing. But they really shouldn't be mixed. It should have been obvious it's the perfect movie for that kind of movie.

    I was like 8 when it came out, so I didn't see it until years later. I knew it was supposed to be good, but I didn't really know much about it when I eventually saw it. And I was transported immediately. It's the sort of thing they invented the term "tour de force" to describe. And even if it had been devoid of all theme and morally empty (which it wasn't) that much at least would be obvious to anyone who wasn't a critic with something else on his mind.

    In general, movie reviewers get most movies about right. It’s easy to make up a list of movies that were oddly overlooked upon theatrical release, such as Goodfellas and The Big Lebowski (both of which were directed by critical darlings), but that only happens often enough that everybody remembers Goodfellas and The Big Lebowski belong on this list.

    I’ve reviewed, what, a few hundred movies? How many times did I make a big deal about a movie being overlooked and I turned out right and now it’s a pretty famous movie? There was “Idiocracy” and … uh … uh … well, hey, Idiocracy was a good call.

  143. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "Goodfellas" didn't get uniformly rave reviews when it came out, so I didn't see it in the movie theater. I can recall being surprised in October 1990 when an Italian-American friend raved about it after it had been out for a couple of weekends.

    Finally seeing it on video later, yeah, it was great, but by the time I finally saw, the consensus had come around to that so I wasn't doing anything amazing by noticing it was really good then.

    I don't know why Goodfellas didn't get all that good reviews initially. Perhaps the studio kind of dumped the movie into a national release on September 21, 1990, rather than giving it a more prestigious date later in the year or giving it a limited release. Maybe critics assumed from the ho-hum specifics given the release that the studio wasn't excited about it.

    I also vaguely recall initial reviewers being ho-hum about yet another Scorese-DeNiro gangster movie, which they'd been seeing since Mean Streets about 17 years before. Could these guys really top all the fine movies they'd done in the past. (Yes, it turns out, they did.)

    Today, obviously, it stands out as a peak Scorsese-DeNiro gangster movie, while people think of Casino five years later as being the too much of a good thing release. But maybe a lot of reviewers in 1990 were treating Goodfellas the way the public came to view Casino.

    I was skeptical about GOODFELLAS because the 80s was a wobbly decade for Scorsese. He seemed spent, out of gas.

    He began strong with RAGING BULL. Though KING OF COMEDY failed at box office, a very interesting work. AFTER HOURS did get good reviews, but it was rather slight, all show and no tell. Just narcissism of NY neurosis. Then, he did hack work with COLOR OF MONEY. Then the mostly dreadful LAST TEMPTATION, though obviously a labor of love with some great moments.
    Then, a short in NEW YORK STORIES. Not bad but minor.

    So, when GOODFELLAS came out, I had rather low expectations. But then, the very hard-to-please John Simon gave it a total rave, and that got me interested. And it was truly amazing on every level.

    And the 90s turned out to be a great decade for Scorsese. He also made CASINO.
    AGE OF INNOCENCE has problem but is the work of a master. KUNDUN is a fascinating work, a forerunner of SILENCE.
    Didn’t care much for CAPE FEAR and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, but four great movies a decade is very impressive.

    And for that reason, I expected Scorsese to go even higher in the 2000s, and GANGS OF NY was one of the most eagerly anticipated movies ever… but it was a total mess, like NY NY and LAST TEMPTATION. Then, AVIATOR never got liftoff. THE DEPARTED, though a big hit and finally an oscar win, was a big dumb movie.

    But then, SHUTTER ISLAND was pretty good, WOLF OF WALL STREET was certainly impressive, and THE SILENCE is a masterpiece.

    Another director I gave up early in the 90s was Spielberg.

    He had a fabulous start with RAIDERS and ET but then sputtered with a short in TWILIGHT ZONE, made DisneyLand out of Alice Walker novel, and made two Indy sequels.
    EMPIRE OF THE SUN had a great first act but then succumbed to Spielbergism and turned WWII into Coney Island.
    And he began the 90s with HOOK, so I thought he ran out of gas.
    Who would have known he was embarking on the great second act of his career with JURASSIC PARK, SCHINDLER, SAVING, AI, and the rest.

    Walter Hill is another notable director of the 90s though he didn’t have any hits unfortunately.
    GERONIMO, WILD BILL, and LAST MAN STANDING. Three scalps in a decade. Not bad.

    • Replies: @guest
    I remember being very into Raging Bull as a kid, but I'm not sure why now. My reaction is pretty much, "Well, he's an awful human being...Next." My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Maybe it's all the years of seeing "difficult men" in lead roles in movies and on tv. I'm utterly jaded on the subject.
  144. @Inquiring Mind
    I take it from your prior comment that you are more sympathetic to the Right as it is represented here than the Left, as it trolls here. I also take it that you are sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Trump's politics have broken free many in the working class from being strictly beholden to the Left or to the Leftish Democrats? But you regard Mr. Trump as an imperfect leader for the genuine concerns of the people he is championing?

    My remarks regarding the Trump Economic Boom are factually questionable? The stock market, yes, perhaps only an indicator of economic sentiment, but it suggests that Moldbug's Visaya Caste (do I have Moldbug's caste descriptions correct?), you know, Paul Fussell's "high proles", the Sinclair's Babbitts, the moneyed Deplorables, these people really, really love Mr. Trump and what he is doing.

    As to the help-wanted signs, in my sector of Flyover U.S.A., those signs have sprouted up all up and down the majors highways in this state, something I had not seen in over 30 years of living here. Furthermore, all of the correct-thinking people I know who follow finance were certain that Mr. Trump's election would bring a stock market crash -- one of them told of purchasing options or other financial interests to "hedge" against the possibility of Mr. Trump's election. The week after, I had never seen such sour faces before. He spent, he wasted a lot of money on that financial insurance and Mr. Trump got elected.

    And do you honestly and seriously believe that if Ms. Clinton were elected that we would be seeing anywhere near this level of economic exuberance?

    I also take it that you are sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Trump’s politics have broken free many in the working class from being strictly beholden to the Left or to the Leftish Democrats? But you regard Mr. Trump as an imperfect leader for the genuine concerns of the people he is championing?

    Sort of, but it’s a much bigger deal than that. Among other things, Trump can’t ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona. That means, for friend, foe and indifferent alike, that he cannot present his orders or his initiatives as being normal, and thereby go into effect just by the ordinary course of events. Not only is there resistance that we can see, there is also the perception that Trump is a temporary aberration, and whenever he leaves all his half-cocked measures will simply be unwound.

    And, it also has to be said that the problem is significantly bigger than Trump as well. Specifically, there is a strong appetite among important factions of the Right for factional antagonism for other factions of the Right. This applies to the populists, of course, but it also applies to the radical conservatives against the more mainstream variety. This is what is going on in the Alabama Senate race which is currently dominating the news. It’s not that Alabama conservatives have some particular love for Roy Moore. Instead, they really want to fight a factional battle inside the Right, and Roy Moore just happens to be today’s platform to do it.

    My remarks regarding the Trump Economic Boom are factually questionable?

    That’s the way it looks from here. I was around from say, 1995-2000, and what we’re seeing today is nothing remotely like the way it was then. In any event, I don’t think there’s anything relating to the economy that President Trump can take the credit or blame for. The policy has more or less been on autopilot since the Inauguration.

    • Replies: @Moses

    Among other things, Trump can’t ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona.
     
    You are totally right.

    Trump's spastic, volatile personality was a real impediment in the following achievements:

    1) Building a real estate empire
    2) Becoming a best selling author
    3) Becoming a reality TV star
    4) Raising well-adjusted, successful children
    5) Besting a wide field of primary Republicans despite being a political novice
    6) Destroying the Bush dynasty
    7) Destroying the Clinton dynasty
    8) Winning the Presidency

    He'll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.

  145. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    There's a million little things that impinge on critical judgement. Not all critics are about the same thing, and if movies were like other firms of art, their criticism could take a any number of forms. But professional film critics with any real influence over the public should be at least a little objective and do their job. Which is to recommend seeing the movie, or not, and tell us ahead of time what it is, exactly, without spoiling it. The recommendation could be for the general audience, fans of the genre, or just people who like what pretentious critics like. Whatever, so long as they're honest. As in, "I hated it, but so-and-so will love it." Too much of that missing.

    Goodfellas is a classic, and beyond that perhaps a once in a lifetime movie for the subgenre (low-level street crime vernacular Italian-American crime drama). Though I don't really blame them for missing just how rewatchable it is, and how influential it would become. Because that's a test of time thing. But they really shouldn't be mixed. It should have been obvious it's the perfect movie for that kind of movie.

    I was like 8 when it came out, so I didn't see it until years later. I knew it was supposed to be good, but I didn't really know much about it when I eventually saw it. And I was transported immediately. It's the sort of thing they invented the term "tour de force" to describe. And even if it had been devoid of all theme and morally empty (which it wasn't) that much at least would be obvious to anyone who wasn't a critic with something else on his mind.

    And I was transported immediately.

    Yeah, that is the key term.

    Most movies are escapist. They seem to take us away… but escapism is really about familiarism. We ‘escape’ to the comfort zone with conventional heroes and villains, dramatic ups and downs, happy endings. It’s like going on a cruise or some vacation resort that caters to recreation and leisure. We escape to a kind of home away from home. It’s like we want to feel AWAY but don’t really want surprises.
    This is true of amusement parks too. Some rides are scary but we know we will be safe and it will be fun. It’s all within expectation.

    Most historical movies are escapist. Even if they take place 100s or 1000s of yrs away, it looks very Hollywood. We know we are getting all the familiar tropes of what an epic movie is supposed to entail. We know we are watching make-believe or a star vehicle. We don’t really feel we are in another place and time.

    But then, there are films like ANDREI RUBLEV, BARRY LYNDON, and GOODFELLAS that really seem to transport us to a different world, real one with people and situations that don’t play by genre rules we’ve become accustomed to.
    Films that really transport us are rare. 2001 is one of the few sci-fi films that did.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is an insightful comment; thanks very much.
  146. @guest
    Also, I was recently reading about Dr. Zhivago, which is one of the biggest hits of all time and a beloved classic and all that. Though it won Oscars and such, the critics weren't very nice to it, at least compared to David Lean's previous movies. Because it was a sometimes candy-colored love story starring a poet who doesn't really do much besides stare at things with Disney Eyes, with an occasionally annoying theme tune played incessantly?
    Maybe. But also because there are unwritten rules like "You can't go ga-ga over three epic Lean movies in a row."

    I don't believe it's possible for critics to have been as hard as they were on Zhivago come out before Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. Though it's possible partisanship for the novel, and the intelligentsia's sense of ownership over it, interfered with their enjoyment, as I've heard suggested.

    Robert Wise won Best Director for Sound of Music over David Lean that year. Sound of Music is a fine movie, but come on. If directing is like being a general, David Lean was Napoleon without a Waterloo.

    “Goodfellas” was the sixth Scorsese-DeNiro movie. The idea that it was the best was heresy at the time, because it would be saying it topped critics’ favorites Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

    Really, it was pretty improbable that Scorsese would be getting better after a long career.

    Reviewers have a Bayesian aspect. As you are walking in you are making up a little story about how Scorsese peaked in 1976-1980 and this new film Goodfellas …

    – Confirms his long decline
    or
    – Isn’t as good as Taki Driver and Raging Bull, of course, but is a nice comeback.

    The third alternative — Scorsese blows away all expectations — is harder to deal with.

    • Replies: @guest
    The little stories they have in their heads going in, I have those too. And I rewrite them in my head as I'm watching, if I'm not distracted. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if I actually had to write about it afterwards,with people caring what I say.

    A major reason people hate all the books they were forced to read in school, perhaps, is that they know they'll have to write reports and/or be tested afterwards. It ruins the experience. You can't just read it like a normal human being. My favorite books, movies, whatever, I never, ever had the inclination to critique afterwards. That'd in a way be like explaining a joke. Even trying might ruin the spell.

    But this is what I meant when I said they should try to be more objective. They're not me, just looking to be entertained or enlightened. They're professionals, with responsibilities.

    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    Steve,

    I am surprised you have never empathized what made Goodfellas so different from 90%+ of Hollywood gangster movies. It stressed Nature over Nurture in regards to criminality.

    And Goodfellas hits you right it the face with this message right from the famous opening.

    The Goodfellas screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi, which won him the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, stays true to his book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family (1986), by not injecting lots of Hollywood Marxist nonsense that criminality is the product of familial and social conditioning.

    In the book and film, Henry Hill tells you that he is a born sociopath and does not blame his life of crime on his family upbringing or society.

    In fact the only thing that is missing from the movie are the deleted passages in the book where Henry Hill is able to bamboozle parole officers, clergymen, rabbis, judges etc that he is what he is because he had a hard life and deserves another break.
  147. That’s Andrew Sullivan? Damn…

    • Replies: @larry lurker
    YouTube: C-SPAN - Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage and Christianity [2002]

    In the end Sullivan kind of gets destroyed here - by Hitch.

    , @Steve Sailer
    Andrew Sullivan was in a clothing chain ad many years ago.
  148. @larry lurker
    That's Andrew Sullivan? Damn...

    YouTube: C-SPAN – Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage and Christianity [2002]

    In the end Sullivan kind of gets destroyed here – by Hitch.

    • Replies: @guest
    I remember reading Sullivan back in the early post-9/11 days, and he was your average saber-rattler. Unremarkable and ho-hum. Some combination of gay marriage and Sarah Palin's Downs Syndrome baby broke his brain, I think. He was entertainingly unhinged for a while, as I recall, though perhaps that's faded. I wouldn't know.
  149. @larry lurker
    That's Andrew Sullivan? Damn...

    Andrew Sullivan was in a clothing chain ad many years ago.

    • Replies: @larry lurker
    This? But how do you score a shoot with Annie Leibowitz for Gap when you're a complete unknown... Ah.
  150. @Boethiuss

    I also take it that you are sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Trump’s politics have broken free many in the working class from being strictly beholden to the Left or to the Leftish Democrats? But you regard Mr. Trump as an imperfect leader for the genuine concerns of the people he is championing?
     
    Sort of, but it's a much bigger deal than that. Among other things, Trump can't ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona. That means, for friend, foe and indifferent alike, that he cannot present his orders or his initiatives as being normal, and thereby go into effect just by the ordinary course of events. Not only is there resistance that we can see, there is also the perception that Trump is a temporary aberration, and whenever he leaves all his half-cocked measures will simply be unwound.

    And, it also has to be said that the problem is significantly bigger than Trump as well. Specifically, there is a strong appetite among important factions of the Right for factional antagonism for other factions of the Right. This applies to the populists, of course, but it also applies to the radical conservatives against the more mainstream variety. This is what is going on in the Alabama Senate race which is currently dominating the news. It's not that Alabama conservatives have some particular love for Roy Moore. Instead, they really want to fight a factional battle inside the Right, and Roy Moore just happens to be today's platform to do it.


    My remarks regarding the Trump Economic Boom are factually questionable?
     
    That's the way it looks from here. I was around from say, 1995-2000, and what we're seeing today is nothing remotely like the way it was then. In any event, I don't think there's anything relating to the economy that President Trump can take the credit or blame for. The policy has more or less been on autopilot since the Inauguration.

    Among other things, Trump can’t ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona.

    You are totally right.

    Trump’s spastic, volatile personality was a real impediment in the following achievements:

    1) Building a real estate empire
    2) Becoming a best selling author
    3) Becoming a reality TV star
    4) Raising well-adjusted, successful children
    5) Besting a wide field of primary Republicans despite being a political novice
    6) Destroying the Bush dynasty
    7) Destroying the Clinton dynasty
    8) Winning the Presidency

    He’ll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Don't forget his marriages to three 10/10 women and the fact that the first two resulted in apparently reasonably amicable divorces.

    Or the loyalty expressed by people who work for him at various levels of his organizations.

    I'm fascinated by the phenomenon of people resisting what an alpha male is and can accomplish. The beta cuckery runs far deeper than I would have guessed prior to June 2015.
    , @Boethiuss

    You are totally right.
     
    Thanks, I appreciate it.

    He’ll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.
     
    Well yeah, that's the point. Circumstances that might favor anyone, or a specific person like Mr. Trump, for one particular thing, may also hurt in another, and that's what we have here.

    I can only think of a few people who have taken a turn for the worse in opposing Mr Trump, and no one was at any time opposed and whose opposition has waned. And the one thing that might help is to get a bunch more Republicans in office in 2018, but that's not looking very likely either at the moment, among other reasons because there's a lot of GOP activists out there who are trying to figure out new ways to piss on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan instead of being team players.
  151. @Anon
    I was skeptical about GOODFELLAS because the 80s was a wobbly decade for Scorsese. He seemed spent, out of gas.

    He began strong with RAGING BULL. Though KING OF COMEDY failed at box office, a very interesting work. AFTER HOURS did get good reviews, but it was rather slight, all show and no tell. Just narcissism of NY neurosis. Then, he did hack work with COLOR OF MONEY. Then the mostly dreadful LAST TEMPTATION, though obviously a labor of love with some great moments.
    Then, a short in NEW YORK STORIES. Not bad but minor.

    So, when GOODFELLAS came out, I had rather low expectations. But then, the very hard-to-please John Simon gave it a total rave, and that got me interested. And it was truly amazing on every level.

    And the 90s turned out to be a great decade for Scorsese. He also made CASINO.
    AGE OF INNOCENCE has problem but is the work of a master. KUNDUN is a fascinating work, a forerunner of SILENCE.
    Didn't care much for CAPE FEAR and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, but four great movies a decade is very impressive.

    And for that reason, I expected Scorsese to go even higher in the 2000s, and GANGS OF NY was one of the most eagerly anticipated movies ever... but it was a total mess, like NY NY and LAST TEMPTATION. Then, AVIATOR never got liftoff. THE DEPARTED, though a big hit and finally an oscar win, was a big dumb movie.

    But then, SHUTTER ISLAND was pretty good, WOLF OF WALL STREET was certainly impressive, and THE SILENCE is a masterpiece.

    Another director I gave up early in the 90s was Spielberg.

    He had a fabulous start with RAIDERS and ET but then sputtered with a short in TWILIGHT ZONE, made DisneyLand out of Alice Walker novel, and made two Indy sequels.
    EMPIRE OF THE SUN had a great first act but then succumbed to Spielbergism and turned WWII into Coney Island.
    And he began the 90s with HOOK, so I thought he ran out of gas.
    Who would have known he was embarking on the great second act of his career with JURASSIC PARK, SCHINDLER, SAVING, AI, and the rest.

    Walter Hill is another notable director of the 90s though he didn't have any hits unfortunately.
    GERONIMO, WILD BILL, and LAST MAN STANDING. Three scalps in a decade. Not bad.

    I remember being very into Raging Bull as a kid, but I’m not sure why now. My reaction is pretty much, “Well, he’s an awful human being…Next.” My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Maybe it’s all the years of seeing “difficult men” in lead roles in movies and on tv. I’m utterly jaded on the subject.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Marty, despite being married 5 times, isn't the manliest of men, but he's a great student of masculinity. So that's what Raging Bull was about -- masculinity, kind of the way Michelangelo's David is about anatomy.
    , @Anon
    My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Power.

    Different kinds of power.

    Lamotta is ugly and has only kind of power: fists.

    He tries to own, destroy, or resist other kinds of power: beauty, smarts, organization, money, tougher fists, time, concrete wall.

    In the end, he is defeated by all... but finally gains a kind of grace from the acceptance of defeat.

    Scorsese also depicts sports as a demonic counterpart to sainthood. Athletes, like saints, must lead a life of self-denial and sacrifice. No food and sex during training. And punishing agony in the ring.
    But for what? Beastly aggression, ego, fame, money.
  152. @Steve Sailer
    "Goodfellas" was the sixth Scorsese-DeNiro movie. The idea that it was the best was heresy at the time, because it would be saying it topped critics' favorites Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

    Really, it was pretty improbable that Scorsese would be getting better after a long career.

    Reviewers have a Bayesian aspect. As you are walking in you are making up a little story about how Scorsese peaked in 1976-1980 and this new film Goodfellas ...

    - Confirms his long decline
    or
    - Isn't as good as Taki Driver and Raging Bull, of course, but is a nice comeback.

    The third alternative -- Scorsese blows away all expectations -- is harder to deal with.

    The little stories they have in their heads going in, I have those too. And I rewrite them in my head as I’m watching, if I’m not distracted. I can’t imagine how much worse it would be if I actually had to write about it afterwards,with people caring what I say.

    A major reason people hate all the books they were forced to read in school, perhaps, is that they know they’ll have to write reports and/or be tested afterwards. It ruins the experience. You can’t just read it like a normal human being. My favorite books, movies, whatever, I never, ever had the inclination to critique afterwards. That’d in a way be like explaining a joke. Even trying might ruin the spell.

    But this is what I meant when I said they should try to be more objective. They’re not me, just looking to be entertained or enlightened. They’re professionals, with responsibilities.

  153. @Steve Sailer
    Andrew Sullivan was in a clothing chain ad many years ago.

    This? But how do you score a shoot with Annie Leibowitz for Gap when you’re a complete unknown… Ah.

  154. @Anon
    And I was transported immediately.

    Yeah, that is the key term.

    Most movies are escapist. They seem to take us away... but escapism is really about familiarism. We 'escape' to the comfort zone with conventional heroes and villains, dramatic ups and downs, happy endings. It's like going on a cruise or some vacation resort that caters to recreation and leisure. We escape to a kind of home away from home. It's like we want to feel AWAY but don't really want surprises.
    This is true of amusement parks too. Some rides are scary but we know we will be safe and it will be fun. It's all within expectation.

    Most historical movies are escapist. Even if they take place 100s or 1000s of yrs away, it looks very Hollywood. We know we are getting all the familiar tropes of what an epic movie is supposed to entail. We know we are watching make-believe or a star vehicle. We don't really feel we are in another place and time.

    But then, there are films like ANDREI RUBLEV, BARRY LYNDON, and GOODFELLAS that really seem to transport us to a different world, real one with people and situations that don't play by genre rules we've become accustomed to.
    Films that really transport us are rare. 2001 is one of the few sci-fi films that did.

    This is an insightful comment; thanks very much.

  155. @guest
    I remember being very into Raging Bull as a kid, but I'm not sure why now. My reaction is pretty much, "Well, he's an awful human being...Next." My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Maybe it's all the years of seeing "difficult men" in lead roles in movies and on tv. I'm utterly jaded on the subject.

    Marty, despite being married 5 times, isn’t the manliest of men, but he’s a great student of masculinity. So that’s what Raging Bull was about — masculinity, kind of the way Michelangelo’s David is about anatomy.

  156. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    I remember being very into Raging Bull as a kid, but I'm not sure why now. My reaction is pretty much, "Well, he's an awful human being...Next." My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Maybe it's all the years of seeing "difficult men" in lead roles in movies and on tv. I'm utterly jaded on the subject.

    My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Power.

    Different kinds of power.

    Lamotta is ugly and has only kind of power: fists.

    He tries to own, destroy, or resist other kinds of power: beauty, smarts, organization, money, tougher fists, time, concrete wall.

    In the end, he is defeated by all… but finally gains a kind of grace from the acceptance of defeat.

    Scorsese also depicts sports as a demonic counterpart to sainthood. Athletes, like saints, must lead a life of self-denial and sacrifice. No food and sex during training. And punishing agony in the ring.
    But for what? Beastly aggression, ego, fame, money.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    BTW, the real Lamotta just died recently at the age of 95 and seemingly in possession of most of his marbles until the end. So much for boxing causing brain damage to all fighters - this is all the more remarkable because Lamotta's style was to let the other boxer wear himself out punching Lamotta in the head.
  157. @larry lurker
    YouTube: C-SPAN - Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage and Christianity [2002]

    In the end Sullivan kind of gets destroyed here - by Hitch.

    I remember reading Sullivan back in the early post-9/11 days, and he was your average saber-rattler. Unremarkable and ho-hum. Some combination of gay marriage and Sarah Palin’s Downs Syndrome baby broke his brain, I think. He was entertainingly unhinged for a while, as I recall, though perhaps that’s faded. I wouldn’t know.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Sullivan started out ca. 1985 as an opinion journalist with variegated interests. In increments, his homosexuality consumed his brain and just about all he had to say was derived from it in some way. Interestingly enough, he once gave a brief biographical account in which he said there came a point in 1987 or 1991 or thereabouts where he realized that 2/3 of the people he socialized with were homosexual men and the rest were people he'd known before immersing himself in the gayworld of DC and Boston.

    For whatever reason, he elected to eschew an academic career. (It was after he completed his dissertation and was re-hired by The New Republic that he made a public point of his homosexuality). The man was once president of the Oxford Union. You look over the course of his life the last 30 years, you see a man circling the toilet bowl. He doesn't see it that way, of course.
  158. I just want to say that it has been a pleasure to watch the defenestration of Art Deco in this thread. Good job, goys.

    Art, don’t change a thing. If you didn’t exist, countersemites would have to invent you.

    My conclusion is that there are a mess of people whose worldview is constructed around a resentment of Jews, which, in turn, is constructed around a caricature of Jews (their pretensions aside). Why they are this way only they can answer (and, just as likely, most of them really cannot).

    People specialize in subjects all the time in academia. Jews don’t call them “obsessed” or the like, because they aren’t treading on Jewish sensibilities. In other words, the basis of the quote is projection (from a worldview constructed around defending Jews).

    I, for one, am happy to explain how I became a countersemite. TL;DR version: 9/11, search for answers that left no stone unturned, countersemites had the most of interest to say, I continued reading countersemites on other subjects, and they just kept on winning the argument. It’s another Shoah!

    I shouldn’t leave out the Art Decos, though; their behavior along the way was a pretty big influence, too.

    • Replies: @anon
    9/11, search for answers that left no stone unturned, countersemites had the most of interest to say, I continued reading countersemites on other subjects, and they just kept on winning the argument.

    Purely out of historical interest, I would like to point out that I never heard of Richard Spencer until Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com pointed him out. I remember his comment about Spencer's "movie-star good looks" in particular.

    According to Radix podcasts, it wasn't that long ago (in the grand scheme of things) that the two of them were still hanging out occaaionally. Spencer only really became a total bogeyman around a year ago.

    I actually miss the Richard Spencer who did three-hour, in-depth analyses of The Shining and things like that. His infamy seems to have gone to his head. He can be a really interesting guy when he's not putting on a show for the news cameras.

  159. Films that really transport us are rare. 2001 is one of the few sci-fi films that did.

    I think Blade Runner might top 2001 in this regard.

  160. @Steve Sailer
    "Goodfellas" was the sixth Scorsese-DeNiro movie. The idea that it was the best was heresy at the time, because it would be saying it topped critics' favorites Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

    Really, it was pretty improbable that Scorsese would be getting better after a long career.

    Reviewers have a Bayesian aspect. As you are walking in you are making up a little story about how Scorsese peaked in 1976-1980 and this new film Goodfellas ...

    - Confirms his long decline
    or
    - Isn't as good as Taki Driver and Raging Bull, of course, but is a nice comeback.

    The third alternative -- Scorsese blows away all expectations -- is harder to deal with.

    Steve,

    I am surprised you have never empathized what made Goodfellas so different from 90%+ of Hollywood gangster movies. It stressed Nature over Nurture in regards to criminality.

    And Goodfellas hits you right it the face with this message right from the famous opening.

    The Goodfellas screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi, which won him the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, stays true to his book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family (1986), by not injecting lots of Hollywood Marxist nonsense that criminality is the product of familial and social conditioning.

    In the book and film, Henry Hill tells you that he is a born sociopath and does not blame his life of crime on his family upbringing or society.

    In fact the only thing that is missing from the movie are the deleted passages in the book where Henry Hill is able to bamboozle parole officers, clergymen, rabbis, judges etc that he is what he is because he had a hard life and deserves another break.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I am surprised you have never empathized what made Goodfellas so different from 90%+ of Hollywood gangster movies. It stressed Nature over Nurture in regards to criminality.
     
    What really made it different is that it showed gangsters going about their work - i.e., committing crimes. You could watch all three God Father movies, and - apart from murder, which strictly speaking isn't a revnue-generating activity - never see anyone do anything illegal.

    Goodfellas showed how the hoods made a living - stealing, hijacking, loan-sharking, extorting, drug-dealing. It was a crime-procedural. That to me was what made it fascinating.
  161. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Now you’re just being a dick – or a purposeful idiot.

    No, you're having trouble understanding a straightforward point. Which is your problem, not mine.

    You’re confusing your categories, comparing wealthy bluebloods with the general run of the Jewish population.

    Per capita, Jews are richer than any other group.

    So what?

    No comment necessary.

    Jews also network for their own kind at least as often and successfully as Old Money WASPs

    Sez who?

    Call it the null hypothesis. Is yours that they network less successfully?

  162. @Art Deco
    Now you’re just being a dick – or a purposeful idiot.

    No, you're having trouble understanding a straightforward point. Which is your problem, not mine.

    No it wouldn’t.

    Why not?

  163. @Mike Zwick

    In the America of the 1950s, or even the 1980s, white, straight, native-born American men didn’t worry as much about competing with Salvadoran immigrants and Chinese factory workers and professional women and Joshua-generation African Americans.
     
    Who ever said this never worked in a factory during the 1950's - 1980's.

    What on earth is a “Joshua-generation African American”?

    I watched the Mexican invasion into the restaurants in the 1980’s. Out with the American teenagers, in with the adult Mexicans (mostly men at that time).

  164. @Art Deco
    Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    No, Jews are disproportionately represented among both students and the professoriate of the Ivys. Some of that can certainly be chalked up to intelligence, but probably not all of it. Anyway, it is interesting that you are so selective in your rebuttal. What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

  165. @guest
    I remember reading Sullivan back in the early post-9/11 days, and he was your average saber-rattler. Unremarkable and ho-hum. Some combination of gay marriage and Sarah Palin's Downs Syndrome baby broke his brain, I think. He was entertainingly unhinged for a while, as I recall, though perhaps that's faded. I wouldn't know.

    Sullivan started out ca. 1985 as an opinion journalist with variegated interests. In increments, his homosexuality consumed his brain and just about all he had to say was derived from it in some way. Interestingly enough, he once gave a brief biographical account in which he said there came a point in 1987 or 1991 or thereabouts where he realized that 2/3 of the people he socialized with were homosexual men and the rest were people he’d known before immersing himself in the gayworld of DC and Boston.

    For whatever reason, he elected to eschew an academic career. (It was after he completed his dissertation and was re-hired by The New Republic that he made a public point of his homosexuality). The man was once president of the Oxford Union. You look over the course of his life the last 30 years, you see a man circling the toilet bowl. He doesn’t see it that way, of course.

    • Replies: @anon
    I've never heard "variegated" applied to interests before. Opinions, yes, but never interests.
    , @Jack D
    I find it very strange when people completely switch sides from right to left as Sullivan did. I really don't comprehend the process except as the result of mental disease. The old saying is, "if you are not a liberal when you are 20 then you have no heart. If you are still a liberal when you are 30, you have no brains." There are countless people who get mugged by reality and lose their romantic views of human nature as they get older, but what is the process that takes you in the other direction?
  166. @Art Deco
    Sullivan started out ca. 1985 as an opinion journalist with variegated interests. In increments, his homosexuality consumed his brain and just about all he had to say was derived from it in some way. Interestingly enough, he once gave a brief biographical account in which he said there came a point in 1987 or 1991 or thereabouts where he realized that 2/3 of the people he socialized with were homosexual men and the rest were people he'd known before immersing himself in the gayworld of DC and Boston.

    For whatever reason, he elected to eschew an academic career. (It was after he completed his dissertation and was re-hired by The New Republic that he made a public point of his homosexuality). The man was once president of the Oxford Union. You look over the course of his life the last 30 years, you see a man circling the toilet bowl. He doesn't see it that way, of course.

    I’ve never heard “variegated” applied to interests before. Opinions, yes, but never interests.

  167. @Art Deco
    American Jews qua Jews were not notably 'privileged' in 1974 nor are they privileged today, except in the addled heads of the unzosphere. The only 'privileged' people in this country are those who can trade on connections-sans-skills, but the well-connected are the well-connected. They're not an ethnically delimited group. If you want an example of someone who grew quite wealthy on connections, look at Hunter Biden, whose father was, in 1971, a mope from the Philadelphia suburbs.

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he's bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn't known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Beinart and Peretz have been sniping at each other in public fora for about six or seven years, since Beinart took to promoting a nonsense program for the Near East. Peretz made it personal, saying Beinart's mother turned him into a conceited jerk. Beinart's replying in kind.

    Peretz has his biases: Jewish, Ivy League, and BosWash corridor, with exceptions. (Jack Beatty, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Richard Just are gentile; Jack Beatty had no tertiary schooling and Michael Kelly was the issue of state schools; Peretz himself is from Chicago and Michael Kinsley Detroit). Interestingly, for all that Peretz and Wieseltier promoted Jewish political causes, for the most part the editors were rather lackadaisical about maintaining a Jewish domestic life. Most of them inter-married and Peretz himself is quite explicitly hostile to the Haredi in Israel. Beinart is the only one of his deputies known to be religiously observant, several others are explicit nonbelievers and one (Hendrik Hertzberg) a tiresome and puerile village atheist.

    Hanna Rosin might have a look around her and see if she can identify a notable opinion magazine edited by a woman at some point over the last 5 decades. Right, center, left, religious and secular, they all had male editors (the exceptions being Mother Jones and Ms.). Magazine staffs and publishing houses are thickly populated with females and have been for more than a century. However, the number of women who excel at topical commentary on public affairs are not very numerous and a number who are frequently published seem to be quota fillers and / or foils (see Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift).

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he’s bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn’t known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.

    Neither did Kevin Spacey. He did his cavorting with young men on Nantucket, not Provincetown, a much more genteel setting. That’s why he flew under the gaydar until he was at last accused of being a molesting pedo.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He did his cavorting with young men on Nantucket, not Provincetown, a much more genteel setting. That’s why he flew under the gaydar until he was at last accused of being a molesting pedo.

    The accusations contra Spacey have been located in his apartment, at worksites, and in ordinary taverns. None of them have alleged he had anything to do with prepubescent children. Two have alleged pederasty. One of the two has a vibe which suggests it's an elaborate fantasy. The other is much more realistic, but there isn't much to it other than a drunken pass.
  168. @Art Deco
    Sullivan started out ca. 1985 as an opinion journalist with variegated interests. In increments, his homosexuality consumed his brain and just about all he had to say was derived from it in some way. Interestingly enough, he once gave a brief biographical account in which he said there came a point in 1987 or 1991 or thereabouts where he realized that 2/3 of the people he socialized with were homosexual men and the rest were people he'd known before immersing himself in the gayworld of DC and Boston.

    For whatever reason, he elected to eschew an academic career. (It was after he completed his dissertation and was re-hired by The New Republic that he made a public point of his homosexuality). The man was once president of the Oxford Union. You look over the course of his life the last 30 years, you see a man circling the toilet bowl. He doesn't see it that way, of course.

    I find it very strange when people completely switch sides from right to left as Sullivan did. I really don’t comprehend the process except as the result of mental disease. The old saying is, “if you are not a liberal when you are 20 then you have no heart. If you are still a liberal when you are 30, you have no brains.” There are countless people who get mugged by reality and lose their romantic views of human nature as they get older, but what is the process that takes you in the other direction?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    There are countless people who get mugged by reality and lose their romantic views of human nature as they get older, but what is the process that takes you in the other direction?
     
    AIDS medicine, poppers, bareback buggery, and marijuana?
  169. Beinart did not vaguely hint about sexual preference bias in his Atlantic piece. He merely used the wrong word. Beinart meant to say that Peretz had a sex bias, not a sexual bias, toward men. I.e. Peretz did not care about women writers and editors.

    Sailer is justified in exploring a possible sexual preference bias, of course, but Beinart did not intend to bring it up, unless you think he made a Freudian slip.

  170. @Anon
    My 14 year-old self has a hard time explaining to my current self what the point is.

    Power.

    Different kinds of power.

    Lamotta is ugly and has only kind of power: fists.

    He tries to own, destroy, or resist other kinds of power: beauty, smarts, organization, money, tougher fists, time, concrete wall.

    In the end, he is defeated by all... but finally gains a kind of grace from the acceptance of defeat.

    Scorsese also depicts sports as a demonic counterpart to sainthood. Athletes, like saints, must lead a life of self-denial and sacrifice. No food and sex during training. And punishing agony in the ring.
    But for what? Beastly aggression, ego, fame, money.

    BTW, the real Lamotta just died recently at the age of 95 and seemingly in possession of most of his marbles until the end. So much for boxing causing brain damage to all fighters – this is all the more remarkable because Lamotta’s style was to let the other boxer wear himself out punching Lamotta in the head.

    • Replies: @Anon
    BTW, the real Lamotta just died recently at the age of 95 and seemingly in possession of most of his marbles until the end... So much for boxing causing brain damage to all fighters

    He didn't have much of a mind to lose.

    Also, except for his matches with Robinson and few others, he didn't face truly tough fighters.
    He says in his book that the mafia and others rigged the game to minimize the participation of blacks. But Robinson was so good that they couldn't keep him out.

    No one said boxing destroys the minds of all boxers. But many do suffer brain damage(or eye damage, hearing damage, spinal damage, etc). And we gotta keep in mind that Lamotta didn't engage in brainy work. He had enough marbles left so that he could function normally. But all those punches surely killed a lot of brain cells.

    RAGING BULL was, in a way, a corrective to ROCKY that PLATOON was a corrective to RAMBO.
    Granted, ROCKY and RAMBO are worlds apart. The former is essentially humanist and has that 70s Realism American style whereas the latter if slick 80s fantasy of mayhem.
    ROCKY is not about some macho superman but a palooka who finally earns a bit of self-respect. Still, it is a Cinderella story. Kauffmann liked the movie but knew, based on his experience of the boxing world, such a match could never have been arranged. Stallone said he based his story on the Ali-Wepner fight, but Wepner had paid his dues and was one tough hombre. He like what he said about his grueling match with Sonny Liston. When asked how many punches he blocked, he said 'all of them. With my face.' But in ROCKY, some intermittent has-been who trains by punching slabs of beef goes the distance against the world champ and almost wins. Though ROCKY got bloody, it was still in heroic/fairytale mode. (Though Italian-American directors made a difference in the 70s, most of them made their mark by making movies about non-Italians. THE GODFATHER is the great exception -- MEAN STREETS wasn't a hit though it got noticed by critics --, its director being Coppola.. but even there, he took on the subject reluctantly because he needed to something to do to finance his other works. The three other big hits with Italian-American characters were directed by non-Italians: LOVE STORY, ROCKY, and SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And the most famous Italian-American character of the decade, Fonzarelli of HAPPY DAYS, was played by a Jewish guy. But then I guess Brando played Vito.)
    Contra ROCKY, RAGING BULL was truly a mean nasty movie about boxing. Some of the fights looked like fought in the inferno of hell. The fighters are like hell's angels or devil's saints. They are as committed to slaughter in the ring as saints are committed to salvation. But the ends are sheer animalism and vanity. And of course, the big difference between angels and devils is the former support one another whereas the latter devour one another. So, the Passion of Manhood turns into manhood emasculating and crucifying other manhood. Lamotta becomes both the crucifier of other fighters destroyed by his fists but he is in turn crucified by others, esp Robinson in one of his last fights. And because there is humiliation and tragedy in the eventual defeat of all boxers, even hell can pave the way for salvation if the defeated were to let go and accept grace.

    Everyone is lovable in ROCKY. Even the mafia guy. And when Rocky is told to break someone's thumb, he just feels sorry for the guy.
    In contrast, the mafia guys in RAGING BULL range from parasites to sharks. Every blood cell in their bodies is saturated with seediness and corruption.
  171. @gingerbread man
    I don't know if Steve has ever done an article on the word "nice" and it's role in American Jewish Culture.

    The concept of Nice Jewish boy is fairly well known, and the only instances in which I have seen the words Nice Boy are when they are code for Nice Jewish Boy.

    My english teacher was a fairly old and dour woman but like several of my teachers she had lost a fiancé in ww1 so one forgave her dourness. Anyway, the word ‘nice’ was banned from essays because it is not descriptive; it is an unsubstantiated personal value judgement. Unfortunately, PC has reduced our range of adjectives to just one – ‘nice’ – because that way no one gets offended. Brain rot.

  172. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    BTW, the real Lamotta just died recently at the age of 95 and seemingly in possession of most of his marbles until the end. So much for boxing causing brain damage to all fighters - this is all the more remarkable because Lamotta's style was to let the other boxer wear himself out punching Lamotta in the head.

    BTW, the real Lamotta just died recently at the age of 95 and seemingly in possession of most of his marbles until the end… So much for boxing causing brain damage to all fighters

    He didn’t have much of a mind to lose.

    Also, except for his matches with Robinson and few others, he didn’t face truly tough fighters.
    He says in his book that the mafia and others rigged the game to minimize the participation of blacks. But Robinson was so good that they couldn’t keep him out.

    No one said boxing destroys the minds of all boxers. But many do suffer brain damage(or eye damage, hearing damage, spinal damage, etc). And we gotta keep in mind that Lamotta didn’t engage in brainy work. He had enough marbles left so that he could function normally. But all those punches surely killed a lot of brain cells.

    RAGING BULL was, in a way, a corrective to ROCKY that PLATOON was a corrective to RAMBO.
    Granted, ROCKY and RAMBO are worlds apart. The former is essentially humanist and has that 70s Realism American style whereas the latter if slick 80s fantasy of mayhem.
    ROCKY is not about some macho superman but a palooka who finally earns a bit of self-respect. Still, it is a Cinderella story. Kauffmann liked the movie but knew, based on his experience of the boxing world, such a match could never have been arranged. Stallone said he based his story on the Ali-Wepner fight, but Wepner had paid his dues and was one tough hombre. He like what he said about his grueling match with Sonny Liston. When asked how many punches he blocked, he said ‘all of them. With my face.’ But in ROCKY, some intermittent has-been who trains by punching slabs of beef goes the distance against the world champ and almost wins. Though ROCKY got bloody, it was still in heroic/fairytale mode. (Though Italian-American directors made a difference in the 70s, most of them made their mark by making movies about non-Italians. THE GODFATHER is the great exception — MEAN STREETS wasn’t a hit though it got noticed by critics –, its director being Coppola.. but even there, he took on the subject reluctantly because he needed to something to do to finance his other works. The three other big hits with Italian-American characters were directed by non-Italians: LOVE STORY, ROCKY, and SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And the most famous Italian-American character of the decade, Fonzarelli of HAPPY DAYS, was played by a Jewish guy. But then I guess Brando played Vito.)
    Contra ROCKY, RAGING BULL was truly a mean nasty movie about boxing. Some of the fights looked like fought in the inferno of hell. The fighters are like hell’s angels or devil’s saints. They are as committed to slaughter in the ring as saints are committed to salvation. But the ends are sheer animalism and vanity. And of course, the big difference between angels and devils is the former support one another whereas the latter devour one another. So, the Passion of Manhood turns into manhood emasculating and crucifying other manhood. Lamotta becomes both the crucifier of other fighters destroyed by his fists but he is in turn crucified by others, esp Robinson in one of his last fights. And because there is humiliation and tragedy in the eventual defeat of all boxers, even hell can pave the way for salvation if the defeated were to let go and accept grace.

    Everyone is lovable in ROCKY. Even the mafia guy. And when Rocky is told to break someone’s thumb, he just feels sorry for the guy.
    In contrast, the mafia guys in RAGING BULL range from parasites to sharks. Every blood cell in their bodies is saturated with seediness and corruption.

  173. @Art Deco
    Just happen to dominate Ivy League schools

    Again, not outside your imagination.

    That is an absolute easily provable fact. You’re not arguing in good faith.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That is an absolute easily provable fact.

    You have imagined that.
  174. @Brutusale

    Peretz has admitted to a reporter he’s bisexual. He was married for over 4 decades, has grandchildren, and isn’t known to have ever been part of any parties-bars-bathouses subculture, but all that seems to escape the vulgarians in the press corps.
     
    Neither did Kevin Spacey. He did his cavorting with young men on Nantucket, not Provincetown, a much more genteel setting. That's why he flew under the gaydar until he was at last accused of being a molesting pedo.

    He did his cavorting with young men on Nantucket, not Provincetown, a much more genteel setting. That’s why he flew under the gaydar until he was at last accused of being a molesting pedo.

    The accusations contra Spacey have been located in his apartment, at worksites, and in ordinary taverns. None of them have alleged he had anything to do with prepubescent children. Two have alleged pederasty. One of the two has a vibe which suggests it’s an elaborate fantasy. The other is much more realistic, but there isn’t much to it other than a drunken pass.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    So a 13-year old who's reached puberty is fair game? Good to know, but I suggest not putting your thoughts to the test.
  175. @ben tillman
    That is an absolute easily provable fact. You're not arguing in good faith.

    That is an absolute easily provable fact.

    You have imagined that.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You have imagined that.
     
    Nobody could ever lay that charge at you, Art.

    You have no imagination at all.

    You're a dull, unimaginative drone.
  176. @anon
    If you went on television babbling about ‘Jewish privilege’, you’d just sound like a poisonous crank.

    Possibly. But why don't you think the members of your tribe sound like poisonous cranks when they talk about white privilege? Which they do. All the time.

    That's the point, Artie. If such a thing as "white privilege" exists, then "Jewish privilege" ALSO certainly exists.

    But you and your co-ethnics get away with saying it about us. We wouldn't get away with saying it about you.

    If you don't want to call that "privilege", then what word do you suggest we use?

    The babble about ‘white privilege’ is humbug.

    But they do it anyway, and they get away with it.

    It persists because objecting to it is status lowering among a certain bourgeois set.

    But your denial of Jewish privilege doesn't have that effect on your status. What do you make of that, Artie?

    If a Jewish person makes an accusation, and it lowers my status to defend myself against that accusation, then who would you say has more "privilege" in that situation?

    Doesn’t have much to do with Jews qua Jews at all.

    You really seem to think saying the word "qua" makes you sound smart.

    No bull mastiff with a tasty bone is more single-mindedly dogged about protecting theirs than AD.

    And c’mon, anon, it IS 1938, right?

  177. @Johann Ricke

    I don’t think the lot of you could produce a couple thousand pages of edited copy every year, or that anyone would pay $50 a year to read it.
     
    I'd have to agree. As Jack D wrote earlier, the number of people willing to get on a soapbox for free is simply too high, and the number of people interested in paying for the musings of people on soapboxes is too low. That applies to every variety of commentary. It's probably why journalists are so left-wing. They need a sugar daddy to provide them the security that their jobs lack. Same deal with people in the entertainment industry.

    However, that's not necessarily a knock on these people. Going back thousands of years, creative people have generally required wealthy patrons. It would be nice, however, if those wealthy patrons weren't actually the average taxpaying Joe Blow through his Federal income tax. There are plenty of wealthy people willing to sponsor talents they find worthy.

    They aided and abetted their own deaths. The press in America has the responsibility to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”. They became the comfortable and have spent the last 40 years hectoring the afflicted, which is why they now depend on writing encomiums to the more comfortable for their daily bread.

    They’re dying a well-deserved death. We have a couple generations now whose price point for news and entertainment is essentially zero.

  178. @Jack D
    I find it very strange when people completely switch sides from right to left as Sullivan did. I really don't comprehend the process except as the result of mental disease. The old saying is, "if you are not a liberal when you are 20 then you have no heart. If you are still a liberal when you are 30, you have no brains." There are countless people who get mugged by reality and lose their romantic views of human nature as they get older, but what is the process that takes you in the other direction?

    There are countless people who get mugged by reality and lose their romantic views of human nature as they get older, but what is the process that takes you in the other direction?

    AIDS medicine, poppers, bareback buggery, and marijuana?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Yes, that would explain Sullivan pretty well, but he is not the only one. It's not common but there have been a number of other defectors. Then again, every once in awhile an American soldier defects to N. Korea - it's pretty rare but it happens now and then. Usually to profoundly unhappy people who are several sandwiches shy of a full picnic. Lee Harvey Oswald types.
  179. @Art Deco
    He did his cavorting with young men on Nantucket, not Provincetown, a much more genteel setting. That’s why he flew under the gaydar until he was at last accused of being a molesting pedo.

    The accusations contra Spacey have been located in his apartment, at worksites, and in ordinary taverns. None of them have alleged he had anything to do with prepubescent children. Two have alleged pederasty. One of the two has a vibe which suggests it's an elaborate fantasy. The other is much more realistic, but there isn't much to it other than a drunken pass.

    So a 13-year old who’s reached puberty is fair game? Good to know, but I suggest not putting your thoughts to the test.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You like to put words in my mouth. Because you're a repulsive jack-wagon.
  180. @Jim Don Bob

    There are countless people who get mugged by reality and lose their romantic views of human nature as they get older, but what is the process that takes you in the other direction?
     
    AIDS medicine, poppers, bareback buggery, and marijuana?

    Yes, that would explain Sullivan pretty well, but he is not the only one. It’s not common but there have been a number of other defectors. Then again, every once in awhile an American soldier defects to N. Korea – it’s pretty rare but it happens now and then. Usually to profoundly unhappy people who are several sandwiches shy of a full picnic. Lee Harvey Oswald types.

  181. “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” was always left wing BS. How about just reporting the facts and letting the chips fall where they may? Sometimes the afflicted are afflicted because they have brought it on their own heads. Sometime the comfortable are comfortable because they have worked hard and deserve their well earned comfort. Afflicting the comfortable does not necessarily comfort the afflicted anyway – sometime they end up even more afflicted (see Zimbabwe).

  182. @Mr. Anon

    Again, not outside your imagination.
     
    No, Jews are disproportionately represented among both students and the professoriate of the Ivys. Some of that can certainly be chalked up to intelligence, but probably not all of it. Anyway, it is interesting that you are so selective in your rebuttal. What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    You’re having trouble, betwixt and between emotional outbursts, in discerning the difference between ‘disproportionate’ and ‘dominate’. The Ivy League is not dominated by Jews. The Ivy League might be 8% Jewish rather than 2%. That’s of absolutely no interest to anyone not in a snit for some other reason.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You’re having trouble, betwixt and between emotional outbursts,
     
    I'm having nothing of the kind. I'm merely pointing out that you are a lying sack.

    The Ivy League is not dominated by Jews. The Ivy League might be 8% Jewish rather than 2%. That’s of absolutely no interest to anyone not in a snit for some other reason.
     
    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701

    I don't imagine the ratios of graduate students are that much different. Nor are they abnormally low at the other Ivys. 8%? Unlikely.

    By the way, I was able to Google that link within a few seconds. Where is your legendary Google-fu, Art? Has your one and only talent deserted you??
  183. @Mr. Anon

    Again, not outside your imagination.
     
    No, Jews are disproportionately represented among both students and the professoriate of the Ivys. Some of that can certainly be chalked up to intelligence, but probably not all of it. Anyway, it is interesting that you are so selective in your rebuttal. What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. “Studio executive” and “bond trader” are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations. As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan. That these three are Jews is not consequential. What they fancy the Constitution requires is the problem.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. “Studio executive” and “bond trader” are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations.
     
    Sure, these are just niche occupations, of no consequence whatever. Your answer is - as usual - highly deceptive. "Bond Trader"? What about CEO?

    As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan.
     
    Who said anything about "tricked"? How about "Influenced"? That's how those decisions get made.

    That these three are Jews is not consequential.
     
    Who people are is very conseqential. It is perhaps the most consequential thing when it comes to institutions and the policies they pursue.
    , @Mr. Anon

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. “Studio executive” and “bond trader” are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations.
     
    Sure, these are just niche occupations, of no consequence whatever. Wall Street and Hollywood are of no importance at all.

    As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan.
     
    Who said anything about “tricked”? How about “Influenced”? That’s how those decisions get made.

    That these three are Jews is not consequential.
     
    Who people are is very conseqential. It is perhaps the most consequential thing when it comes to institutions and the policies they pursue.
  184. @Mr. Anon

    No it wouldn’t. An you know it wouldn’t because a national press corps which favors the Democratic Party by margins of 8-to-1 cannot bring half the public along with them.
     
    And yet, the national media within a span of some thirty to forty years was able to normalize homosexuality, including homosexual marriage and even transsexuality.

    You are a deluded fool.

    And yet, the national media within a span of some thirty to forty years was able to normalize homosexuality, including homosexual marriage and even transsexuality.

    I suggest you ask yourself what’s behind the collapse of volition among elites. See AM McConnell. I don’t think that’s the media at work.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I don’t think that’s the media at work.
     
    Right, the media has no influence at all. That's why it exists - to NOT have influence.
  185. @Brutusale
    So a 13-year old who's reached puberty is fair game? Good to know, but I suggest not putting your thoughts to the test.

    You like to put words in my mouth. Because you’re a repulsive jack-wagon.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You like to put words in my mouth. Because you’re a repulsive jack-wagon.
     
    "Jack-wagon"? What are you? A twelve year-old mormon?

    And there was nothing wrong with what Brutusale wrote there. You were excusing Spacey's behavior as something, well, excusable.

    Why? Perhaps because you are a repellant d**k-head.
  186. @Art Deco
    You're having trouble, betwixt and between emotional outbursts, in discerning the difference between 'disproportionate' and 'dominate'. The Ivy League is not dominated by Jews. The Ivy League might be 8% Jewish rather than 2%. That's of absolutely no interest to anyone not in a snit for some other reason.

    You’re having trouble, betwixt and between emotional outbursts,

    I’m having nothing of the kind. I’m merely pointing out that you are a lying sack.

    The Ivy League is not dominated by Jews. The Ivy League might be 8% Jewish rather than 2%. That’s of absolutely no interest to anyone not in a snit for some other reason.

    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701

    I don’t imagine the ratios of graduate students are that much different. Nor are they abnormally low at the other Ivys. 8%? Unlikely.

    By the way, I was able to Google that link within a few seconds. Where is your legendary Google-fu, Art? Has your one and only talent deserted you??

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    In your imagination and that of Ron Unz only.

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/
  187. @Art Deco
    And yet, the national media within a span of some thirty to forty years was able to normalize homosexuality, including homosexual marriage and even transsexuality.

    I suggest you ask yourself what's behind the collapse of volition among elites. See AM McConnell. I don't think that's the media at work.

    I don’t think that’s the media at work.

    Right, the media has no influence at all. That’s why it exists – to NOT have influence.

  188. @Art Deco
    What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. "Studio executive" and "bond trader" are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations. As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan. That these three are Jews is not consequential. What they fancy the Constitution requires is the problem.

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. “Studio executive” and “bond trader” are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations.

    Sure, these are just niche occupations, of no consequence whatever. Your answer is – as usual – highly deceptive. “Bond Trader”? What about CEO?

    As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan.

    Who said anything about “tricked”? How about “Influenced”? That’s how those decisions get made.

    That these three are Jews is not consequential.

    Who people are is very conseqential. It is perhaps the most consequential thing when it comes to institutions and the policies they pursue.

  189. @Art Deco
    You like to put words in my mouth. Because you're a repulsive jack-wagon.

    You like to put words in my mouth. Because you’re a repulsive jack-wagon.

    “Jack-wagon”? What are you? A twelve year-old mormon?

    And there was nothing wrong with what Brutusale wrote there. You were excusing Spacey’s behavior as something, well, excusable.

    Why? Perhaps because you are a repellant d**k-head.

  190. @Art Deco
    That is an absolute easily provable fact.

    You have imagined that.

    You have imagined that.

    Nobody could ever lay that charge at you, Art.

    You have no imagination at all.

    You’re a dull, unimaginative drone.

  191. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Steve,

    I am surprised you have never empathized what made Goodfellas so different from 90%+ of Hollywood gangster movies. It stressed Nature over Nurture in regards to criminality.

    And Goodfellas hits you right it the face with this message right from the famous opening.

    The Goodfellas screenplay by Nicholas Pileggi, which won him the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, stays true to his book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family (1986), by not injecting lots of Hollywood Marxist nonsense that criminality is the product of familial and social conditioning.

    In the book and film, Henry Hill tells you that he is a born sociopath and does not blame his life of crime on his family upbringing or society.

    In fact the only thing that is missing from the movie are the deleted passages in the book where Henry Hill is able to bamboozle parole officers, clergymen, rabbis, judges etc that he is what he is because he had a hard life and deserves another break.

    I am surprised you have never empathized what made Goodfellas so different from 90%+ of Hollywood gangster movies. It stressed Nature over Nurture in regards to criminality.

    What really made it different is that it showed gangsters going about their work – i.e., committing crimes. You could watch all three God Father movies, and – apart from murder, which strictly speaking isn’t a revnue-generating activity – never see anyone do anything illegal.

    Goodfellas showed how the hoods made a living – stealing, hijacking, loan-sharking, extorting, drug-dealing. It was a crime-procedural. That to me was what made it fascinating.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Goodfellas has kind of a docudrama feel to it with lots of narration and explanation of how things work. I think that contributed to its lukewarm reception. Docudramas are a fairly cheap genre. And a great movie is not supposed to explain things to you so abundantly and so clearly, it's supposed to make you do more work. It seemed a little inartistic to make a movie about business and use a lot of not classy narration and middlebrow documentary techniques.

    We are more used to feature films using documentary styles now.

  192. @Mr. Anon

    I am surprised you have never empathized what made Goodfellas so different from 90%+ of Hollywood gangster movies. It stressed Nature over Nurture in regards to criminality.
     
    What really made it different is that it showed gangsters going about their work - i.e., committing crimes. You could watch all three God Father movies, and - apart from murder, which strictly speaking isn't a revnue-generating activity - never see anyone do anything illegal.

    Goodfellas showed how the hoods made a living - stealing, hijacking, loan-sharking, extorting, drug-dealing. It was a crime-procedural. That to me was what made it fascinating.

    Goodfellas has kind of a docudrama feel to it with lots of narration and explanation of how things work. I think that contributed to its lukewarm reception. Docudramas are a fairly cheap genre. And a great movie is not supposed to explain things to you so abundantly and so clearly, it’s supposed to make you do more work. It seemed a little inartistic to make a movie about business and use a lot of not classy narration and middlebrow documentary techniques.

    We are more used to feature films using documentary styles now.

  193. @Mr. Anon

    You’re having trouble, betwixt and between emotional outbursts,
     
    I'm having nothing of the kind. I'm merely pointing out that you are a lying sack.

    The Ivy League is not dominated by Jews. The Ivy League might be 8% Jewish rather than 2%. That’s of absolutely no interest to anyone not in a snit for some other reason.
     
    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701

    I don't imagine the ratios of graduate students are that much different. Nor are they abnormally low at the other Ivys. 8%? Unlikely.

    By the way, I was able to Google that link within a few seconds. Where is your legendary Google-fu, Art? Has your one and only talent deserted you??

    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    In your imagination and that of Ron Unz only.

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/

    • Replies: @Anon
    "Gabe Friedman" is an alias of Ron Unz?
    Who knew?
    , @Mr. Anon

    In your imagination and that of Ron Unz only.
     
    And of the Jerusalem Post, apparently. Do you dispute the J-Posts' numbers? Why?

    Why should I particularly care about any reference you cite?
  194. @Art Deco
    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    In your imagination and that of Ron Unz only.

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/

    “Gabe Friedman” is an alias of Ron Unz?
    Who knew?

  195. @Art Deco
    Harvard and Yale are both about 25% (undergrad):

    In your imagination and that of Ron Unz only.

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/

    In your imagination and that of Ron Unz only.

    And of the Jerusalem Post, apparently. Do you dispute the J-Posts’ numbers? Why?

    Why should I particularly care about any reference you cite?

  196. @Art Deco
    What about the Supreme Court? What about Hollywood? Are you going to claim that Hollywood is some kind of WASP enclave?

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. "Studio executive" and "bond trader" are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations. As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan. That these three are Jews is not consequential. What they fancy the Constitution requires is the problem.

    I take no interest in the ethnic balance among niche occupations. “Studio executive” and “bond trader” are descriptive terms for 4-digit populations.

    Sure, these are just niche occupations, of no consequence whatever. Wall Street and Hollywood are of no importance at all.

    As for the Supreme Court, no one tricked Bilge Clinton or BO into appointing Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kagan.

    Who said anything about “tricked”? How about “Influenced”? That’s how those decisions get made.

    That these three are Jews is not consequential.

    Who people are is very conseqential. It is perhaps the most consequential thing when it comes to institutions and the policies they pursue.

  197. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    If Chris Hedges were a zillionaire, he'd be the most extraordinary such person ever.
    ___________________________________________

    "As a force in American journalism, we certainly have. Jews edit The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, Buzzfeed, Politico, and the opinion pages of The New York Times and Washington Post."

    That is a rather impressive list. The WSJ is absent from it. Are there no completists in the world of finance who might rectify that situation?

    Not to mention the specifically Jewish Commentary. I was a long time subscriber. The quality of their movie reviews went way down when Richard Greiner left.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I don't think he left. He died.
  198. @FPD72
    Not to mention the specifically Jewish Commentary. I was a long time subscriber. The quality of their movie reviews went way down when Richard Greiner left.

    I don’t think he left. He died.

  199. @Moses

    Among other things, Trump can’t ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona.
     
    You are totally right.

    Trump's spastic, volatile personality was a real impediment in the following achievements:

    1) Building a real estate empire
    2) Becoming a best selling author
    3) Becoming a reality TV star
    4) Raising well-adjusted, successful children
    5) Besting a wide field of primary Republicans despite being a political novice
    6) Destroying the Bush dynasty
    7) Destroying the Clinton dynasty
    8) Winning the Presidency

    He'll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.

    Don’t forget his marriages to three 10/10 women and the fact that the first two resulted in apparently reasonably amicable divorces.

    Or the loyalty expressed by people who work for him at various levels of his organizations.

    I’m fascinated by the phenomenon of people resisting what an alpha male is and can accomplish. The beta cuckery runs far deeper than I would have guessed prior to June 2015.

  200. @Moses

    Among other things, Trump can’t ever really accomplish anything meaningful (or at least his path is much more difficult) because of his spastic, volatile persona.
     
    You are totally right.

    Trump's spastic, volatile personality was a real impediment in the following achievements:

    1) Building a real estate empire
    2) Becoming a best selling author
    3) Becoming a reality TV star
    4) Raising well-adjusted, successful children
    5) Besting a wide field of primary Republicans despite being a political novice
    6) Destroying the Bush dynasty
    7) Destroying the Clinton dynasty
    8) Winning the Presidency

    He'll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.

    You are totally right.

    Thanks, I appreciate it.

    He’ll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.

    Well yeah, that’s the point. Circumstances that might favor anyone, or a specific person like Mr. Trump, for one particular thing, may also hurt in another, and that’s what we have here.

    I can only think of a few people who have taken a turn for the worse in opposing Mr Trump, and no one was at any time opposed and whose opposition has waned. And the one thing that might help is to get a bunch more Republicans in office in 2018, but that’s not looking very likely either at the moment, among other reasons because there’s a lot of GOP activists out there who are trying to figure out new ways to piss on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan instead of being team players.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    And the one thing that might help is to get a bunch more Republicans in office in 2018, but that’s not looking very likely either at the moment, among other reasons because there’s a lot of GOP activists out there who are trying to figure out new ways to piss on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan instead of being team players.
     
    It would help if Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell weren't busy pissing on conservative voters. I'll give McConnell some credit for keeping the Supreme Court seat open for Trump's appointment. But Ryan has nothing to recommend him. He needs to be deposed as Speaker.
  201. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    "The upper-middle-class private sector is where the battle is fought now."

    The battle is not fought about any "sector" whatsoever. It is fought about policies - policies that win or lose elections.
    Patrick Buchanan's latest article on the recent election losses correctly pointed to healthcare as probably the most dangerous issue now. This agrees with a recent article in the NYRB, in which the author tried to deemphasize identity politics and basically said that healthcare could be the winning topic for the "resistance".
    It's not good strategy to rely on idiocy on the part of your opponents, even if it has frequently been demonstrated to be in ample supply.

    The battle is not fought about any “sector” whatsoever. It is fought about policies – policies that win or lose elections.

    I don’t really buy this. It is about personalities as much as policies. Certainly nobody supported Donald Trump because he was some kind of policy expert. In any event, with the failure of the GOP to repeal or significantly reform ACA, that is somewhat off the table, especially for the other side.

  202. @Boethiuss

    You are totally right.
     
    Thanks, I appreciate it.

    He’ll never amount to much. Just a lucky clown, really.
     
    Well yeah, that's the point. Circumstances that might favor anyone, or a specific person like Mr. Trump, for one particular thing, may also hurt in another, and that's what we have here.

    I can only think of a few people who have taken a turn for the worse in opposing Mr Trump, and no one was at any time opposed and whose opposition has waned. And the one thing that might help is to get a bunch more Republicans in office in 2018, but that's not looking very likely either at the moment, among other reasons because there's a lot of GOP activists out there who are trying to figure out new ways to piss on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan instead of being team players.

    And the one thing that might help is to get a bunch more Republicans in office in 2018, but that’s not looking very likely either at the moment, among other reasons because there’s a lot of GOP activists out there who are trying to figure out new ways to piss on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan instead of being team players.

    It would help if Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell weren’t busy pissing on conservative voters. I’ll give McConnell some credit for keeping the Supreme Court seat open for Trump’s appointment. But Ryan has nothing to recommend him. He needs to be deposed as Speaker.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    In terms of inside-baseball, there's very few things I'd prefer than to have Paul Ryan dumped as Speaker of the House. Mitch McConnell I'm mostly fine with. For the most part I think he's getting a bad rap.

    But in terms of what I'm complaining about, it doesn't explain very much. Basically, the problem is that our base doesn't really want to win. That requires things like patience, putting away distractions, impulse control, sacrificing smaller goals for bigger ones, etc, etc. But our people don't want any of that. It's a weird kayfabe where we just want to have Our Guy act like some quasi-John Wayne figure against People We Don't Like, get off on that, and then ignore the whole business.

    It's WWE for people who think that pro wrestling is fake.
  203. @Mr. Anon

    And the one thing that might help is to get a bunch more Republicans in office in 2018, but that’s not looking very likely either at the moment, among other reasons because there’s a lot of GOP activists out there who are trying to figure out new ways to piss on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan instead of being team players.
     
    It would help if Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell weren't busy pissing on conservative voters. I'll give McConnell some credit for keeping the Supreme Court seat open for Trump's appointment. But Ryan has nothing to recommend him. He needs to be deposed as Speaker.

    In terms of inside-baseball, there’s very few things I’d prefer than to have Paul Ryan dumped as Speaker of the House. Mitch McConnell I’m mostly fine with. For the most part I think he’s getting a bad rap.

    But in terms of what I’m complaining about, it doesn’t explain very much. Basically, the problem is that our base doesn’t really want to win. That requires things like patience, putting away distractions, impulse control, sacrificing smaller goals for bigger ones, etc, etc. But our people don’t want any of that. It’s a weird kayfabe where we just want to have Our Guy act like some quasi-John Wayne figure against People We Don’t Like, get off on that, and then ignore the whole business.

    It’s WWE for people who think that pro wrestling is fake.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    The most important issue is immigration. The second most important issue is.........immigration. The third most important issue is.............immigration. It is, for conservatives, the only issue, if they only knew it. Everything else is details. And Congress mostly doesn't want to do anything about restricting immigration. Trump should be using his bully pulpit to push that and to whip Congress into line on that one issue. Repealing Obama Care and foreign policy concerns are distractions. As of course are all of Trumps personal little Twitter-vendettas.
  204. @Boethiuss
    In terms of inside-baseball, there's very few things I'd prefer than to have Paul Ryan dumped as Speaker of the House. Mitch McConnell I'm mostly fine with. For the most part I think he's getting a bad rap.

    But in terms of what I'm complaining about, it doesn't explain very much. Basically, the problem is that our base doesn't really want to win. That requires things like patience, putting away distractions, impulse control, sacrificing smaller goals for bigger ones, etc, etc. But our people don't want any of that. It's a weird kayfabe where we just want to have Our Guy act like some quasi-John Wayne figure against People We Don't Like, get off on that, and then ignore the whole business.

    It's WWE for people who think that pro wrestling is fake.

    The most important issue is immigration. The second most important issue is………immigration. The third most important issue is………….immigration. It is, for conservatives, the only issue, if they only knew it. Everything else is details. And Congress mostly doesn’t want to do anything about restricting immigration. Trump should be using his bully pulpit to push that and to whip Congress into line on that one issue. Repealing Obama Care and foreign policy concerns are distractions. As of course are all of Trumps personal little Twitter-vendettas.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    The most important issue is immigration. The second most important issue is………immigration. The third most important issue is………….immigration. It is, for conservatives, the only issue, if they only knew it. Everything else is details.
     
    It is for some people but not for everybody, which is important to note. It's not even the only issue for the Trump friendly, mainstream-averse GOP base. For example, look at Alabama. To the extent that the Senate race is about anything, it's about the usual social conservatism, in particular the ability of Christian traditionalism to express itself fully in the public sphere. People want to stick up for a guy who's not afraid to display the Ten Commandments in public, dammit.

    But even that is mostly a distraction. The real juice here is that there's a lot of GOP voters who feel strong distaste against GOP Establishment figures for reasons that aren't ever really meant to be made clear, and figures like Donald Trump and Roy Moore appear on the scene to leverage and validate that antagonism.

    We need to come to grips with this, and dial down the factional antagonism accordingly. We got real issues to hammer out inside the Right, let's actually settle them like adults instead of jabbing back and forth at each other through social media and political theater.

    It's worth remembering that there's an actual Left out there, and it's the Leftists of whatever stripe who are behind things like BLM, Hillary Clinton, transgender rights under Title IX, and the rest of it. In this context, it's worth taking a second to cool the mind, and get away from the idea of defending adolescent sexual exploitation for the sake of getting one over on Mitch McConnell.


    Trump should be using his bully pulpit to push that and to whip Congress into line on that one issue. Repealing Obama Care and foreign policy concerns are distractions. As of course are all of Trumps personal little Twitter-vendettas.
     
    I mentioned the immigration angle above, so putting that aside for a moment, this is still a no-go. It's a product of the mentality that Trump is our guy and he should be using his powers to move the ball in the direction we want. But Trump's not our guy, he's just a guy who likes to entertain himself playing a tough guy on Twitter.

    The Republicans in Congress (and secondarily, the governors' mansions) are our guys. We should be going back and forth with them to sort out immigration, ACA, ISIS, North Korea, and the rest of it. Trump can show up to the signing ceremonies if he wants. Or he can spend his time playing golf. (As a brief aside, my guess is he'd rather do that. The last President who I'm confident actually wanted the job itself was Clinton. The rest just wanted the status of winning it.)

    In any event, it's the Congressmen and Senators who are going to care, one way or the other. They are the ones who will still be around when Trump is gone. More than that, they are the ones who understand the issues well enough to make coherent decisions in the first place. It useless for Trump to try and whip Congress. Depending on the circumstance he might have leverage or he might not, be he's always lacking the understanding to guide a process, to judge whether a something is moving toward a good outcome or a bad one.

    We can, and should, be looking to manage our relationship with them more closely. And that would likely play out that way, except that people have limited energy to dwell on politics, and for what's there, they are going to be guided by their strongest memories, which is the dramatics of the Presidential race (Access Hollywood, Clinton falling down, and the rest of it). And that's probably how things ought to work most of the time. But for this term at least, we must, must, must give that up.

    Trump is not the vessel that can hold the energies of our aspirations. We wouldn't try to storm a beachhead with a fleet of sailboats. They are just not built for purpose. Let's take stock of the resources we do have, and use them better.
  205. @Mr. Anon
    The most important issue is immigration. The second most important issue is.........immigration. The third most important issue is.............immigration. It is, for conservatives, the only issue, if they only knew it. Everything else is details. And Congress mostly doesn't want to do anything about restricting immigration. Trump should be using his bully pulpit to push that and to whip Congress into line on that one issue. Repealing Obama Care and foreign policy concerns are distractions. As of course are all of Trumps personal little Twitter-vendettas.

    The most important issue is immigration. The second most important issue is………immigration. The third most important issue is………….immigration. It is, for conservatives, the only issue, if they only knew it. Everything else is details.

    It is for some people but not for everybody, which is important to note. It’s not even the only issue for the Trump friendly, mainstream-averse GOP base. For example, look at Alabama. To the extent that the Senate race is about anything, it’s about the usual social conservatism, in particular the ability of Christian traditionalism to express itself fully in the public sphere. People want to stick up for a guy who’s not afraid to display the Ten Commandments in public, dammit.

    But even that is mostly a distraction. The real juice here is that there’s a lot of GOP voters who feel strong distaste against GOP Establishment figures for reasons that aren’t ever really meant to be made clear, and figures like Donald Trump and Roy Moore appear on the scene to leverage and validate that antagonism.

    We need to come to grips with this, and dial down the factional antagonism accordingly. We got real issues to hammer out inside the Right, let’s actually settle them like adults instead of jabbing back and forth at each other through social media and political theater.

    It’s worth remembering that there’s an actual Left out there, and it’s the Leftists of whatever stripe who are behind things like BLM, Hillary Clinton, transgender rights under Title IX, and the rest of it. In this context, it’s worth taking a second to cool the mind, and get away from the idea of defending adolescent sexual exploitation for the sake of getting one over on Mitch McConnell.

    Trump should be using his bully pulpit to push that and to whip Congress into line on that one issue. Repealing Obama Care and foreign policy concerns are distractions. As of course are all of Trumps personal little Twitter-vendettas.

    I mentioned the immigration angle above, so putting that aside for a moment, this is still a no-go. It’s a product of the mentality that Trump is our guy and he should be using his powers to move the ball in the direction we want. But Trump’s not our guy, he’s just a guy who likes to entertain himself playing a tough guy on Twitter.

    The Republicans in Congress (and secondarily, the governors’ mansions) are our guys. We should be going back and forth with them to sort out immigration, ACA, ISIS, North Korea, and the rest of it. Trump can show up to the signing ceremonies if he wants. Or he can spend his time playing golf. (As a brief aside, my guess is he’d rather do that. The last President who I’m confident actually wanted the job itself was Clinton. The rest just wanted the status of winning it.)

    In any event, it’s the Congressmen and Senators who are going to care, one way or the other. They are the ones who will still be around when Trump is gone. More than that, they are the ones who understand the issues well enough to make coherent decisions in the first place. It useless for Trump to try and whip Congress. Depending on the circumstance he might have leverage or he might not, be he’s always lacking the understanding to guide a process, to judge whether a something is moving toward a good outcome or a bad one.

    We can, and should, be looking to manage our relationship with them more closely. And that would likely play out that way, except that people have limited energy to dwell on politics, and for what’s there, they are going to be guided by their strongest memories, which is the dramatics of the Presidential race (Access Hollywood, Clinton falling down, and the rest of it). And that’s probably how things ought to work most of the time. But for this term at least, we must, must, must give that up.

    Trump is not the vessel that can hold the energies of our aspirations. We wouldn’t try to storm a beachhead with a fleet of sailboats. They are just not built for purpose. Let’s take stock of the resources we do have, and use them better.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    It is for some people but not for everybody, which is important to note.
     
    No, you are wrong. If you are a conservative, it IS important to you. Unless the demographic trends in this country are stopped, or even reversed, you will never get the kind of government and society you want. Virginia is a taste of things to come. One by one, states will change from red to blue, and you can kiss whatever YOU thought this country should be goodbye.

    To the extent that the Senate race is about anything, it’s about the usual social conservatism, in particular the ability of Christian traditionalism to express itself fully in the public sphere. People want to stick up for a guy who’s not afraid to display the Ten Commandments in public, dammit.
     
    It is about sticking it to the Republican establishment - the same establishment that favors flooding the country with immigrants. Immigration ranks very high among right-leaning Alabama voters, and that is why they turned out in such large numbers for Trump in the primary.
  206. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    I just want to say that it has been a pleasure to watch the defenestration of Art Deco in this thread. Good job, goys.

    Art, don't change a thing. If you didn't exist, countersemites would have to invent you.

    My conclusion is that there are a mess of people whose worldview is constructed around a resentment of Jews, which, in turn, is constructed around a caricature of Jews (their pretensions aside). Why they are this way only they can answer (and, just as likely, most of them really cannot).
     
    People specialize in subjects all the time in academia. Jews don't call them "obsessed" or the like, because they aren't treading on Jewish sensibilities. In other words, the basis of the quote is projection (from a worldview constructed around defending Jews).

    I, for one, am happy to explain how I became a countersemite. TL;DR version: 9/11, search for answers that left no stone unturned, countersemites had the most of interest to say, I continued reading countersemites on other subjects, and they just kept on winning the argument. It's another Shoah!

    I shouldn't leave out the Art Decos, though; their behavior along the way was a pretty big influence, too.

    9/11, search for answers that left no stone unturned, countersemites had the most of interest to say, I continued reading countersemites on other subjects, and they just kept on winning the argument.

    Purely out of historical interest, I would like to point out that I never heard of Richard Spencer until Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com pointed him out. I remember his comment about Spencer’s “movie-star good looks” in particular.

    According to Radix podcasts, it wasn’t that long ago (in the grand scheme of things) that the two of them were still hanging out occaaionally. Spencer only really became a total bogeyman around a year ago.

    I actually miss the Richard Spencer who did three-hour, in-depth analyses of The Shining and things like that. His infamy seems to have gone to his head. He can be a really interesting guy when he’s not putting on a show for the news cameras.

  207. @Boethiuss

    The most important issue is immigration. The second most important issue is………immigration. The third most important issue is………….immigration. It is, for conservatives, the only issue, if they only knew it. Everything else is details.
     
    It is for some people but not for everybody, which is important to note. It's not even the only issue for the Trump friendly, mainstream-averse GOP base. For example, look at Alabama. To the extent that the Senate race is about anything, it's about the usual social conservatism, in particular the ability of Christian traditionalism to express itself fully in the public sphere. People want to stick up for a guy who's not afraid to display the Ten Commandments in public, dammit.

    But even that is mostly a distraction. The real juice here is that there's a lot of GOP voters who feel strong distaste against GOP Establishment figures for reasons that aren't ever really meant to be made clear, and figures like Donald Trump and Roy Moore appear on the scene to leverage and validate that antagonism.

    We need to come to grips with this, and dial down the factional antagonism accordingly. We got real issues to hammer out inside the Right, let's actually settle them like adults instead of jabbing back and forth at each other through social media and political theater.

    It's worth remembering that there's an actual Left out there, and it's the Leftists of whatever stripe who are behind things like BLM, Hillary Clinton, transgender rights under Title IX, and the rest of it. In this context, it's worth taking a second to cool the mind, and get away from the idea of defending adolescent sexual exploitation for the sake of getting one over on Mitch McConnell.


    Trump should be using his bully pulpit to push that and to whip Congress into line on that one issue. Repealing Obama Care and foreign policy concerns are distractions. As of course are all of Trumps personal little Twitter-vendettas.
     
    I mentioned the immigration angle above, so putting that aside for a moment, this is still a no-go. It's a product of the mentality that Trump is our guy and he should be using his powers to move the ball in the direction we want. But Trump's not our guy, he's just a guy who likes to entertain himself playing a tough guy on Twitter.

    The Republicans in Congress (and secondarily, the governors' mansions) are our guys. We should be going back and forth with them to sort out immigration, ACA, ISIS, North Korea, and the rest of it. Trump can show up to the signing ceremonies if he wants. Or he can spend his time playing golf. (As a brief aside, my guess is he'd rather do that. The last President who I'm confident actually wanted the job itself was Clinton. The rest just wanted the status of winning it.)

    In any event, it's the Congressmen and Senators who are going to care, one way or the other. They are the ones who will still be around when Trump is gone. More than that, they are the ones who understand the issues well enough to make coherent decisions in the first place. It useless for Trump to try and whip Congress. Depending on the circumstance he might have leverage or he might not, be he's always lacking the understanding to guide a process, to judge whether a something is moving toward a good outcome or a bad one.

    We can, and should, be looking to manage our relationship with them more closely. And that would likely play out that way, except that people have limited energy to dwell on politics, and for what's there, they are going to be guided by their strongest memories, which is the dramatics of the Presidential race (Access Hollywood, Clinton falling down, and the rest of it). And that's probably how things ought to work most of the time. But for this term at least, we must, must, must give that up.

    Trump is not the vessel that can hold the energies of our aspirations. We wouldn't try to storm a beachhead with a fleet of sailboats. They are just not built for purpose. Let's take stock of the resources we do have, and use them better.

    It is for some people but not for everybody, which is important to note.

    No, you are wrong. If you are a conservative, it IS important to you. Unless the demographic trends in this country are stopped, or even reversed, you will never get the kind of government and society you want. Virginia is a taste of things to come. One by one, states will change from red to blue, and you can kiss whatever YOU thought this country should be goodbye.

    To the extent that the Senate race is about anything, it’s about the usual social conservatism, in particular the ability of Christian traditionalism to express itself fully in the public sphere. People want to stick up for a guy who’s not afraid to display the Ten Commandments in public, dammit.

    It is about sticking it to the Republican establishment – the same establishment that favors flooding the country with immigrants. Immigration ranks very high among right-leaning Alabama voters, and that is why they turned out in such large numbers for Trump in the primary.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    No, you are wrong. If you are a conservative, it IS important to you. Unless the demographic trends in this country are stopped, or even reversed, you will never get the kind of government and society you want.
     
    Well yes, it is important to me but you're still misunderstanding a lot. Your prioritization is immigration first, immigration last, and immigration everywhere in between. I don't mean to talk you out of that necessarily, but I do insist that not everybody shares that point of view, in fact not all immigration-restrictionist Republicans do.

    It should be obvious, but there's a lot of Right-leaning voters who are thinking smaller, in the sense of their own families, their job prospects, their educational prospects, their posterity. If those kinds are good, everything else is good and they don't have to worry about immigration policy as a whole.

    There's also Right-leaning voters who think bigger, in terms being in communion with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And their ideas of community and politics are going to be strongly influenced by the Great Commission.

    Maybe you sympathize with those people. Maybe you don't, because they seem too dense to get a handle on what's really important, which of course is immigration. Whichever it is, you can't just tell those people to suck an egg, because you can't get where you want without them.


    Virginia is a taste of things to come.
     
    Virginia was gradually trending from red to purple until Trump, at which point it decisively flipped blue. It is blue because of Trump. And contrary to the hopes of the NeverTrumpers, it is basically the only state that is.

    If somehow our Prime Directive was to restore Virginia to the GOP, the first thing to do is get rid of Trump.

    Immigration ranks very high among right-leaning Alabama voters, and that is why they turned out in such large numbers for Trump in the primary.
     
    I don't remember the Alabama Presidential primary, it could be that you are right. But even so, that was then. Now we have an US Senate from Alabama seat up for a special election, both a primary and a general. That's what the current sturm und drang is about, and immigration does not appear to be a factor at all.
  208. @Mr. Anon

    It is for some people but not for everybody, which is important to note.
     
    No, you are wrong. If you are a conservative, it IS important to you. Unless the demographic trends in this country are stopped, or even reversed, you will never get the kind of government and society you want. Virginia is a taste of things to come. One by one, states will change from red to blue, and you can kiss whatever YOU thought this country should be goodbye.

    To the extent that the Senate race is about anything, it’s about the usual social conservatism, in particular the ability of Christian traditionalism to express itself fully in the public sphere. People want to stick up for a guy who’s not afraid to display the Ten Commandments in public, dammit.
     
    It is about sticking it to the Republican establishment - the same establishment that favors flooding the country with immigrants. Immigration ranks very high among right-leaning Alabama voters, and that is why they turned out in such large numbers for Trump in the primary.

    No, you are wrong. If you are a conservative, it IS important to you. Unless the demographic trends in this country are stopped, or even reversed, you will never get the kind of government and society you want.

    Well yes, it is important to me but you’re still misunderstanding a lot. Your prioritization is immigration first, immigration last, and immigration everywhere in between. I don’t mean to talk you out of that necessarily, but I do insist that not everybody shares that point of view, in fact not all immigration-restrictionist Republicans do.

    It should be obvious, but there’s a lot of Right-leaning voters who are thinking smaller, in the sense of their own families, their job prospects, their educational prospects, their posterity. If those kinds are good, everything else is good and they don’t have to worry about immigration policy as a whole.

    There’s also Right-leaning voters who think bigger, in terms being in communion with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And their ideas of community and politics are going to be strongly influenced by the Great Commission.

    Maybe you sympathize with those people. Maybe you don’t, because they seem too dense to get a handle on what’s really important, which of course is immigration. Whichever it is, you can’t just tell those people to suck an egg, because you can’t get where you want without them.

    Virginia is a taste of things to come.

    Virginia was gradually trending from red to purple until Trump, at which point it decisively flipped blue. It is blue because of Trump. And contrary to the hopes of the NeverTrumpers, it is basically the only state that is.

    If somehow our Prime Directive was to restore Virginia to the GOP, the first thing to do is get rid of Trump.

    Immigration ranks very high among right-leaning Alabama voters, and that is why they turned out in such large numbers for Trump in the primary.

    I don’t remember the Alabama Presidential primary, it could be that you are right. But even so, that was then. Now we have an US Senate from Alabama seat up for a special election, both a primary and a general. That’s what the current sturm und drang is about, and immigration does not appear to be a factor at all.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS