The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Matthew Weiner on How "Mad Men" Is Driven by His Resentment of WASP Country Clubs
🔊 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

David Samuels is kind of the John Milius of magazine writers. (Here’s his 2009 article in The Atlantic on UFC fighter Rampage Jackson. Here’s his 2011 interview in The Tablet with Edward Luttwak. His 2008 article in The New Republic on Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright was one of the few at the time to pick up on some of my themes.)

In The Tablet (which is edited by his new wife), Samuels interviews Matthew Weiner, the creator of Mad Men, about how the famous TV show is driven by Weiner’s high school resentments of old time WASPs not letting Jews into the Los Angeles Country Club (honest to God). It’s an interesting discussion between two kinds of ethnocentric Jews: Samuels is very self-aware, and that’s driven him toward conservatism, while Weiner remains kind of a clueless liberal. As I wrote in Taki’s Magazine in 2009:

Weiner has the fetishistic, obsessive-compulsive observational skills to be a great satirist, but his heart’s just not in it. He’s a nostalgist.

Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form. In contrast, Weiner, at least consciously, identifies with the triumph of progressive liberalism. He is the loyal son of the kind of hard-working, left-leaning Jewish family (his father is a prominent neurologist, his mother a housewife and attorney) whose conventional wisdom has come to dominate our culture so thoroughly that, at least in his copious interviews, neither Weiner nor his interviewers appear to notice many of the ironies of Mad Men.

As a social commentator, Weiner is on the winning side in the culture war. Yet, as an artist, he senses a void in the brave new America. While he may lack the vocabulary to articulate it, this longing helps give Mad Men its romantic aura that lifts it above its own soap operaish and soft porn tendencies.

From The Tablet:

Q&A: ‘Mad Men’ Creator Matthew Weiner Talks LA Jews and the American Dream

And things Jews overhear while passing for white people

If I could meet any Jew for a dry martini at the Carlyle Hotel, I would choose Matthew Weiner, the creator of the most influential iteration of the mid-century American story and one of the great show runners in the new golden age of television. … The version of our conversation that follows has been subjected to the moderate degree of editing appropriate to a publication that is read both by Jews and by the people who love them.

You’re one of those Los Angeles Jews, right?

I grew up in Hancock Park in Los Angeles.

Hancock Park is a pleasant area of Los Angeles east of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

I went to a school where you know there was like 120 kids in my class, probably 15 Jews.

Weiner attended the Harvard School for Boys just south of Ventura Blvd.. where the Hollywood Hills trickle out into the the flat San Fernando Valley. This is obviously more interesting to me than it is to you if you didn’t grow up in this area, but I find it pretty fascinating because Weiner’s unbuttoning of himself to Samuels fills in some of the missing pieces about what people in the area were so worked up over when I was young. (I’m five or six years older than Weiner.)

Harvard prep school was the most expensive prep school in Los Angeles. (I can recall being astounded to learn around 1973 that Harvard’s tuition was $1,800 per year). Harvard HS was my Notre Dame HS’s archrival in debate. My debate coach’s wife was the debate coach of Beverly Hills HS, the most lavish public high school in the country at the time, so the Beverly Hills and Notre Dame debate teams were pals. We both disliked the team from Harvard, which is on Coldwater Canyon in-between Beverly Hills HS and Notre Dame HS.

One of Harvard’s debaters in my day in the mid-1970s was Joe Gamsky, who organized the Billionaire Boys Club Ponzi scheme that led to a couple of murders and a TV miniseries in 1987. From Wikipedia:

In 1987, NBC aired a miniseries based on the story of the Billionaire Boys Club, starring Judd Nelson as Joe Hunt [a.k.a., Gamsky], Brian McNamara as Dean Karny, and Ron Silver as Ron Levin. This movie inspired Lyle and Erik Menendez to murder their own parents for money a few years later.

Anyway, Weiner is no doubt badly underestimating the Jewish percentage at his Harvard prep school during his time in the early 1980s. Here’s a 1981 article in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner from when Weiner was a 15-year-old at Harvard prep school:

[Headmaster] Berrisford is determined that anti-Semitism will not become part of the Harvard tradition, where – despite the school’s Episcopal affiliation – an estimated 40 percent of the student body is Jewish.

Weiner, as you’ll see from this interview, is convinced that that’s not true. Instead of his high school being 2/5th Jewish, like it said in the newspaper, it was more like 1/8th or 1/10th. But 2/5 seems pretty reasonable to me from my experience with Harvard prep school in 1972-1975.

Weiner goes on:

And I lived in a world where I heard a lot of stuff. I don’t know if I noticed it or not, but when I was teaching at a school, I was 19 or 20 years old it was a summer job in college. I overheard this in the faculty room: “Adding money and education doesn’t take the rude edge out of people.”

And Weiner is so suave and diplomatic that the thought of it still rankles him 30 years later.

Gee, I wonder which people they meant?

I knew the subject already: Somebody’s mom was coming to complain about their kid. And then, interestingly enough, as the Korean minority started making its impact, which is when I was teaching, I started hearing all the same clichés again: “They’re clannish, all they care about is money, they,” you know, “they’ll do anything to get their kid into medical school. I don’t know who they think they are.”

One difference between Weiner and myself is that he’s obsessed with the past, while I’ve always been highly cognizant of which way current trends are likely to take the future.

As a Catholic from the flatlands of the Valley, I was always kind of baffled by the dominant ethnic animus of the region, which was hostility toward WASPs, because we Catholics didn’t count because we weren’t very competitive or interesting. If you are a white Catholic in Boston, say, that’s potentially pretty interesting, but being a white Catholic in Los Angeles is just kind of random. If you are in Southie you can blame it on the Potato Famine, but if you are growing up in Sherman Oaks, it probably suggests that some of your ancestors had some good sense and spare change. We just don’t qualify as an oppressed minority:

Indeed, growing up, I didn’t know many Protestants. Almost all the kids I knew were either Catholic or Jewish. I played sports at the park a lot with one Protestant named Gary, whose father, comically to us Catholics, was some kind of bishop, but it was hard to resent him because he was so sweet-natured.

I heard many denunciations that there were stuck-up Protestants at USC (where Weiner’s dad was chairman of the neurology department in the medical school), Pasadena, which was off in the Smog Belt, and Hancock Park, which is nice but nothing special compared to Beverly Hills, which when I was growing up was the world’s most famous luxury suburb (e.g., The Beverly Hillbillies). Charles Murray’s Coming Apart reports that in 1960 Beverly Hills was by the richest neighborhood in America, with 25 percent higher median household income than the second richest locale.

But I wasn’t familiar with much in the way of organized Protestant power in the Hollywood Hills area. Take the three high school debate teams: Notre Dame was Catholic or quasi-Catholic (e.g., Jerry Lewis’s son was, I think, a senior when I was a freshman), Beverly Hills was Jewish, and Harvard was mixed Christian and Jewish.

Maybe there was some kind of snooty Protestant school that didn’t let in many Jews off in the smog of the San Gabriel Valley, but so what? The Hollywood Hills in the 1970s felt a lot more like the center of the world than San Marino did.

Looking back, I see now that Los Angeles Country Club, which excluded entertainment industry people, and occupies 0.9 miles of frontage on both sides of Wilshire Blvd. between Beverly Hills and Westwood was a perpetual sore spot, felt as a constant insult by Beverly Hills Jews. How dare a bunch of WASP golfers get here first and buy up the best land, leaving us only the Hillcrest and Brentwood Country Clubs (and Bel-Air and Riviera if you don’t mind belonging to mixed clubs).

… A lot of the history, a lot of the flavor of Los Angeles Jewry has to do with show business. It’s not like a Carnegie Deli kind of thing—it’s literally like the synagogues were founded by these people. The country clubs were founded by these people. The restaurants have sandwiches named after them. And they’re very assimilated. That’s kind of the history of the show.

What lies beneath the surface of that sunny California acceptance?

There was a thing at my high school called the Sons of Hitler. It was a scandal. And it was four or five boys printing up cards and writing graffiti, it was in the LA Times—this is when I was there.

Here’s the article in Los Angeles Herald-Examiner on March 4, 1981.

They are the scions of some of the most powerful people in Los Angeles. I finally had someone say something to me as an adult, explain it me, through a third party at a party, saying like, “Let me tell you about Matt in high school” or whatever. It was like going behind the curtain. And I’m saying it in direct answer to your question. This guy said, “You guys, that was our school and this was our world and then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair and your leather jacket.” That’s what he said. And I was like, “Oh my God, what, am I in like Chariots of Fire?” This is Los Angeles, the Sopranos was on the air, this was like 2004.

But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.

A lot of people don’t believe me about how much of what you see on TV today is driven by great-grandpa not getting into Los Angeles Country Club and therefore having to found Hillcrest Country Club, but listen to the creator of Mad Men instead and he’ll say the same thing.

High schools and country clubs — they’re a big part of how people feel about life.

And Hancock Park had a cotillion.

A cotillion!

And someone from my high school was arrested for defacing a synagogue. And there was, especially in Hancock Park, which was the old L.A. money, there was a thing of like, no show business here.

As opposed to two miles from Hancock Park in Beverly Hills.

W.C. Fields couldn’t live there, Cecil B. DeMille couldn’t live there, but it was a lot about keeping Jews out. Nat King Cole was the famous person who worked his way in there, and it was one of the most humiliating stories you’d ever heard in your life.

But when I was growing up, the mayor of Los Angeles was Tom Bradley, an African American, and you just sort of think, “Well, everything’s over.” Ronald Reagan doesn’t seem anti-Semitic, and he was in show business. But it was still really, really strong. Sterling Cooper is more like my high school in the ’80s than it may have been like an ad agency in the 1950s or ’60s.

That’s a pretty funny admission.

What isn’t a metaphor for how you felt in high school?

It finally occurs to me that I’d be more driven and successful if I hadn’t had such a nice time in high school. The greatest motor of ambition in modern America appears to be resentments left over from high school, and I just don’t have enough.

I’m not as angry, but I have overheard a lot of stuff of the type that an African-American person is never going to get to hear, unless it’s like the Eddie Murphy sketch where they’re wearing whiteface.

The old SNL sketch, where he finds out white people get everything for free.

… I lived in a world of the white power elite of Los Angeles where there was a lot of sexism and anti-Semitism, and I was in their homes, observing.

What you are telling me is that Mad Men is a Jewish show.

I did expect that somebody in what I considered to be the Jewish press or some Jewish reporter would notice that I was putting it out there. …

The department store business—that was an interest of mine that actually preceded advertising, the family department store. … So, I had to find a Jewish name that was not associated with a department store. I mean, good luck. Literally every single city in the United States had one. Casper, Wyoming, has a Jewish department store. …

When I was getting my MBA at UCLA in 1980-1982, one of the professors had to tell the gentile women interested in retailing not to try to get jobs at any of the Jewish-owned department store chains in Los Angeles because they’d never get promoted above buyer. It doesn’t seem to come up much nowadays, however.

… But thinking back on those immigrants, and then on the Holocaust, it’s a strange thing now with Jews in America, because they suddenly don’t count as a minority group anymore. They did a 180, from being the definition of a minority group to being the embodiment of white-skin privilege. Especially to white elites, who may find it useful to position the Jews as flak-catchers.

Well, here I can quote something that I read in Tablet—Howard Jacobson’s comment that the Holocaust made it taboo to be anti-Semitic, but now they can direct all of those words and emotions at Israel and not realize that it’s the same thing.

I think they realize it.

It’s the same sentiments, the same clichés.

Israel is definitely a useful word. But when someone looks at you and says, “Those Israelis are worse than the Nazis,” I think both parties know what’s being said, and to whom.

I remember the first time I saw, sometime early in the Intifada, that thing in Time magazine where they used Israel and genocide in the same sentence. I thought, “Wow, they must love doing that.”

I think it also plays into a particular politics in the media world in New York, which has been dominated by Jews for a long time. So, people come in, they feel like outsiders, and now they have a club that the Jews can’t dominate, even though of course they still try. And that combines in a funny way with the energy of new media, because old media is the thing that was supposedly owned and run by Jews. Therefore, the Israel-is-the-most-hateful-and-oppressive-country-on-earth meme is great because it expresses two kinds of hostility at once: The old resentments, and the will to power of the new medium.

Actually, I cannot agree with all that. It’s part of the story of the show, actually: The generation that was in the media that has a Jewish background or is actually Jewish is a minority—but soon as you own 20 percent of anything and you’re a minority, you own all of it, right? We learned that in high school.

There you go.

Our class was 10 percent Jewish, so therefore it’s 50 percent Jewish in people’s minds. Maybe they’re in charge of the yearbook and the newspaper, and the student-body president and the water polo team, but there is really only 10 of them. They don’t own anything—they are over-represented.

I’m fascinated by how much Weiner’s identity revolves around his being a minority at the top prep school in Southern California. I wonder if he read that Herald-Examiner article that mentions that Harvard is 40% Jewish and has been bugged by that ever since?

I can remember a brother of the Holy Cross at Notre Dame saying that Notre Dame’s student body was 20% Jewish, but I’m guessing that’s counting kids who had one Jewish parent.

I do think that we don’t get the same status as a minority because we’re white and that makes a huge difference. You can hide and pass and blend. Part of the story of Rachel Menken is that she’s not. She’s explaining to Don, she has a confidence about who she is, but that was what I thought of the nose-job generation. There were a lot of Christmas trees in those homes and a lot of like “Hey, you know, what’s wrong with this, let’s just be part of this thing.” And a lot of intermarriage. When I look at the media, I feel the same way. There are survival skills. But there is also a bending over backwards to not have a bias that I think has resulted in the conversation that then can get hijacked.

But to even in pride suggest that Jews dominated the media in any real way is foolish, David. Jews are over-represented; they do not dominate it. Even when they dominated the ownership of the studios, they were quickly taken over by public corporations. Jock Whitney is not Jewish.

Jock Whitney putting on his polo boots, 1933

Jock Whitney?

Jock Whitney (1904-1982), the dashing grandson of Abe Lincoln’s personal secretary John Hay, has been dead for a third of a century. And the New York Herald-Tribune, the Republican newspaper he used to own, has been out of business for just under a half of a century.

Gulf and Western wasn’t a Jewish company.

I feel chastened, and rightly so. But, to play devil’s advocate, Charlie Bluhdorn was the head of Gulf and Western when they owned Paramount and made The Godfather and all those other great movies. And he was Jewish, even though he denied it. He was bonkers, too.

But the point still stands: When you are half of a percent of a population and you are so overrepresented, or you’re paying attention to business or are successful in some way, it becomes, “Oh, it’s all of them.”

Do you feel that Jews in America are still a minority group and still outsiders, except we get confused in our own brains and imagine we are not?

I’m a writer so I’m an outsider. It’s not from being Jewish. But I do believe that having lived undercover that there is a large portion of the population that views us as outsiders. Which is a fact that we might not want to accept.

And that we are for some reason not part of multiculturalism, even though we do have a culture, and we are a minority. I definitely think we’re a minority. We need an ADL! It’s not about having a parallel universe anymore. Whether you want to admit it or not, you see in the history of the world the times when the Jews are getting comfortable, and then they wake up one day and realize that they can be cut out of this bargain at any time, even if they’re intermarried, even if they converted.

Samuels has done a good job of getting Weiner to reveal just how bizarre is the ethnic animus that’s the motor at the heart of his success: Jock Whitney!

But, of course, the real lesson is that racial resentment can be a great goad for your career. Here’s Matthew Weiner, son of a leading neurologist and a lawyer who stopped practicing to keep house, yet it still drives him nuts that Jews were a minority at Harvard School for Boys. He gets up in the morning and goes to work to get revenge for that.

 
Hide 222 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Growing up in northern New Jersey (Sopranos land), I didn’t find out until high school that one could be Christian without being Catholic.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Tom Wolfe's Jewish mayor of NYC in Bonfire of the Vanities didn't find out until college.
  2. I saw a blip about the Weiner interview somewhere else a couple of days ago (can’t remember where). My first thought was, will this escape the Eye of Sailer. Silly me.

  3. Defining moment in Mad Men for me: Don Draper, highly paid ad exec, cleans his own gutters. And I think there was a scene where Henry, Betty’s new husband, political operative and county executive or some such, mowed the lawn.

    Now there are Guatemalans for that.

    Freeing up the Dons and the Henrys to do what really needs to be done.

  4. Oddly I find a lot of Jews here in London referring to WASPs, the US still sets the trends that then flood here. I just consider myself English or British, what relevance does WASP have here? The last context I heard it in was in how the denunciator had heard his old private school, an explicitly Church of England school ironically enough, didn’t have as many Jewish pupils as when he was there but was now full of ghastly WASPs, it offended him greatly. Traditionally Jews in Britain have been relatively better assimilated but I get the impression they are increasingly being influenced by US Jewish mentality.

    As someone who works in the financial sector in London the only companies I never apply to are Jewish firms, a phenomenon never noticed publicly let alone criticised. What discrimination and prejudice that exists is pretty much all one way.

  5. Half the private school Episcopalian kids I knew growing up were actually half Jewish. If gentile Episcopalians really were antisemites, their marriage patterns sure didn’t show it.

    I suspect this is another example of projection, like Jewish feminism. In this case, ethnic type Jews seethe with resentment toward assimilated upper class Jews, who look down on their uncouth brethren, and then take it out on us hapless, unsuspecting straight white gentile males.

    Well, maybe being the scapegoat for all of America will finally give us a little bit of the ethnic resentment that apparently contributes to success in modern society.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My father is Jewish and my mother is Protestant. I am always amused/angered by Jews who obsess over anti-Semitism among white Christians in the United States. My Protestant grandfather was part of the American army that liberated Jews from the concentration camps. Jews have never known friends like they have in white Protestants and yet they often denigrate them and discriminate against them in business and employment. I am sure Matthew Weiner is yet another Jew who discriminates against people who never harmed him in any way as payback for imagined slights that may have happened 40 years ago.

    The fact of the matter is that the American Left has forced the United States to admit large numbers of Third World immigrants who really do hate Jews. We are about to know real anti-Semitism again.

  6. If anti-semitism didn’t exist, it would have to be invented.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    It ("anti-semitism") was invented for the purpose of making Jews more ethnically segregated, and it continues to be promoted on purpose by a good segment of the Jewish intellectual elite. Jews routinely do stuff to alienate certain segments of the goy populace so they can point to the resentment naturally caused by it as a warning to less racially oriented Jews that horrible things will happen to them unless they keep their distance from those carnivorous cattle.
  7. OT (but not way off): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/06/reclaim-australia-rallies-hurtful-new-migrants-refugees

    Check out the highly original graphic of the only kind of people who could possibly care about immigration in the Guardian’s fevered imagination.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Whenever I think of 1950s or 1960s southern Californian country clubs, my mind immediately turns to images of the ‘rat pack’ ie Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis jnr etc, and that peculiar line of decadence born of post war American prosperity and the money pot which was then Hollywood. A lifestyle fuelled by copious amounts of bourbon, martini etc, a fine .one in bullshit and a general triumphalist bragging and tawdriness – in fact everything which the 60s counter culture that immediately followed hated, and more or less successfully buried. Falsehood was in short hair, Reaganite politics, fedoras and roll-necks. Truth was long hair and beards, kaftans, Vietnam objecting and left wing politics.
    Alas, I thought that that settlement still stood and golf, to the trendies was about as attractive as a bad case of herpes. But evidently, I’m wrong, and those old Randian bastards still play their magic tune.

  9. Might have a point about the high school thing. Had few friends, but it was a laid-back school, so nobody picked on me. Never quite got the importance of networking as a result, I think–I was happy enough studying and playing the occasional video game.

    The actual article? I largely agree, though I agree Samuels seems to have a little more on the ball than his subject.

    The only thing I have to add is that liberalism seems to have replaced ethnic animus as a driving force–the liberal Jews I knew actually believed in this SJW diversity crap and were trying to save the world. (I was secretly reading _The Bell Curve_ and _National Review_–this was back in the 90s, mind you, and felt like I knew the secret history of the world or whatever. Kids.)

    Of course, I wasn’t (and am not) the most perceptive guy in the world, so maybe they were playing me.

    Anyway.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The only thing I have to add is that liberalism seems to have replaced ethnic animus as a driving force–the liberal Jews I knew actually believed in this SJW diversity crap and were trying to save the world.
     
    People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn't get it, that elite Jews aren't nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:

    “Let me tell you about Matt in high school” or whatever. It was like going behind the curtain. And I’m saying it in direct answer to your question. This guy said, “You guys, that was our school and this was our world and then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair
     
    Black hair. See, I'm not like those WASP bastards, with their light brown/blond Nazi hair!

    and your leather jacket.” That’s what he said. And I was like, “Oh my God, what, am I in like Chariots of Fire?” This is Los Angeles, the Sopranos was on the air, this was like 2004.
     
    In case anyone doesn't get the reference, a key plot point in Chariots of Fire (1981) involves the anti-Jewish prejudice that Harold Abrahams encounters while a student at Cambridge in the early 1920s.

    But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.
     
    Yeesh.Does anyone think that Weiner would ever refer to the Hillcrest as restricted? Or does he think that it's just a wonderful coincidence that it's majority Jewish?
  10. Wonderful article. I think resentment is always more a manifestation of one’s internal state than a reflection of genuine slights suffered. For instance the resentful short guy, or the resentful mentally-ill person. My experience with resentful people has always been that they lack the ability to fit in happily, even if they want to, so they have to look for (or invent) reasons to justify their maladjustment. Often physical.

    Matthew Weiner is 5’7″ and looks like a evil little gremlin. I usually look at people’s physical appearance before I evaluate what they have to say nowadays.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Careful, now you've introduced the concepts of physicalist and its cousin weinerist into the SJW world...
  11. The trope that high school resentment drives your future achievement is a powerful one, but it hides more than it conceals.

    Rather like pretending in the 1920’s that hard work would make you a millionaire. Or that if you stay up all night and drink Mountain Dew you can invent facebook.

    Maybe nostalgia for Matt Weiner it is a lost past when people could be jews and remember what it was like to be persecuted. The past is a distant country.

    But using the high school resentment as a way to drive success in life? I don’t know. I’d hate to see what Korean guy looks like in Mad Men.

  12. I love reading Jewish magazines. They do realize they’re not password-protected and we goyim can read them too, right?

  13. km says:

    I never watched Mad Men. I kind of suspected what is written here about it. But people seem to like it. Is not that what counts commercially? So I wonder why it is that WASPs can’t make popular shows that are less negative or sarcastic about their past? Like a Downtown Abbey of America? Is there something like this already, but I am unaware of it? The British seem quite good at this.

  14. MOST fascinating thing I’ve read in a while. So much to chew on here. For someone who seems to despise the old majority culture so much, he’s done a pretty shit job making people hate it as much as him.

  15. “But I do believe that having lived undercover that there is a large portion of the population that views us as outsiders. ”

    Thing is that this site discusses Jews 10x or even higher as a fraction of the discussion than I encounter in real life.

    In real life, my version of it at least, people don’t think about Jews much – at all. It’s not an animosity thing, it just doesn’t come up. If it does “You’re Jewish? Cool.”

    Maybe it’s different in NY or LA where you have sufficient numbers of Jews to be a major cultural force.

    But in fly over country there just aren’t enough to really notice.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that the interviewee seems to think people are a lot more obsessed with Jews than they are.

    But when you start thinking about HBD topics, they come up a lot more.

  16. “…..the nose-job generation”

    That was pretty funny, but wow….. Weiner comes across as a neurotic mess.

    • Replies: @e
    Yes, he does, and that's why I don't know how much of the behavior to ascribe to high school angst....because I do believe it exists... and how much to ascribe the life-time angst, anxiety, neuroticism and sometimes downright persecution complex to the genome.
  17. I found the mention of the new media jumped out at me:

    I think it also plays into a particular politics in the media world in New York, which has been dominated by Jews for a long time. So, people come in, they feel like outsiders, and now they have a club that the Jews can’t dominate, even though of course they still try. And that combines in a funny way with the energy of new media, because old media is the thing that was supposedly owned and run by Jews. Therefore, the Israel-is-the-most-hateful-and-oppressive-country-on-earth meme is great because it expresses two kinds of hostility at once: The old resentments, and the will to power of the new medium.

    I’m not terribly interested in the Israeli angle to his theory but I found his resentment to the new media quite interesting. People critiquing and slamming Israel is only a tiny fraction of what’s happening online. What’s happening is millions of people being able to bypass the old media checkpoints where anyone trying to get an idea past them got strip searched and shaken down for bribes.

    I think these guys flatter themselves when they think resentment of the mass media is all about them and their Jewishness: the old media is smothering and domineering on any topic it touches. The reason there’s been an explosion of activity on the web is that the rest of us have our own stories to tell and ideas to share. It’s also because of the glaringly obvious fact that the old arrangements just aren’t working in practical terms.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    What’s happening is millions of people being able to bypass the old media checkpoints where anyone trying to get an idea past them got strip searched and shaken down for bribes.

    Now that's some mighty fine writing, Cagey Beast, if I may say so. One rarely, if ever, reads anything in the old stale media with that kind of pizzaz.
  18. The “hate Israel=hate Jews” meme is their weak point. Flip the script. I tell everyone that I don’t hate Israel, I “embrace” it. I “celebrate” it. I love it and see it as a wonderful working example of a successful ethnocentric supremacist white country.

    Think of all their successful cultural and political innovations: desert concentration camps for “illegal infiltrators”, defining minority portions of the country as “security zones” under white military rule, 30 foot walls around ghettos, internal passports with racial/ethnic identifiers for everyone, barbed wire fences with advanced sensor systems around the entire country, segregated schools, contracting with foreign countries to haul thousands of illegal infiltrators away, no civil marriages, armed teen citizen soldiers riding public buses and keeping the peace, etc.

    What’s not to like? And (as liberal AND conservative Jews are proud to point out) the goyim in Israel are STILL better off in in Israel than they are in their homelands!

    I LOVE these guys! They show, like no other nation in the world, that racial/ethnic supremacism is alive and well … and it WORKS! God bless Israel and the Jewish Nation! Let them be an eternal example of what America can be, WILL be in the future, if we just follow the “Light unto the Nations”.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Well-put. Breathtaking even. I'm saving your post for re-use ;)
  19. Arrogance, smugness and seething resentment are a highly nourishing cocktail for the self-chosen.

  20. I love how the percentages keep going down, down, down as he talks: “We’re half a percent of the population!”

    I do think that the “passing” thing is key to the particular Jewish resentment. He mentions Koreans at one point, how they are looked at as money grubbing grinds in the same way Jews are. But Koreans are ok with that – they know they are never going to be seen as white, and they are more content to just carve out their own niche. But since jews (mostly) look the same as WASPs, the more success they have they more they realize that they will never actually BE WASPs, and it drives them crazy.

  21. “I do think that we don’t get the same status as a minority because we’re white and that makes a huge difference.”
    He spends the whole article complaining about being treated like a minority, and then complains about NOT being treated like a minority.

  22. “The greatest motor of ambition in modern America appears to be resentments left over from high school”
    A couple of weeks ago you had Noah Smith admitting the same thing: http://www.unz.com/isteve/charles-murray-one-of-americas-most-important-thinkers-or-victim-of-brain-eating-memetic-parasite/

  23. “Jock Whitney?

    Jock Whitney (1904-1982), the dashing grandson of Abe Lincoln’s personal secretary John Hay, has been dead for a third of a century. And the New York Herald-Tribune, the Republican newspaper he used to own, has been out of business for just under a half of a century.”

    Come on, Steve. Elite Jews can never forget an Uber-WASP like Whitney.He represents everything that they love to hate:

    Born on August 17, 1904, in Ellsworth, Maine, Whitney was a descendant of John Whitney, a Puritan who settled in Massachusetts in 1635, as well as of William Bradford, who came over on the Mayflower. His father was Payne Whitney, and his grandfathers were William C. Whitney and John Hay, both presidential cabinet members. His mother was Helen Hay Whitney.

    The Whitneys’ family mansion, Payne Whitney House on New York’s Fifth Avenue, was around the corner from James B. Duke House, home of the founder of the American Tobacco Co. Whitney’s uncle, Oliver Hazard Payne, a business partner of John D. Rockefeller, arranged the funding for Duke to buy out his competitors.

    “Jock” Whitney attended Yale College. He joined Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity (Phi chapter), as his father had. Whitney, his father, grandfather, and great-uncle were oarsmen at Yale, and his father was captain of the crew in 1898. He was a member of Scroll and Key. While at Yale, he reputedly coined the term “crew cut” for the haircut that now bears the name.

    After graduating in 1926, Whitney went to Oxford University, but the death of his father necessitated his returning home. He inherited a trust fund of $20 million (approximately $210 million in 2005 dollars), and later inherited four times that amount from his mother.

    • Replies: @Another Canadian

    Come on, Steve. Elite Jews can never forget an Uber-WASP like Whitney.He represents everything that they love to hate
     
    It's not like the Whitneys didn't do anything useful. Jock and his cousin C.V. backed Technicolor and movies like Gone with the Wind and The Searchers. C.V. also got in on the ground floor of Pan Am and he founded Hudbay Mining, since his first job was working in the old man's mine out west. The rich used to do real things with real people, tools and resources. Both Jock and C.V. served in the Army, C.V. during both World Wars and Jock in WW2, with time as a POW in France before escaping. Could you imagine Mark Zuckerberg as a POW in Iraq? I don't think so.
  24. All I had at my blue collar high school, which was once described as a football team with an English department, were Mexican gangbangers and big Italian guys waiting for me outside so they could kick my ass. Shouldn’t I have some “animus?”

    • Replies: @anon
    If you wrote a TV show would the bad/stupid guys be Mexican and Italian and the guy who gets the girls be called something like Dahinda?
  25. If you read the article, it’s all about obsessions with Jews. About which do you obsess more: the Holocaust (Samuels) or that most of your past girlfriends (probably the wife, too) were banging the HS QB and his friends while you were masturbating in a dark corner with a flashlight and the latest Penthouse issue (Weiner). In both cases, Jewish emasculation is extreme no matter how strong Israel is or how many shiksas you could buy or are desperate to sleep with you now.

    Mad Men is a lot of things, but the key to understanding the show is Weiner’s use of his (Very Jewish Looking) son as a surrogate and his creepy relationship with the very Waspish Wife and Daughter of the show.

  26. Samuels interviews in The Tablet (which is edited by his new wife) Matthew Weiner…

    When did David marry Matthew?

    Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form.

    Aristophanes and Juvenal were far from bleeding hearts themselves.

    When you are half of a percent of a population and you are so overrepresented… it becomes, “Oh, it’s all of them.”

    It’s not so much about “dominance” (and acting domineering just exacerbates the stereotype, so WASP-out, already!), it’s about veto power. A laser-like focus on halting or deflecting other people’s uncomfortable projects leverages what power one has. Never mind Jews, look at gays.

    This veto power deserves more scrutiny than it’s received. Maybe it’s been vetoed!

    Jock Whitney?

    Whitney is the perfect WASP name, as it has avoided being appropriated by other ethnies. As a relative who’s studied many famous Whitneys, I’ve only come across the songwriter Joan Whitney, born Zoë Parenteau, of French Canadian stock. Israel Warshawsky called his Chicago auto parts business JC Whitney, but the family kept its name and even ran a parallel catalog using it.

    A very dismissive critic of Mad Men is George Lois, who got his start in the business at the time. In “Damn Good Advice“, he says none of it rings true. Lois is Greek, but otherwise fits every stereotype you might hold of a Jewish ad exec. He didn’t write that classic Levy’s ad, but could have.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    A very dismissive critic of Mad Men is George Lois, who got his start in the business at the time. In “Damn Good Advice“, he says none of it rings true. Lois is Greek, but otherwise fits every stereotype you might hold of a Jewish ad exec. He didn’t write that classic Levy’s ad, but could have.
     
    My question is for how long have Jews been a dominate part, or at least overrepresented in the Advertising industry????

    Watching Mad Men, Weiner would have you believe that Wasps were still dominating advertising as late as the early 1970s.

    According to Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer, Jewish dominance in the retail industry as early as the 1920s, given that they were heavy purchasers of ad space, meant they were able to heavily influence both the newspaper and advertising industries.

    Is the finally episode of Mad Men going to be the rise of the Jew in advertising, pushing those nasty adulterous goyim off of the stage????

    It would appear to me that today that both Jews and Gays are heavily over represented in the advertising industry and it has been that way for 4-5 decades at least.

    Last, Michael Weiner comes across as a sort of extreme Noam Chomsky type Jewish apologist caught in an its always 1968 time warp, who stills blames so much of what has gone wrong with America the last couple of decades on corporations dominated almost entirely by Wasps as if Jews are with out power or influence in this country.

    It has not been that way for many decades, hence Mad Men is now ludicrous having reached 1970.
    , @Dave Pinsen

    When did David marry Matthew?
     
    When did you start confusing parentheses with commas of apposition?
  27. @SFG
    Might have a point about the high school thing. Had few friends, but it was a laid-back school, so nobody picked on me. Never quite got the importance of networking as a result, I think--I was happy enough studying and playing the occasional video game.

    The actual article? I largely agree, though I agree Samuels seems to have a little more on the ball than his subject.

    The only thing I have to add is that liberalism seems to have replaced ethnic animus as a driving force--the liberal Jews I knew actually believed in this SJW diversity crap and were trying to save the world. (I was secretly reading _The Bell Curve_ and _National Review_--this was back in the 90s, mind you, and felt like I knew the secret history of the world or whatever. Kids.)

    Of course, I wasn't (and am not) the most perceptive guy in the world, so maybe they were playing me.

    Anyway.

    The only thing I have to add is that liberalism seems to have replaced ethnic animus as a driving force–the liberal Jews I knew actually believed in this SJW diversity crap and were trying to save the world.

    People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn’t get it, that elite Jews aren’t nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:

    “Let me tell you about Matt in high school” or whatever. It was like going behind the curtain. And I’m saying it in direct answer to your question. This guy said, “You guys, that was our school and this was our world and then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair

    Black hair. See, I’m not like those WASP bastards, with their light brown/blond Nazi hair!

    and your leather jacket.” That’s what he said. And I was like, “Oh my God, what, am I in like Chariots of Fire?” This is Los Angeles, the Sopranos was on the air, this was like 2004.

    In case anyone doesn’t get the reference, a key plot point in Chariots of Fire (1981) involves the anti-Jewish prejudice that Harold Abrahams encounters while a student at Cambridge in the early 1920s.

    But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.

    Yeesh.Does anyone think that Weiner would ever refer to the Hillcrest as restricted? Or does he think that it’s just a wonderful coincidence that it’s majority Jewish?

    • Replies: @SFG
    "People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn’t get it, that elite Jews aren’t nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:"

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.

    I said he was otherwise correct, just wanted to add my own impressions, and left open the possibility they could have snowed me. Which remains the case.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I'm guessing most elite Jews don't know what "Porcellian" is.

    Steve is right about Weiner, but Weiner's worldview doesn't necessarily extrapolate to all elite Jews. Heck, Mickey Kaus grew up in the same area at about the same time as Steve and Weiner, and he doesn't seem to have Weiner's hang ups.

    Steve notes Weiner's upper middle class background - maybe he grew up resenting upper class WASPs because he was close enough to their status to envy them? Maybe a middle class Jew in public school would have resented Weiner.

    Today, there are relatively fewer WASPs, and more mixing of upper class WASPs and Jews. You look at the cast of Girls, for example, and three of the four lead actresses are half-WASP, half-Jewish (roughly-speaking, in the event someone wants to note that Jemima Kirke's father can't be WASP because he is English).

  28. During my poor Southern high school years, my friends and I picked crops after school. Everyone we knew was working class or white trash. Regional doctors and lawyers were celebrities. Nobody felt slighted by their life circumstances because the expression of that indignation would be unseemly, what with all the unfortunate people in the world. Who were we to complain and who would care if we did?

    Imagine growing up in beautiful Los Angeles, before CA was ruined by immigration, with a renowned doctor/professor for a father and a lawyer for a mother (who could afford to stay home if she wanted), with housekeepers and private schools and leisure and your own books in your bedroom and fresh fruit in the kitchen. And then to become fixated because you couldn’t have everything.

    Mad Men deserves all the praise it gets and Weiner seems like an insightful and decent guy. But where the hell does this attitude, this expectation, come from? It’s beyond being spoiled or pampered. It’s pathological entitlement with a twist of paranoia and it’s a mental condition that doesn’t seem to exist in even the most privileged WASP culture.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    I know little of German history, but if the Jews in Germany before World War II carried on there as they do now here in America--at the forefront of a movement hostile to the gentile majority and undermining of its position and traditions--it would go a long way toward explaining the awful turn of events that overtook the Jews during that war.

    I hate thinking that might be true, being myself a Jew, and a proud one at that.
  29. But to even in pride suggest that Jews dominated the media in any real way is foolish, David. Jews are over-represented; they do not dominate it.

    Gotta give that a try sometime when POC activists complain about Whites dominating academia:”You’ve got it wrong.Whites don’t dominate academia in any real way.They’re just over-represented.”

    Have to say, after reading this, I’m impressed that Weiner has managed to avoid inserting a Jewish Mary Sue into Mad Men.Danny Siegel, for example, was an utter jerk and buffoon, only hired because Jane (Roger Sterling’s then wife)was his cousin.Michael Ginsberg’s born in a concentration camp ad man came pretty damn close to being the show’s incarnation of Jewish self-pity, but, thankfully, his mental collapse removed him from the show.

    And I’m really impressed that he didn’t make Don Draper’s deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue….

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And I’m really impressed that he didn’t make Don Draper’s deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue….

    He did, just not explicitly. Symbolically, that is the deep secret. And it no doubt goes to work on the audience's subconsciousness, at least the enthnoxentric jewish ones.

    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    Don't get the "Mary Sue" reference, please elaborate.

    Michael Ginsberg's cutting off of his nipple and presenting it to his shiksa object of affection, Peggy, was bizarre. Was it late onset paranoid schizophrenia or just the effect of working under so many goyim?

    After reading Mathew Weiner's neurotic interview I wonder closely he identified with Ginsberg?
  30. A lot of the resentment is physical and aesthetic:

    You can live in the richest town in the country, you can have a doctor and lawyer for parents, you can have your own better country club, you can be the academic star of your prep school—but if you happen also to be 5 feet 4 and with a curved nose and thick glasses, then none of it matters. You’ll be the Jewish outsider until you die.

    P.S. Making Jon Hamm your alter ego doesn’t help!

  31. Somewhat off topic, but I wonder if Steve has watched Breaking Bad as much as Mad Men. It has pretty much nothing to do with Jews, which is pretty rare for a major cultural event on TV.

    • Replies: @Tom
    Better call Saul!
    , @Steve Sailer
    I've watched 6 hours of "Mad Men," 6 hours of "Breaking Bad," 6 hours of "Downton Abbey." These are good shows, but I get bored with dramas after, oh, say, 6 hours. That's enough to get what the creator's world is about, and I don't really care about what happens to the characters since they aren't real. In general, I figure out the artist's tricks pretty fast and get bored, which is why I like 2 hour movies: because pretty soon they are over.

    I watched 9 hours of "Lord of the Rings" because it was extremely good, but the last half hour was kind of a drag.
  32. High schools and country clubs — they’re a big part of how people feel about life.

    Previous generations act like they never got out of high school. The millennials, with their need for safe spaces and safe room with play doh and teddy bears in college, act like they never got out of kindergarten.

    For me, too, networking had to be an acquired taste. Mainly because my high school didn’t have rigid cliques, and none of us were ever hung up on race or ethnicity.

    • Replies: @SFG
    So neoteny is proceeding, and the generation after them will wear diapers? And after them, they will exist in womb-like virtual reality environments?

    There is quite a bit to this 'arrested development' bit. At the age of 36, I am finally losing interest in science fiction, just as it becomes more acceptable in the general culture. I wonder what's with this whole childishness thing? Lack of parenting due to the feminist revolution? Any ideas?
    , @Dave Pinsen
    "The millennials, with their need for safe spaces and safe room with play doh and teddy bears in college, act like they never got out of kindergarten."

    See this: http://www.businessinsider.com/i-went-to-adult-preschool-and-here-is-what-its-like-2015-4
  33. By coincidence, I picked up Robert Evans’ 1994 memoir (“The Kid Stays in the Picture”) at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount, under Charlie Bluhdorn. (Evans claims, at one point, that he never knew whether Bluhdorn was Jewish; yet, he has Bluhdorn dropping Yiddish words that I never have heard before– which would strike me as highly unlikely, coming from an Austrian Catholic, who just happened to leave Europe for America, as a child or adolescent, in the 1930s!?!)

    Evans writes (p. 16-17) that on the evening of December 7, 1941, a family meeting was held at his richest uncle’s home– an eighteen-room penthouse, overlooking Central Park, which Evans, then 11 years old, attended with his father:

    “That night, all they were interested in was, first, how to keep their kids from going to war; second, how to expand their wealth; and third, how to protect it.

    “We were the first to leave. As we were going down in the elevator, I remember, Pop said in a voice barely above a whisper, ‘The wealthy will get wealthier and the young will die.’”

    Imagine what Abe Foxman would have had to say about that incident’s being included in the book, if Evans himself had not been Jewish!

    Evans’ father was a dentist, up in Harlem, although Evans’ mother had come from a wealthy family, and married beneath it, much to her parents’ chagrin.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    I picked up Robert Evans’ 1994 memoir (“The Kid Stays in the Picture”) at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount, under Charlie Bluhdorn
     
    I never read the book, but the 2002 documentary is one of the most interesting films I ever have watched.

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kid_stays_in_the_picture
    , @Mike Sylwester

    I picked up Robert Evans’ 1994 memoir (“The Kid Stays in the Picture”) at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount
     
    I never read the book, but the 2002 documentary is one of the most interesting films I ever watched.

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kid_stays_in_the_picture
  34. It was clear from the first episode of MM that it was Jewish Kulturkampf material. I think its promotion is a sign of Jewish insecurity about their cultural “victory.” With global anti-Jewish animus rising and the US approaching the edge of an economic cliff as Russia and China work to eliminate the special role of the dollar and our debt instruments that allows us to print and borrow as no other country can, there is a sense of Weimar Amerika starting to pervade the atmosphere.

    MM is essentially propaganda designed to convince Jews and non-Jews that post-WASP America really still is the best of all possible worlds. Jews are starting to realize that if their is a major cultural-economic catastrophe in an America that they have increasingly made their own, then THEY will be on the blame line. When our “exorbitant privilege” finally goes away, and the dollars that we send everywhere else in the world come home to roost, it will be a very “challenging” time.

    We can already see how much dissension there is as the living standards of most Americans are tending towards decline. But Jews–“liberal” and neoconservative–must believe that they are a blessing to this country and so, MM is an assertion that no matter what you see through your window, the higher reality as brought to you by self-obsessed Jews is all good.

    The series was devoted to one single idea: The time before Jews attained full prominence in the US was a retrograde and fundamentally embarrassing, dysfunctional, and psychologically deranged period. And no matter whether the US SEEMS to be in decline and in some ways deeply angry and unhappy, it’s really still much better than those bad old days.

    The romances and the glossiness of the scene settings are merely inducements to stick around for the message. People (WASPs) didn’t care about people back then. It’s sort of an extended riff on the words that Oliver Stone put in Gordon Gekko’s mouth in Wall Street: “These people like their dogs better than other people.” It’s like the film “Pleasantville” portraying the 1950s as literally colorless–all black and white. It’s like “Trading Places” where the wealthy but isolated, uncaring WASP holdovers, the Duke brothers, are literally dethroned before our eyes.

    In MM, we get all the cigarette smoking and drinking by pregnant women, the kids being allowed to play by putting dry cleaning bags over the heads and of course the “no Jews on my watch.” All US history before 1960 is simply reduced to the 1950s and its boring repressiveness. The idea that 1960 might represent a significant move forward from, say, 1930 or 1890 is reduced to a binary: before 1960 (but after 1945) and post 1970 with the intervening time, the setting of the show, as the transition from the bad old to the good new.

    MM is looking back at the time before the dethronement and, conscious of the anger and insecurity that is building in the general population of 2015, is desperately trying to tell us that what came before was pathetic if superficially glossy, so don’t go looking for solutions or inspiration there.

    And needless to say, the Jewish hypocrisy embodied in the contrast been the MM sensibility and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is interesting to say the least. As the settlements expand, Arabs are forced to go look for work elsewhere, money is withheld from the West GBank and various measure are put in place to raise Jewish birth rates and depress Palestinian ones so that eventually a new demographic reality on the ground can be created leading to annexation of the West Bank while some similar solution is eventually devised for Gaza as well. But let’s not focus on the present. Let’s focus on how bad the past was. Let’s no focus on what Jews have been doing in Israel-Palestine since they extorted the Balfour Declaration out of the bankrupt Brits. Let’s focus on Madison Avenue. To think about anything else would be doubleplusungood.

    Of course no “victory” is forever. The desperate attempt at delusion and self-delusion that MM represents is unlikely to work in the end–and there is always an end, sooner or later. What looked like a cultural victory in the Weimar 1920s turned out to be quite the other thing. History certainly does not repeat, but it does rhyme, and the disillusioning times ahead will include the defrocking of the smug, self-satisfied, and deeply hypocritical MM sensibility.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A lot of people don’t believe me about how much of what you see on TV today is driven by great-grandpa not getting into Los Angeles Country Club and therefore having to found Hillcrest Country Club, but listen to the creator of Mad Men instead and he’ll say the same thing.

    High schools and country clubs — they’re a big part of how people feel about life.

    Steve,

    Your analysis is potentially misleading. If ethnocentric jews had never encountered an exclusive Anglo-Saxon country club, they would have invented one.

  36. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    But to even in pride suggest that Jews dominated the media in any real way is foolish, David. Jews are over-represented; they do not dominate it.
     
    Gotta give that a try sometime when POC activists complain about Whites dominating academia:"You've got it wrong.Whites don't dominate academia in any real way.They're just over-represented."

    Have to say, after reading this, I'm impressed that Weiner has managed to avoid inserting a Jewish Mary Sue into Mad Men.Danny Siegel, for example, was an utter jerk and buffoon, only hired because Jane (Roger Sterling's then wife)was his cousin.Michael Ginsberg's born in a concentration camp ad man came pretty damn close to being the show's incarnation of Jewish self-pity, but, thankfully, his mental collapse removed him from the show.

    And I'm really impressed that he didn't make Don Draper's deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue....

    And I’m really impressed that he didn’t make Don Draper’s deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue….

    He did, just not explicitly. Symbolically, that is the deep secret. And it no doubt goes to work on the audience’s subconsciousness, at least the enthnoxentric jewish ones.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    And I’m really impressed that he didn’t make Don Draper’s deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue….

    He did, just not explicitly. Symbolically, that is the deep secret. And it no doubt goes to work on the audience’s subconsciousness, at least the enthnoxentric jewish ones.
     
    Oh, I'm quite sure that Weiner does view Don Draper as symbolically Jewish: changing his name (to an alliterative, superhero style name: cf Peter Parker, Reed Richards, etc), cutting off family ties, marrying an upperclass East Coast patrician, etc

    But symbolism is something that I can take.It's the essence of art.It's when the veil comes off that art is lost
  37. stuck-up Protestants

    Most stuck-up Protestants were post-Protestant by 1968 at the latest, going back to Emerson and the Transcendentalists.

    see also: Moldbug

  38. @syonredux

    But to even in pride suggest that Jews dominated the media in any real way is foolish, David. Jews are over-represented; they do not dominate it.
     
    Gotta give that a try sometime when POC activists complain about Whites dominating academia:"You've got it wrong.Whites don't dominate academia in any real way.They're just over-represented."

    Have to say, after reading this, I'm impressed that Weiner has managed to avoid inserting a Jewish Mary Sue into Mad Men.Danny Siegel, for example, was an utter jerk and buffoon, only hired because Jane (Roger Sterling's then wife)was his cousin.Michael Ginsberg's born in a concentration camp ad man came pretty damn close to being the show's incarnation of Jewish self-pity, but, thankfully, his mental collapse removed him from the show.

    And I'm really impressed that he didn't make Don Draper's deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue....

    Don’t get the “Mary Sue” reference, please elaborate.

    Michael Ginsberg’s cutting off of his nipple and presenting it to his shiksa object of affection, Peggy, was bizarre. Was it late onset paranoid schizophrenia or just the effect of working under so many goyim?

    After reading Mathew Weiner’s neurotic interview I wonder closely he identified with Ginsberg?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Don’t get the “Mary Sue” reference, please elaborate.
     
    It's a term that comes out of Star Trek fandom in the '70s. It refers to an author's penchant for inserting an idealized version of herself into a work.So far, Weiner has avoided giving a Jewish Mary Sue in Mad Men

    Michael Ginsberg’s cutting off of his nipple and presenting it to his shiksa object of affection, Peggy, was bizarre. Was it late onset paranoid schizophrenia or just the effect of working under so many goyim?
     
    It was paranoid schizophrenia.

    After reading Mathew Weiner’s neurotic interview I wonder closely he identified with Ginsberg?
     
    I was really worried that he was.Indeed, in the early stages of his time on the show, some critics thought that he was going to become the show's true hero, not the compromised Don Draper, etc. Fortunately, he never became an important character and was hustled off stage on a stretcher
  39. I get so tired of the Jewish grudge against whites and America. If whites and WASPs wanted to get together and keep Jews out of the country, and out of power, they could have easily done this. Instead, Jews were allowed into the country and allowed in elite circles. Jews are a privileged class in America and use phony claims of discrimination to justify their own grudges and discrimination and to solidify a grip on power.

    Of course Jews have lots of power in the media. From my lowly position way on the outside, that much is obvious. It’s also obvious what movies like Caddyshack and Meatballs were about. Fox News, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren’t all Isrul all the time for nothing, and there is a reason that NPR is heavily staffed by Jews, and the programming heavily focused on Jews and Jewish issues. Instead of constant hostility, derision and opposition, I think Jews owe WASPs/America a big thank you and some cooperation, but I’m not holding my breath.

    FWIW, I’ve yet to find an ancestor on either side of my family who isn’t descended from colonists. According to census info and family lore, they were almost all small farmers in good times, and laborers when the economy soured. The counties where my grandparents grew up didn’t have public schools until the 1910s, and fees were still required, and I’m sure that they wouldn’t have been welcomed in any elite schools, circles or country clubs.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "The counties where my grandparents grew up didn’t have public schools until the 1910s, and fees were still required, and I’m sure that they wouldn’t have been welcomed in any elite schools, circles or country clubs."

    Oh, come on. When Jews state that they've been discriminated against and weren't allowed into the finest country clubs, that doesn't mean that they have some kind of organic solidarity with lower class whites.

    They're not white, theyre descended from Abraham.

    Who said anything about them being on the same level with other gentile lower class whites?

    Can still remember neighbor talking about how their kid "only" got into Duke and not Harvard. "ONLY" Duke. The neighbor kept saying 'Oh, my god. How bad were his grades anyway? And that school is in North Carolina, right near all those Fundamentalist weirdos!'

    Neighbors weren't Irish. Nor Italian.

    They did look like they were white, really did. Wonder if they'd have taken offense at being thought of as mere white?

  40. The following is another amazing production of Red Ice Radio that pretty much demolishes Michael Weiner’s argument that Jews are merely overrepresented in Hollywood with limited impact on the culture as a whole and are no way hostile to historical American nation.

    Warning it is 1:46 minutes long, but worth every minute of watching it. If you got time to waste on Mad Men then you definitely got time for this.

    Hollywoodism: The Ideology that has Devoured Western Culture

    Also very worthwhile from Red Ice.

    Saint George and the “White Whore”
    http://www.redicecreations.com/TV/2014/Insight-ep5.php

    Insight – Anchorman 2 Review & The Politics of Will Ferrell
    http://www.redicecreations.com/TV/2014/Insight-ep4.php

  41. SFG says:
    @syonredux

    The only thing I have to add is that liberalism seems to have replaced ethnic animus as a driving force–the liberal Jews I knew actually believed in this SJW diversity crap and were trying to save the world.
     
    People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn't get it, that elite Jews aren't nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:

    “Let me tell you about Matt in high school” or whatever. It was like going behind the curtain. And I’m saying it in direct answer to your question. This guy said, “You guys, that was our school and this was our world and then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair
     
    Black hair. See, I'm not like those WASP bastards, with their light brown/blond Nazi hair!

    and your leather jacket.” That’s what he said. And I was like, “Oh my God, what, am I in like Chariots of Fire?” This is Los Angeles, the Sopranos was on the air, this was like 2004.
     
    In case anyone doesn't get the reference, a key plot point in Chariots of Fire (1981) involves the anti-Jewish prejudice that Harold Abrahams encounters while a student at Cambridge in the early 1920s.

    But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.
     
    Yeesh.Does anyone think that Weiner would ever refer to the Hillcrest as restricted? Or does he think that it's just a wonderful coincidence that it's majority Jewish?

    “People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn’t get it, that elite Jews aren’t nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:”

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.

    I said he was otherwise correct, just wanted to add my own impressions, and left open the possibility they could have snowed me. Which remains the case.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.
     
    Somehow I tend to doubt that there has been a sea change.....
  42. I just the last few weeks started watching Mad Men.

    It’s been a really disappointing experience. Yes, the period detail is pretty fascinating. But the entire energy of the show comes from its never ending reinterpretation of the sixties in the light of our current Zeitgeist. Every episode and every dramatic moment is animated by a question of: how are women being treated? how are blacks being treated? How are Jews being treated? You can hear in your head the invisible audience gasping at every such moment: OMG, did you hear what he said? I am so disgusted, and superior to that!

    If you take away that cheap thrill of moral superiority, what’s left of the series? Anything?

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call “moral porn” — playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today’s standard “correct” morality — however anachronistically — onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality. If, say, Napoleon is supposed to be a good guy in a movie, you will know because he has a black guy whom he treats with respect because he’s a great artillery officer; if he’s supposed to be a bad guy, he’ll talk about how those blacks are just animals.

    I find this kind of relentless sermonizing in art repulsive; I just can’t stomach it.

    But I can only conclude that I’m a pretty rare bird, because stuff like this sells like nobody’s business.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    For a more nuanced take, here's Benjamin Schwartz's article on Mad Men in The Atlantic:


    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/mad-about-mad-men/307709/
    , @syonredux

    Some elements of Mad Men’s appeal have been nicely explained by Charlie Rose (who can always be counted on to embrace the conventional wisdom) in that inimitably sycophantic, answering-his-own-question-that-isn’t-even-a-question way of his: “Why has this so resonated, especially with critics and people who like smart writing and tightly drawn characters?” he pronounced in an interview with the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner, and two of its male stars, Jon Hamm and John Slattery. The writing—and the direction, photography, and (with one important exception) acting—is superlative, the show is dramatically compelling. Moreover, as Rose’s customarily reverential invocation of the critics suggests, not just Rose but also Mad Men’s affluent, with-it target audience are particularly susceptible to liking what TheNew York Times’ Arts and Style sections tell them to like (30-plus articles in two years!). Add to this the meticulous, lush styling and art direction, which make the series eye candy for its (again) target audience, already in thrall to the so-called mid-century-modern aesthetic—an appeal that’s now further fueled by the slimline suit/pencil skirt marketing tie-in with Banana Republic, that canny purveyor of upper-mass-market urbanity. Then there is the miraculous Hamm, playing the lead character, Don Draper. Here is an actor who at once projects sexual mastery and ironic intelligence, poise and vulnerability. That alchemy has created the greatest male stars, from Gable to Grant to Bogart to McQueen to Clooney, because it wins for them both the desire of women and the fondness of men. So the show’s white-hotness was all but predetermined.
     

    Finally, there’s another factor, one that cuts both ways and thereby contributes to Mad Men’s inner tension: the peculiar emotional chord the show’s setting strikes with viewers over 30. Critics invariably discuss how the series echoes John Cheever’s stories, Billy Wilder’s The Apartment, and Richard Yates’s Revolutionary Road (a novel Weiner says he hadn’t read when he created the show). But for every audience member familiar with gin-soaked Shady Hill, there are dozens whose notions of the glamour of adult life, of Manhattan, and of “creative” careers were shaped by endless reruns of three sitcoms with concrete ties to Mad Men’s particular milieu: The Dick Van Dyke Show, Bewitched, and That Girl. The key to television success, Don Draper tosses off, is to offer “derivative with a twist.” Mad Men is those shows grown up, grown hard, and—in ways that flatter its writers’ and viewers’ images of themselves—grown wise.
     

    Keen observers, he and his staff understand that suits were sackier in 1960 than in 1963; that a department-store heiress in 1960 would wear a dress that had been featured in, say, Vogue in that year, and that she could have her hair done daily, while a secretary’s wardrobe in 1960 might include a new sweater from Klein’s but also a dress that had been in style in 1958, and her hairdo would degrade as the workweek ground on; that a suburban kitchen was far more likely to be decorated ersatz colonial than space-age; that clothes have to fit the performers as they did in 1960 or 1962; that actresses must be trussed up in period-accurate foundation garments, because otherwise the characters’ bearing will be anachronistic—and they understand that bearing reflects and informs temperament and behavior. At its best, this fetishistic attention to period accuracy succeeds in summoning an alien world in which characters move, fidget, and even kiss differently. Weiner, though, seeks a goal beyond that. He wants to achieve something like the satiric exactitude Canby spoke of: “The story is told in the detail, and those details have their own life,” he told The Times.

    By this standard, though, Weiner’s exercise is unavoidably sterile. The pattern of a necktie, the club frequented, the restaurant patronized, the shopping bag carried, the prep school attended, together with a thousand other details, signify minute social distinctions, and reveal and even define character. But crucially, the telling details from a lost world can’t tell today (even if the club, restaurant, store, and school still exist, they can’t connote now what they did then), which perforce means that Mad Men is something of a costume drama.
     

    This striving for verisimilitude serves another purpose: Weiner seems to hope that getting the vintage mitten clasps and IBM Selectrics right will help viewers believe that outrageously un-PC attitudes and behavior were as common as the series shows them to be. Mad Men is hailed for what The Times calls its “unflinching portrayal of Eisenhower/Kennedy–era sexism, racism, anti-Semitism,” and this unrelenting focus on the unenlightened aspects of the past is clearly central for Weiner and his writers. Most of the supplemental historical material in the DVD sets focuses on racial and gender issues and progressive politics, including a lengthy paean to the SDS’s gaseous Port Huron Statement. The takeaway is clear, as The Times approvingly quotes an academic who indulges in a rather Whiggish interpretation of history: “The show explains why the ’60s had to happen.”

    But even if the portrayal were as “dead-on” as The Times assures us it is, that portrayal is hardly neutral. In describing a scene in which sexist badinage is exchanged at an account meeting, McLean correctly points out that “the series is critical of this limited view and is not afraid to spell [its criticism] out.” That stance—which amounts to a defiant indictment of sexism and racism, sins about which a rough moral consensus would now seem to have formed—militates against viewers’ inhabiting the alien world the show has so carefully constructed, because it’s constantly pressing them to condemn that world.
     

    And that stance is responsible for the rare (and therefore especially grating) heavy-handed and patronizing touches in an otherwise nuanced drama. Must the only regular black characters be a noble and cool elevator operator, a noble and understanding housekeeper, and a perceptive and politicized supermarket clerk? Must said elevator operator, who goes unnoticed by the less sensitive characters, sagely say when discussing Marilyn Monroe’s death, “Some people just hide in plain sight”? Get it—he’s talking about himself. He’s invisible. Even worse, that stance evokes and encourages the condescension of posterity; just as insecure college students feel they must join the knowing hisses of the callow campus audience when a character in an old movie makes an un-PC comment, so Mad Men directs its audience to indulge in a most unlovely—because wholly unearned—smugness. As artistically mistaken as this stance is, it nonetheless helps account for the show’s success. We all like to congratulate ourselves, and as a group, Mad Men’s audience is probably particularly prone to the temptation.
     

    But other slips demonstrate an unsure grasp of the show’s setting and characters—and of the class differences that complicate the rather blunt stance the series takes. A supplement to the first season’s DVDs makes explicit what attentive viewers already understood: Mad Men deliberately shocks its audience by presenting as reasonable and commonplace behavior we now find appalling. This gambit, a signature feature of the show, can force the audience to viscerally experience the foreignness of the past, and when so used it can be a brilliant dramatic ploy—but only if the action portrayed is as de rigueur as the show suggests. At a child’s birthday party, for instance, a man hits a boy who has spilled a drink, and no one reacts, not even the boy’s father. The Draper family, in another case, drives away from the scene of a family picnic, nonchalantly leaving their trash on the ground where they were sitting. Yes, corporal punishment was more common then than now, and Iron Eyes Cody wouldn’t be tearing up on TV screens for another nine years. But Dr. Spock’s permissive parenting notions exercised a near-hegemonic sway over child-rearing practices in the bedroom communities of the Northeast’s professional class, and however one chose to correct one’s own children and whatever the state of America’s roadsides, the actions portrayed were simply not the done thing. Nice people—the educated and affluent—didn’t hit other people’s kids, and they didn’t, especially in front of their children, walk away from a pile of trash they had created.
     

    Mad Men’s most egregious stumble—though seemingly a small one—involves Betty Draper’s college career, and it is generally emblematic of this extraordinarily accomplished show’s greatest weaknesses, and specifically emblematic of its confused approach to this poorly defined character. Betty, the show establishes, was in a sorority. So far, okay. Pretty, with a little-girl voice and a childlike, almost lobotomized affect; humorless; bland but at times creepily calculating (as when she seeks solace by manipulating her vulnerable friend into an affair); obsessed with appearances and therefore lacking in inner resources; a consistently cold and frequently vindictive mother; a daddy’s girl—Betty is written, and clumsily performed by model-turned-actress January Jones, as a clichéd shallow sorority sister. (Just as Don’s self-invented identity is Gatsby-like, so Betty, his wife, is a jejune ornament like Daisy, though without the voice full of money.) But she’s also a character deeply wronged by her serial-philanderer husband, and she’s hazily presented as a stultified victim of soulless postwar suburban ennui (now there’s a cliché). So, perhaps to bestow gravitas on her, or at least some upper-classiness, the show establishes that she went to Bryn Mawr. But of course Bryn Mawr has never had sororities. By far the brainiest of the Seven Sisters—cussed, straight-backed, high-minded, and feminist (its students, so the wags said, preferred the Ph.D. to the Mrs.)—Bryn Mawr was probably the least likely college that Betty Draper, given to such non-U genteelisms as “passed away,” would have attended. So much for satiric exactitude. In the pilot and through the early stages of the series’s development, Weiner had planned to show little of the Drapers’ home life, which might explain Betty’s woefully undeveloped character. The strength of the megamovie is that it can build complex characters over time—but the telling details it accumulates to serve that process work only if the writers are clear and consistent about what they are trying to say.
     

    TO WATCH THIS megamovie as it should be watched, as a 26-hour (and counting) cycle, and to read McLean’s dissection of its intricacies, is to grasp Mad Men’s triumph: its emotional intelligence—evident not only in its writing and acting but in its exquisite direction, lighting, and photography—overwhelms its mushy ideology and whatever Important Points it wants to make. At its best—and it usually hits that mark—its characters are true to themselves and therefore to their time and place. Thus in the pilot, Don—who is quickly established as a sophisticated adult, wry, not lacking in sensitivity, genuinely curious about the inner lives of women (after all, fathoming their aspirations and desires is the key to his professional success), sexually adventurous but intolerant of the lewd frat-boy behavior of the junior executives—sternly rebuffs a pitiful pass from the new girl, Peggy, an innocent from Brooklyn, whose observations of the office culture have led her to believe that she must offer herself to him. Peggy is obviously relieved, as are the viewers, whose faith in their hero has been rewarded. But just as the audience is luxuriating in his admirableness, Don tries to buck up Peggy, still quaking from the scolding he gave her, by telling her to “go home, put your curlers in …” It’s the kind of casually sexist remark that makes today’s viewers squirm. And it’s precisely what Don would say to Peggy—because she’s a woman, but not just because she’s a woman: she’s also a secretary, dowdy, and from an outer borough.
     

    Don Draper is also consistently true to the past the writers have established for him. Some critics find his appealing unflappability implausible, and they fault the show for sacrificing its commitment to verisimilitude in the interest of maintaining the lead actor’s appeal. They fail to grasp that Don—whose entire identity is a fabrication—would have to possess preternatural cool. He’s always on. In the single most affecting scene of the entire series, Don pitches an advertising campaign to Kodak. He’s projecting slides of his children and his wife as he talks—tears welling, his voice slightly quivering—about the ache of memory. It’s a deeply poignant scene, made even more so by the modulation of Don’s emotions. And it’s a bravura performance by Hamm—of Don’s bravura performance (watch Don’s persona shift as he slips into the pitch). Viewers feel, and want to feel, that Don’s emotion is genuine—but they also know that Don is selling himself, and that it could all be an act. The series’s most chilling sequence follows Betty in the Draper house as she spends morning to night methodically searching suit pockets and papers and rifling through desk drawers to discover evidence of Don’s infidelity. Viewers are conditioned to know she’ll find it—what else would be the point of the sequence? And some are no doubt uncomfortable when they realize that, thanks to the way the directing and writing have built up the suspense, they’re rooting for the bad guy, as it were. As evening comes—the sequence nicely captures that yucky feeling at the close of a day spent shut up in the house—Betty has found … nothing. After a momentary surprise, the viewer realizes that of course Betty would find nothing, because—and it’s the same reason Don’s winning poise is entirely believable—like all great liars, Don never lets down his guard.

     


    Today the megamovie is America’s most accomplished and vital mass entertainment, so it’s fitting that Mad Men, which is the most quintessentially American megamovie made to date, explores a peculiarly American theme and exploits a peculiarly American asset. Leave it to a show that famously employs an unusually high number of women writers to capture—more vividly than anything I’ve encountered save Norman Mailer’s short story “The Language of Men” and, obliquely, John O’Hara’s “Graven Image”—the unrelenting, low-level competition and consequent posing, the miscues and jarringness, the monotonous lack of intimacy that characterize a good deal of the conversation among middle-class American males. And leave it to television to enshrine correct Americanese.

    Weiner’s policy of not allowing British actors to play American characters stems from his eminently reasonable logic that his show “is so American, it should be played by Americans.” And, unusual for a megamovie, its characters aren’t (as they say) “ethnic,” and they’re not cops, criminals, or the downtrodden. Rather, they’re predominantly well-educated, articulate WASPs. So verisimilitude doesn’t demand that the characters shave ts and drop g’s. Unlike so many fancy American TV dramas, Mad Men doesn’t require the viewer to pause and replay the DVD to make out what’s being said. Rather, the actors deliver their often fizzy but (because it’s guarded or reflective) never fast-talking dialogue with the clear, relaxed enunciation of casually elegant American speech. Unlike performers in most naturalistic American productions—theatrical, cinematic, or on television—who can only gesture at meaning with the fragmented language with which they’re supplied, the Mad Men actors are given precise words and whole, often clever and grammatically complex sentences to work with.

    The cognoscenti, though, have largely ignored this quiet virtue while extolling what are really the show’s considerable flaws. Ah, the media juggernaut. If Mad Men were half as good as the hype would have it, the show would be one of the best ever produced for American television. It’s both.
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/mad-about-mad-men/307709/
    , @Forbes

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call “moral porn” — playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today’s standard “correct” morality — however anachronistically — onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality.
     
    That was my first take on MM. The stereotypes and theatrical devices are played so far over the top as to be highly entertaining--assuming you recognize that. But I find so many people assuming it's an accurate portrayal--and assuming their moral superiority over the earlier era as to be disheartening. But then MM is not alone, nor the first to do it, in entertainment/Hollywood.
    , @officious intermeddler
    Mad Men is written and produced by people who were didn't become adults until decades after the period in which it is set and who don't seem to know anything about what things were like in those days. In a way, that's odd, because they could just watch their studios' archives of movies and tv shows that were made back then, which fairly accurately document the prevailing attitudes and mores of the time.

    I have a close friend, Jewish in his 70's, who was actually in the advertising business in New York during the late-1950's and early-1960's. He told me that he tried to watch the show but found it too preposterous.

    He said the one thing that it got most right was the smoking, drinking and reasonable working hours. Most people smoked and they smoked everywhere without complaint by non-smokers. The three-martini lunch was a reality, and my friend swears that it was routine for ad men to return to their offices after lunch (especially if it was with clients), close the door, tell their secretaries to hold their calls, sleep on the couch until 4:00 or 4:30, when it was almost time to go home, and then resume drinking in the club car on the way back to the suburbs, arriving home in time for the cocktail hour. If a man could hold his liquor, he wasn't viewed as an alcoholic, he was just convivial.

    The thing that Mad Men got most preposterously wrong was its portrayal of women. Contrary to the show's notions: Wife-beating was considered disgraceful. Treating secretaries and the typing pool like prostitutes would have gotten a man fired and probably blackballed from the industry. Nice girls really didn't put out until they were married, with rare, unfortunate exceptions, and men didn't expect them to. No ad man would have dreamed of refusing to work with a high-paying potential client because she was a woman. Men liked women, women liked men, and they enjoyed each other's company.

    Likewise, to a somewhat lesser extent, for the show's displays of overt anti-Semitism and racism, both of which were already déclassé by the time in which the show was set.
    , @kihowi
    Thanks for confirming exactly what I expected Mad Men to be, and why I didn't even try to watch it.

    What you get is one Jewish man's interpretation of what contemporary mores are, projected onto the past. But because it's moving pictures, it tattoos itself onto people's brains and the history teachers of 2040 who are dopey teenage girls now, will teach the series' atmosphere as fact.

    Partaking of any historical fiction is generally a bad idea if you want to get an accurate picture of what the past was like.

    No, the ancient Romans didn't have the kind adolescent angst about gender roles that we're familiar with. No, Victorians weren't very worried about human rights. People were different.
  43. SFG says:
    @countenance
    High schools and country clubs — they’re a big part of how people feel about life.

    Previous generations act like they never got out of high school. The millennials, with their need for safe spaces and safe room with play doh and teddy bears in college, act like they never got out of kindergarten.

    For me, too, networking had to be an acquired taste. Mainly because my high school didn't have rigid cliques, and none of us were ever hung up on race or ethnicity.

    So neoteny is proceeding, and the generation after them will wear diapers? And after them, they will exist in womb-like virtual reality environments?

    There is quite a bit to this ‘arrested development’ bit. At the age of 36, I am finally losing interest in science fiction, just as it becomes more acceptable in the general culture. I wonder what’s with this whole childishness thing? Lack of parenting due to the feminist revolution? Any ideas?

    • Replies: @random observer
    I'm not sure interest in science fiction really qualifies, stereotypes notwithstanding. From a mass culture angle, going to see implausible space fantasies or robot movies is not meaningfully a less sophisticated pursuit than all consuming pro-sports obsession. The two are parallel in terms of level of cultural sophistication and contribution to society, and reflect comparably unrealistic wish fulfillment fantasies, for the overwhelming majority of sports fans who play no sport themselves at least.

    On the printed page, science fiction is a genre fiction like westerns, mysteries, police procedurals, and so forth, all of which attract fans of varying age groups today, usually skewing older, and/or were once more popular. Or romance fiction. In each category, there are more or less sophisticated examples in every author generation, to be sure, but not notably to the disadvantage of science fiction. All contain a lot of slop reliant on absurd tropes, moralized plot lines and weak characterization. All also contain better output than that.

    Your average old duffer circa 1960 devouring Zane Grey was not engaging in a more intellectual or more real-life reflective experience than some nerd at the same time reading Asimov or Bester or Clarke. Arguably less so.

    Not that I want real life to be the standard of judgment for literature, though. Most "serious" or "literary" fiction today seems to be either women obsessing about female characters with tedious problems that a rational person could easily solve, various gen x [my own generation] or millennials obsessing that life isn't all they had hoped for [life spoiler alert!], or boomers with the same problem. Not to necessarily knock the works of Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, or John Updike, but postwar American literary fiction had its own characteristic flaw- endless rumination on the sexual fixations and misunderstandings of the middle class male.

    I refuse to accept the argument that any of this is in any way more sophisticated or useful than ruminations on possible future societies, disasters, technical challenges, exploratory endeavours, or indeed efforts at constructed mythologies that mimic the ancient storytelling traditions.

    Granted, matters of taste. But a trip to a bookstore today can be a dispiriting experience.
  44. Another dimension to Mad Men is that it brought in female writers and directors after Season One. Maybe to save money by paying less for undiscovered female talent? Anyways, Season One was the best. The show always had high points and lots of great black humor but absurdness started creeping in by Season Three. I continued watching because the show is impeccable about making the 60s backdrop authentic. Such as home furnishings, men’s business suits and ties and so on. Old automobiles too.
    All in all it is great look back at America at its manufacturing and economic zenith. The working class had not been undermined by drugs and divorce and there were high paying industrial jobs. Cities were safe and public schools were excellent, I went to them.

    There is a revival in Mid Century antiques, collectibles and furniture. Mad Men has a great deal to do with this.

    Lastly, the series veered soap opera-ish after the women writers and directors took over. The viewership has to breakdown to more female! Two to one is my guess.

  45. I do not know (and apparently never will)
    what were the concerns of our two kids attending a particular public High School.
    Our parental concerns were mostly the choice between
    multiple AP courses like (Calc_AB + Calc_BC), Comp_Sci (or however it is called) and several others, which was the choice for the son, and
    International Baccalaureate (IB) program with more humanity courses, which eventually was the choice for the daughter.
    IB program really meant rather harsh limitations
    on the number and particular topics of AP courses.
    An ethnically Chinese girl, who occasionally came to our house to duplicate
    (not sure about polite word) our daughters’s math home work,
    got into Harvard U. undergraduate program and graduated from it in English language (?);
    now she is a lawyer in Saint Lois.
    We keep no grudge either to WASPs, or to Jews, or to Chinese.
    I have no idea what were the social problems of our kids.
    A friend of mine at work warned me:
    “Do not send kids to private school. They will resent being kids from poor family.”
    That was something I could not understand.
    We just came to USA, we bought a bus
    (can you imagine my pride of our 7 year old Toyota van)
    and a house; who may think we are “poor family”!!!
    Our attitude was and is “Мне бы ваши заботы, господин учитель”
    (I wish I had your kind or troubles, Sir Teacher).

  46. I’ve got to say there are days when I get sick of hearing rich, connected people whining about how hard they think they had it at their elite school.

  47. Steve, I think it is a serious understatement to call Hancock Park merely “pleasant.” It is in fact one of the very best areas in all of Southern California. Architecturally, it is every bit as good as Beverly Hills, and probably better these days, as BH is continually afflicted by tear-downs where all the great pre-war Old California style homes get replaced by yet another Persian ziggurat.

    The streets are narrower, the lots are smaller, and HP is closer to some of the dicier parts of downtown and mid-Wilshire. But otherwise, it’s a high income, upper-class enclave and always has been.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Correct. Known in my day as the neighbourhood for the older, staider, Waspier lower uppers of Los Angeles. The upper uppers of the same description lived in Holmby Hills and Bel Air.
    Although, come to think of it, if you lived in Bel Air you probably weren't particularly staid.
  48. @Reg Cæsar

    Samuels interviews in The Tablet (which is edited by his new wife) Matthew Weiner…
     
    When did David marry Matthew?

    Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form.
     
    Aristophanes and Juvenal were far from bleeding hearts themselves.

    When you are half of a percent of a population and you are so overrepresented… it becomes, “Oh, it’s all of them.”
     
    It's not so much about "dominance" (and acting domineering just exacerbates the stereotype, so WASP-out, already!), it's about veto power. A laser-like focus on halting or deflecting other people's uncomfortable projects leverages what power one has. Never mind Jews, look at gays.

    This veto power deserves more scrutiny than it's received. Maybe it's been vetoed!

    Jock Whitney?
     
    Whitney is the perfect WASP name, as it has avoided being appropriated by other ethnies. As a relative who's studied many famous Whitneys, I've only come across the songwriter Joan Whitney, born Zoë Parenteau, of French Canadian stock. Israel Warshawsky called his Chicago auto parts business JC Whitney, but the family kept its name and even ran a parallel catalog using it.

    A very dismissive critic of Mad Men is George Lois, who got his start in the business at the time. In "Damn Good Advice", he says none of it rings true. Lois is Greek, but otherwise fits every stereotype you might hold of a Jewish ad exec. He didn't write that classic Levy's ad, but could have.

    A very dismissive critic of Mad Men is George Lois, who got his start in the business at the time. In “Damn Good Advice“, he says none of it rings true. Lois is Greek, but otherwise fits every stereotype you might hold of a Jewish ad exec. He didn’t write that classic Levy’s ad, but could have.

    My question is for how long have Jews been a dominate part, or at least overrepresented in the Advertising industry????

    Watching Mad Men, Weiner would have you believe that Wasps were still dominating advertising as late as the early 1970s.

    According to Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer, Jewish dominance in the retail industry as early as the 1920s, given that they were heavy purchasers of ad space, meant they were able to heavily influence both the newspaper and advertising industries.

    Is the finally episode of Mad Men going to be the rise of the Jew in advertising, pushing those nasty adulterous goyim off of the stage????

    It would appear to me that today that both Jews and Gays are heavily over represented in the advertising industry and it has been that way for 4-5 decades at least.

    Last, Michael Weiner comes across as a sort of extreme Noam Chomsky type Jewish apologist caught in an its always 1968 time warp, who stills blames so much of what has gone wrong with America the last couple of decades on corporations dominated almost entirely by Wasps as if Jews are with out power or influence in this country.

    It has not been that way for many decades, hence Mad Men is now ludicrous having reached 1970.

  49. I watched Mad Men first season. I thought the story arc was that Draper was secretly Jewish. The ad biz in those days was strictly protestant. It was a false story line. I have not watch the series since.
    Maybe the series will end when Draper becomes DB Cooper the hijacker.

  50. I liked MM the first 2 seasons, and, them I realized that the Wasps, well most of the characters, were being portrayed more and more like a bunch of decadent drunks and addicts with deep mental problems and self-loathing. I got tired of characters vomiting and urinating (a big red line for me) in many episodes…humping anything in sight. It just became too vile. I switched off to watching Downton Abbey! And, of course, Breaking Bad, Doctor Who…and returned to watch past seasons 0f Entourage. MM was just too depressing and I felt like I had to take a shower after the show…but, I could deal with the depravity and violence of BB…didn’t make sense.

    As a representative of Waspdom, I suppose (although not authentic, since I hail form a Nordic country,) I was often condescended to at my east coast elite college. Because I had blond hair and was athletic and outdoorsy, everyone assumed (even professors!) that I was that “dumb blonde” who could not be taken seriously…plus, I was from New Jersey so I had to endure all the denigration of Jersey…even if Bruce had just become god.

    Women always asked me if my hair color was natural. Guys never cared, but many thought I was not smart when they first saw me. But, I was able to take full advantage of people’s misconceptions later in life, and being thought of as dumb never bothered me…but it was amazing that so many people assumed that…those past people today, if I reminded them of this, would shudder in fear that they had stereotyped me by my ethnicity and race when we were students on campus.

    I could care less about MM, so I guess it is pointless for me to even post, but I will say this: I think all people are tribal. People will always be more comfortable with whatever tribe they find affinity with, identify with. It’s kind of depressing, as my older son (we were discussing the middle east) said, “why can’t people just get along?” I did not have an answer except that people are tribal and afraid of the “other.” People are also lazy, so it is easy to link with someone that seems to exhibit the values/behavior/attitude one is used to.

    In fact, my son is similar to me in that the tribe I have created since HS has basically remained the same even when I lived in other states, countries. Like him I seem to only be attracted to: visually creative people, computer scientists, engineers, musicians, animal lovers and people who are outdoor enthusiasts whether mountain or water sports, and, they have to be funny, cerebral and eccentric in some way.

    But, I do agree with Steve that many, astonishingly many people, are still vexed over things that happened to them in HS…maybe it is a west coast/east coast angst; a kind of “affluenza?” I had a very ‘Dazed and Confused’ HS experience where all the cliques interacted under a haze of pot and keg beer in the 70’s. I think it helped to be from another country where I could observe American culture as an outsider from the 70’s to the 2000’s. And, the conclusion I have reached after all these years: everyone stoops to stereotyping, everyone is biased, everyone makes assumptions of someone but they’ll never admit it.

  51. @SFG
    "People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn’t get it, that elite Jews aren’t nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:"

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.

    I said he was otherwise correct, just wanted to add my own impressions, and left open the possibility they could have snowed me. Which remains the case.

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.

    Somehow I tend to doubt that there has been a sea change…..

    • Replies: @SFG
    More of a drift with the tides.

    Anyway, I've left New York, so I couldn't tell you what they're like now.
    , @SFG
    Looking back, I went to a very hippie-ish school, so it's quite possible the people I know actually believed in liberalism and the Matthew Weiner types are actually trying to settle ethnic grievances. Wouldn't be surprised.
  52. • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I like how he happily admits his parents insisted on sending him to a private school to avoid mandated busing and then turns around and complains about WASP dominance in literally the next breath.

    He really comes across as a catty and prickly guy.
  53. Time for a post on the legendary Dick Wolf!

    Famous for all the “Law and Order” agit prop but lets not forget 1992’s “School Ties”!!

    A Jewish boy goes to an elite prep school in the 1950’s and hides his religion until a jealous bigot forces it out in the open.

    Taglines: Just Because You’re Accepted Doesn’t Mean You Belong.

    David Green is brought into a prestigious 1950s school to help their football team to beat the school’s old rivals. David, however, is from a working class background, so he isn’t really “one of them”, but he’s very successful at making friends. David is a Jew, and has to keep this a secret from his friends for fear of being rejected.

    Dick Wolf has a Jewish father and Irish Catholic mother. Seems to be naturally more Jewish identified if only in a secular tribal way.

    I remember when School Ties came out for Paramount and Sherry Lansing the Jewish president of Paramount was VERY enthusiastic about the movie seeing it as an important statement about the Hell Jews in America had to overcome.

    Related to all this I always remember how important it was for many Jews when Disney studios was taken over by Jews and that deep wound was finally healed when the Evil Anti Semite Walt Disney was finally vanquished.

    I knew David Simon of The Wire, and big fan of Martyred Saint Trayvon Martin, was basically a Jewish bigot but I had though Matthew Weiner was beyond that. But I was wrong.

    • Replies: @Glaivester
    So Lennie Brisco was Dick Wolf 's self-insert character?
  54. Was struck last night that nothing really happens with the characters on MM, it’s the same stuff with different groovy clothes and furnishings. No great moral dilemmas. Tony Soprano, an ethnic Catholic, knew he was moral failure because he was warned over and over, but choose to be a bad guy. Don Draper has no such qualms, heck, he barely changes anything. There is an emptiness there. It does look great. Having worked in a greasy spoon NOBODY working in a restaurant is having sex with a customer, and no customer is going warm to carnal pleasure to any enchantress encased and stinking of friolator grease.

    As to Wiener, as an Irishman from NYC,struck how Weiner repeatedly slagged on us Mcs as little more than drunken dumb thugs. Yet how reverential he was of the shiva. Suspect Weiner didn’t like Irish guys or had some kind of issue growing up.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As to Wiener, as an Irishman from NYC,struck how Weiner repeatedly slagged on us Mcs as little more than drunken dumb thugs. Yet how reverential he was of the shiva. Suspect Weiner didn’t like Irish guys or had some kind of issue growing up.
     
    I wouldn't blame him, if he had some significant experience with east coast Irish, a majority of whom I experienced to be mean little shitheads when push comes to shove.

    Irish from Ireland would give you the shirts off their backs, but east coast Irish tend to be just mean and clannish, plain and simple.

    Look to Boston Irish Catholics to get a taste of the archetype. Crazy clannish drunk fucks who think they're more than they are. Rent a video of Denis Leary. Wiki up the Kennedy's. Also, see "gangs of new york." I'm sure it wasn't exaggerated. The remnants of that strange mass pathology still permeate the east coast Irish psyche. Anger management is not their strong suite. Neither is knowing their implicit limitations.
  55. The greatest motor of ambition in modern America appears to be resentments left over from high school, and I just don’t have enough.

    Similar to Steve, I don’t have much (any) resentment from HS. What came as a bit of a shock was discovering years later the students that did. It made me wonder whether we went to the same school given the vast differences in experience as recollected, e.g. teachers that hated them, students that snubbed them. Perhaps I had thick skin back then–something I thought I’d acquired with maturity–and took little notice of the soap opera drama going on around me.

  56. Bud says:

    Interesting that the one group everyone is still allowed to hate is not Jews, or blacks, or Latins, or even WASPs — it’s poor Southern whites. Even eastern ‘old money’ WASP SWPLs feel free to despise red neck, conservative Christian, ‘Fucking NASCAR retards’. Come on, Unitarians and Reform Jews, embrace them.

  57. Steve, Thank you so much for writing this. For me, it’s just so surrealistic to read something like this. I’m in my mid-40s, reasonably successful, English Catholic. I’m decidedly not ethnocentric and by nature very laid back and accepting. Even of Indianans. But My God, reading this, it feels like Weiner is thoroughly hateful, paranoid, and deeply resentful, although his upbringing was way more privileged than anyone I grew up with. With all his luck and privilege and advantages, it’s like he’s just begging for me to hate him. As if my hatred of him will somehow elevate him to an even higher station in life? What is wrong with him? SMH.

  58. My father qualified for country clubs everywhere we went as I grew up. He deliberately avoided them, and I am glad.

    I remember maps laid out on our dining tables during a couple of moves, showing us country club properties we could buy and build on by fairways. Dad would have none of it, even though he loved golf and played it often. He bought land away from the status seekers, and he built magnificent homes where I hiked and played in forests and on mountains. My friends tended to live next to each other by the golf courses.

    There are a lot of us out here in the woods who want nothing to do with your concerns with status and your cramped lifestyles. You all, Jews and Gentiles both, sound like the stereotypical, tacky, social-climbing new money to us, even though most of us are neither new nor old money. We just live well, and we wish the rest of you would grow up and find out there is more to life than what club you belong to, what neighborhood you’re in, or even who your friends are.

    Get a life, people. (Grow up and leave high school behind, as Steve might suggest.)

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Greetings to another grown-up free range kid!
    There is a lot of extramural learning that would benefit more recent generations.
  59. Growing up around Philadelphia in the ’70s, this was the feeling that I had – that there was a WASP aristocracy that had at one time been dominant and that they still had their clubs and their strange customs (bright colored pants with whales on them, speaking with the Locust Valley Lockjaw accent) but that they didn’t really run things anymore. The mayor was Italian (Rizzo), the main newspaper was owned by a Jew (Annenberg), etc. WASPs still had prominent roles but not dominant ones and they were clearly fading while other groups were rising. Local WASP institutions such as Budd (maker of railcars) were teetering on the brink of extinction, while the University of Pennsylvania (heavily Jewish from the 1920s onward) was rising. Campbell Soup was not setting the world on fire. So it never occurred to me that they were a threat or that I somehow had to take revenge upon them or destroy their stupid clubs which I had no desire to join any more than I wanted to join the Knights of Columbus.

    Weiner’s whole shtick is strange. As he points out, Jews and the movie industry in effect created the Los Angeles that we know. There was no there there when they got there, just a small Midwestern city transplanted to a better climate. LA was not even in the top 10 – it was smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati and out where the studios were built was ranchland that they could buy up cheap. Beverly Hills was not incorporated until 1914 and in 1920 it had 674 residents. Defeating the WASP aristocracy of LA was a feat comparable to taking over Minneapolis.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There was no there there when they got there, just a small Midwestern city transplanted to a better climate. LA was not even in the top 10 – it was smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati and out where the studios were built was ranchland that they could buy up cheap. Beverly Hills was not incorporated until 1914 and in 1920 it had 674 residents. Defeating the WASP aristocracy of LA was a feat comparable to taking over Minneapolis.

    County Population figures for 1910:

    Los Angeles, California: 504,000
    Wayne, Michigan (Detroit): 537,000
    St. Louis (City/County): 769,000
    Hennepin / Ramsey, Mn (Twin cities): 566,000
    Johnson/Jackson/Wynadotte/Clay (Kansas City): 421,000
    DC: 331,000
    Harris/Ft. Bend/Montgomery (Houston): 148,000
    Dallas, Tx: 135,000


    Smaller than New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago. Not small in context.
    , @Art Deco
    As he points out, Jews and the movie industry in effect created the Los Angeles that we know.

    The coarse categories which include the film industry, broadcasting, and arts-and-entertainment (and adjacent industries like publishing and data processing) account for 14% of local domestic product in the Los Angeles Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. It's an important industry, but much else has gone on there and will go on there.
    , @Ivy
    LA built on movies is a popular fiction.

    Reality as evidenced in the historical record shows that it was built on oil (yes, there was blood), and then came movies and later a lot of manufacturing such as the aerospace industry with supporting job shops.
  60. I can only believe that in a certain key way Weiner took his lesson from his work on the Sopranos, and applied it, as any hack would, to his own circumstances in service of money and fame.

    The Sopranos was one of any number of artistic works by Italian Americans that worked off a cultural stereotype, that of an Italian mobster, and parlayed it into highly popular art. Now of course anyone who knows anything about Italian Americans knows how rare — most especially in these days — an Italian mobster is. But God knows it presents endless opportunities for fascinating and dramatic movies.

    But what’s a Jew to do when he breaks out on his own and tries to mimic the enterprise?

    Why, blow up every grudge he might ever have had or even just imagined, and locate his ginned up resentments in the advertising firm of Haven and Monahan.

    So of course poor rich kid Mathew Weiner felt mercilessly persecuted at his prep school. What’s the percentage in saying anything else?

  61. Maybe many Jews resent WASPS because WASPs are Christians AND for having created an amazingly decent and successful country. America represents for them a repudiation of what they have been taught about the goyim i.e. that the goyim are really unintelligent genocidaires.

    They don’t resent Irish and Italian Catholics anywhere as much probably because they are fond of them -they grew up with them as underdogs in the immigrant tenements of New York. In fact in NYC, the Jews, Irish and Italians have always worked together to form the formidable coalition that displaced the WASP power structure of NY, while at the same time, taking care to keep the hapless (and socially and economically useless) Puerto Ricans and Blacks in their place. I live in NYC, and I am always amazed at how these three ethnic whites get along famously, but I guess it helps to have a common enemy they hold in deep contempt -Blacks. (full disclosure: I am an african muslim “immigrant” myself)

    Of course in this coalition, for the most parts, the leaders are mostly Jews, and the cops that crack minority heads are irish or italian. Think obese cigarette seller Eric Garner of “I can’t breathe” and the cop Pantaleo. Blacks try to fight back (well, at least they try), and hence the formidable Al Sharpton. But NY Jews also have a strange sympathetic side towards Blacks , so even as they get their moderate IQ irish/italian cop goons to crack some heads, they are also providing blacks and hispanics with assistance-jobs, subsidized housing, and such. Blacks know this, and well, they don’t really “Fight the Power” too hard. They know they have it tougher in the WASP lands of the South.

    Anyway, the reason Jews are so politically powerful is because they have the tactical support of a lot of non-WASP gentiles, AND the frightened dysfunctional minorities who need them for their welfare. Non WASP gentiles support comes more in the form of being neutral and not defending the WASP Establishment and the South. So the historical America becomes comprised. Oh and by the way, it does not help that the WASPs in the south dumbly oppose unions even though unions are job protection for the working and lower middle class white ethnic Catholics and jews. Southern Whites are so unreasonable they drive everyone straight into the hands of liberal Jews. (Also, why do they care if promiscuous women want to use birth control, or abort? Another discussion).

    I still can not figure out completely why American Jews have such a DEEP hatred of WASPs -and hence historical America-though.
    I mean we all resent our betters to a certain extent, but we don’t try to destroy them- we even try to emulate them (even if we don’t admit it).

    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    lots of interesting stuff in your comment, Merema. I think Jews are taught to hate Christianity from the get-go and to support the opposite of whatever Christians support. Why else would they be in vanguard of every liberal, atheist, communist, feminist, homosexual revolutionary group? Probably if Christians were in favor of abortion, they'd oppose it.

    Man, that sounds really harsh. But would it honestly offend anybody?

    For whatever reason, most of my favorite writers on the internet are of a Jewish background.
    , @Jeff W.
    The New York Times makes its living by constantly telling its readers that they are morally superior to the wrong kind of white people (WASP's, Midwesterners, Southerners, Republicans). The NYT is all attacks on the wrong kind of white people, all the time. The truth, of course, is that NYT readers are not really morally superior, just more vengeful.

    The NYT also has readers that are into wealth porn, and they also make money catering to that audience.
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Calling obvious bullsh*t on this:

    … then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair and your leather jacket.

    This is a quote from Weiner’s own paranoid internal dialog. Nobody ever said to him anything about black hair. That’s the giveaway.

    Weiner projects the well known Jewish fear/hatred of blondes onto his enemy.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    My maternal grandfather, Ervin Langley (1907-2001), grew up in the Ozarks and had black hair as a young man. He identified his family's roots as "black Irish." But then many of the riffraff kinds of white people migrated from the British Isles to the American colonies and became the ancestors of much of the South's white population.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Weiner projects the well known Jewish fear/hatred of blondes onto his enemy.

     

    The Romans thought otherwise:

    Candida me docuit nigras odisse puellas

    "A blond has taught me to hate brunettes." Inscribed on a wall at Pompeii.
  63. @ScarletNumber
    Growing up in northern New Jersey (Sopranos land), I didn't find out until high school that one could be Christian without being Catholic.

    Tom Wolfe’s Jewish mayor of NYC in Bonfire of the Vanities didn’t find out until college.

  64. @Reg Cæsar

    Samuels interviews in The Tablet (which is edited by his new wife) Matthew Weiner…
     
    When did David marry Matthew?

    Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form.
     
    Aristophanes and Juvenal were far from bleeding hearts themselves.

    When you are half of a percent of a population and you are so overrepresented… it becomes, “Oh, it’s all of them.”
     
    It's not so much about "dominance" (and acting domineering just exacerbates the stereotype, so WASP-out, already!), it's about veto power. A laser-like focus on halting or deflecting other people's uncomfortable projects leverages what power one has. Never mind Jews, look at gays.

    This veto power deserves more scrutiny than it's received. Maybe it's been vetoed!

    Jock Whitney?
     
    Whitney is the perfect WASP name, as it has avoided being appropriated by other ethnies. As a relative who's studied many famous Whitneys, I've only come across the songwriter Joan Whitney, born Zoë Parenteau, of French Canadian stock. Israel Warshawsky called his Chicago auto parts business JC Whitney, but the family kept its name and even ran a parallel catalog using it.

    A very dismissive critic of Mad Men is George Lois, who got his start in the business at the time. In "Damn Good Advice", he says none of it rings true. Lois is Greek, but otherwise fits every stereotype you might hold of a Jewish ad exec. He didn't write that classic Levy's ad, but could have.

    When did David marry Matthew?

    When did you start confusing parentheses with commas of apposition?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    When did you start confusing parentheses with commas of apposition?
     
    I was going by how it sounded, not how it looked. Either way, it's clumsy phrasing.
  65. I have tried watching Mad Men a few times and I invariably ended up bored. Talk about overrated.

    I found this in the introduction to the article:

    The version of our conversation that follows has been subjected to the moderate degree of editing appropriate to a publication that is read both by Jews and by the people who love them.

    Possibly an innocuous, tongue-in-cheek disclaimer, but there are a lot of things that could be read into statement.

  66. @countenance
    High schools and country clubs — they’re a big part of how people feel about life.

    Previous generations act like they never got out of high school. The millennials, with their need for safe spaces and safe room with play doh and teddy bears in college, act like they never got out of kindergarten.

    For me, too, networking had to be an acquired taste. Mainly because my high school didn't have rigid cliques, and none of us were ever hung up on race or ethnicity.

    “The millennials, with their need for safe spaces and safe room with play doh and teddy bears in college, act like they never got out of kindergarten.”

    See this: http://www.businessinsider.com/i-went-to-adult-preschool-and-here-is-what-its-like-2015-4

  67. Steve, Weiner is a BS artist. There is a big interview with him (Lunch with the Financial Times) in the FT this weekend. He says none of that, in the interview, and I’ve seen other interviews with him on Deadline Hollywood (Nikki Finke’s old site, not the new one) where he basically copped to setting Mad Men in the 1960s so that he could get women viewers to swoon over bad boy Don Draper. That in his words the sexism made bedroom scenes great.

    Nor is ethnic resentment a path to success. Think about it — screenwriters must collaborate with actors and producers and directors, and even TV which is a show-runners/writers medium, needs collaboration with talented actors (dull ones don’t generate viewers or excitement and cause cancellation). You can’t run an enterprise costing about $66 million a year (production cost of $3 million times 22 episodes) minimum seething with ethnic resentment. Nor would Mad Men generate such a loyal viewership out of Jewish resentment because there are not that many Jews period. [And the show is not very Jewish either — no matzoh balls or gefilte fish AFAIK, I’ve never watched it sounds dull to me, but then the Flash and Person of Interest and the Blacklist are my kind of shows.]

    Weiner is just another Show Business BS artist, telling a reporter what he wants to hear.

    Jews are in the US anyway, just another group of White people, like Italians or Irish. Israel is like Switzerland and Ireland, one of the Whitest nations on earth, just different in the way that Ireland and Switzerland are different in people and environment.

    More evidence of Weiner’s BS: you’ll note he did not blast the Murdoch Oligarchy. He’d no doubt like to work for Fox.

    Mad Men grew out of (according to the FT interview) Weiner sending in a script to David Chase, and the desire to appeal to women by showing bad old sexist days, but with sexy bad boys.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Or David Samuels is an expert at getting his Jewish subjects to drop the mask and tell him how they really feel.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    "Jews are in the US anyway, just another group of White people, like Italians or Irish. Israel is like Switzerland and Ireland..."

    I read your entire post as ironic humor and found it entertaining. Sorry if you didn't intend it that way.

    , @Stealth
    I'm a little late to this party, but....

    Whiskey:

    Can you not believe it even after you hear it from the man himself?
  68. Add on, useful tidbits from the FT interview:

    Weiner grew up in a Baltimore suburb until age 11. His parents were uberliberal and he remembers befriending a boy just to play with his toy guns, soldiers and bb gun. He was not allowed to watch TV much growing up, devoured it in college watching every episode of Quincy. Weiner is a big fan of David Lynch and in particular, Blue Velvet. There was a movie made at his house in Hancock Park growing up.

    He also talks a bit about cable tv shows. Weiner believes that the cheapness allowed by new writers/actors contracts makes shows like Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Sopranos much, much cheaper and therefore cable outlets more willing to experiment.

    [I think this has been mostly bad, TV being an upper class female/gay ghetto, whereas shows like say Miami Vice or WKRP in Cincinnati were broader, made for the entire family and meant to be enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people not just upper class SJW types.]

    So, to sum up:

    Weiner is typical of show business today, from a privileged, upper class background. Not the top 1% but certainly part of the Murray SuperZips. [How many movies were shot in your childhood house?]

    Weiner is very uber-liberal, and unaware of how removed this puts him from most people.

    Weiner does not seem able to put out anything broadly appealing — his influences are all uber-arty and nothing the least bit popular it seems.

    Interview here.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>He also talks a bit about cable tv shows. Weiner believes that the cheapness allowed by new writers/actors contracts makes shows like Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Sopranos much, much cheaper and therefore cable outlets more willing to experiment.

    The rise of cable producers, big cable producers (HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc..) has brought back one of the advantages of the old Hollywood system: predictable revenue. With predictable revenue streams producers can take risks. That is why we see some quality on cable. If a theatrical producer has a failure or two he is history. So why take risks, play it safe, more Batman, Spiderman, Fast and Furious, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.
  69. “I do think that we don’t get the same status as a minority because we’re white and that makes a huge difference.”
    He complains the whole article about how bad it is to be a minority, and then complains about how bad it is to NOT be a minority.

  70. When I was getting my MBA at UCLA in 1980-1982, one of the professors had to tell the gentile women interested in retailing not to try to get jobs at any of the Jewish-owned department store chains in Los Angeles because they’d never get promoted above buyer. It doesn’t seem to come up much nowadays, however.

    Oh my God… you really are beyond hope, Sailer. The very first episode of “Mad Men” was about Don Draper deep-sixing a contract with a rude Jewish department store heiress. But till the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, you’ll be pompously reciting how you’re “the only one who remembers.” Also, you were the first to notice that lots of movies are made by brothers. Also: you figured out that A’s were doing more with juice than with spreadsheets. Also you discovered what a pain in the ass ethnic Chinese moms are.

    • Replies: @BayAreaBill
    Something making you defensive?

    Steve doesn't sound "pompous" to me at all.

  71. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Don't get the "Mary Sue" reference, please elaborate.

    Michael Ginsberg's cutting off of his nipple and presenting it to his shiksa object of affection, Peggy, was bizarre. Was it late onset paranoid schizophrenia or just the effect of working under so many goyim?

    After reading Mathew Weiner's neurotic interview I wonder closely he identified with Ginsberg?

    Don’t get the “Mary Sue” reference, please elaborate.

    It’s a term that comes out of Star Trek fandom in the ’70s. It refers to an author’s penchant for inserting an idealized version of herself into a work.So far, Weiner has avoided giving a Jewish Mary Sue in Mad Men

    Michael Ginsberg’s cutting off of his nipple and presenting it to his shiksa object of affection, Peggy, was bizarre. Was it late onset paranoid schizophrenia or just the effect of working under so many goyim?

    It was paranoid schizophrenia.

    After reading Mathew Weiner’s neurotic interview I wonder closely he identified with Ginsberg?

    I was really worried that he was.Indeed, in the early stages of his time on the show, some critics thought that he was going to become the show’s true hero, not the compromised Don Draper, etc. Fortunately, he never became an important character and was hustled off stage on a stretcher

  72. @Anonymous
    And I’m really impressed that he didn’t make Don Draper’s deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue….

    He did, just not explicitly. Symbolically, that is the deep secret. And it no doubt goes to work on the audience's subconsciousness, at least the enthnoxentric jewish ones.

    And I’m really impressed that he didn’t make Don Draper’s deep dark secret in series 1 be all about covert Jewishness.Now that would have been the ultimate Jewish Mary Sue….

    He did, just not explicitly. Symbolically, that is the deep secret. And it no doubt goes to work on the audience’s subconsciousness, at least the enthnoxentric jewish ones.

    Oh, I’m quite sure that Weiner does view Don Draper as symbolically Jewish: changing his name (to an alliterative, superhero style name: cf Peter Parker, Reed Richards, etc), cutting off family ties, marrying an upperclass East Coast patrician, etc

    But symbolism is something that I can take.It’s the essence of art.It’s when the veil comes off that art is lost

  73. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @Anonymous
    Calling obvious bullsh*t on this:

    ... then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair and your leather jacket.

    This is a quote from Weiner's own paranoid internal dialog. Nobody ever said to him anything about black hair. That's the giveaway.

    Weiner projects the well known Jewish fear/hatred of blondes onto his enemy.

    My maternal grandfather, Ervin Langley (1907-2001), grew up in the Ozarks and had black hair as a young man. He identified his family’s roots as “black Irish.” But then many of the riffraff kinds of white people migrated from the British Isles to the American colonies and became the ancestors of much of the South’s white population.

    • Replies: @Batterytrain
    This is ridicoules, there are many Scottish/WASP people, that have pale skin/blue eyes/black hair. Look up millenial woes, youtube commentator. Black hair does not indicate non-wasp ancestry lol. There are tons of slavs with blonde/light features, yet they are non-white by WASP standards which is ridicoules. To all outsiders, you people are the same, it's tiring to see so much infighting of pettiness.

    Plus recent genetic tests have revealed that WASPS have much more in common with Irish people via DNA, then it was previously believed. They share a lot in common genetically, and the Germanic ancestry is minor.

  74. @Gunnar von Cowtown

    ".....the nose-job generation"
     
    That was pretty funny, but wow..... Weiner comes across as a neurotic mess.

    Yes, he does, and that’s why I don’t know how much of the behavior to ascribe to high school angst….because I do believe it exists… and how much to ascribe the life-time angst, anxiety, neuroticism and sometimes downright persecution complex to the genome.

  75. I grew up in Pasadena in a middle-upper class household, and even went to cotillion in my early teens in the late 70s with a bunch of snooty kids from San Marino! The only time, really, I heard the people around me talk about Jews was at Sunday service (at the rather waspy Lake Ave. Congregational Church). The talk was uniformly favorable. Besides that, nobody seemed to care one way or another.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>I heard the people around me talk about Jews was at Sunday service (at the rather waspy Lake Ave. Congregational Church). The talk was uniformly favorable. Besides that, nobody seemed to care one way or another.

    That's the thing here. You may not care about Jews but Jews care about you.
  76. @Merema
    Maybe many Jews resent WASPS because WASPs are Christians AND for having created an amazingly decent and successful country. America represents for them a repudiation of what they have been taught about the goyim i.e. that the goyim are really unintelligent genocidaires.

    They don't resent Irish and Italian Catholics anywhere as much probably because they are fond of them -they grew up with them as underdogs in the immigrant tenements of New York. In fact in NYC, the Jews, Irish and Italians have always worked together to form the formidable coalition that displaced the WASP power structure of NY, while at the same time, taking care to keep the hapless (and socially and economically useless) Puerto Ricans and Blacks in their place. I live in NYC, and I am always amazed at how these three ethnic whites get along famously, but I guess it helps to have a common enemy they hold in deep contempt -Blacks. (full disclosure: I am an african muslim "immigrant" myself)

    Of course in this coalition, for the most parts, the leaders are mostly Jews, and the cops that crack minority heads are irish or italian. Think obese cigarette seller Eric Garner of "I can't breathe" and the cop Pantaleo. Blacks try to fight back (well, at least they try), and hence the formidable Al Sharpton. But NY Jews also have a strange sympathetic side towards Blacks , so even as they get their moderate IQ irish/italian cop goons to crack some heads, they are also providing blacks and hispanics with assistance-jobs, subsidized housing, and such. Blacks know this, and well, they don't really "Fight the Power" too hard. They know they have it tougher in the WASP lands of the South.

    Anyway, the reason Jews are so politically powerful is because they have the tactical support of a lot of non-WASP gentiles, AND the frightened dysfunctional minorities who need them for their welfare. Non WASP gentiles support comes more in the form of being neutral and not defending the WASP Establishment and the South. So the historical America becomes comprised. Oh and by the way, it does not help that the WASPs in the south dumbly oppose unions even though unions are job protection for the working and lower middle class white ethnic Catholics and jews. Southern Whites are so unreasonable they drive everyone straight into the hands of liberal Jews. (Also, why do they care if promiscuous women want to use birth control, or abort? Another discussion).

    I still can not figure out completely why American Jews have such a DEEP hatred of WASPs -and hence historical America-though.
    I mean we all resent our betters to a certain extent, but we don't try to destroy them- we even try to emulate them (even if we don't admit it).

    lots of interesting stuff in your comment, Merema. I think Jews are taught to hate Christianity from the get-go and to support the opposite of whatever Christians support. Why else would they be in vanguard of every liberal, atheist, communist, feminist, homosexual revolutionary group? Probably if Christians were in favor of abortion, they’d oppose it.

    Man, that sounds really harsh. But would it honestly offend anybody?

    For whatever reason, most of my favorite writers on the internet are of a Jewish background.

  77. @candid_observer
    I just the last few weeks started watching Mad Men.

    It's been a really disappointing experience. Yes, the period detail is pretty fascinating. But the entire energy of the show comes from its never ending reinterpretation of the sixties in the light of our current Zeitgeist. Every episode and every dramatic moment is animated by a question of: how are women being treated? how are blacks being treated? How are Jews being treated? You can hear in your head the invisible audience gasping at every such moment: OMG, did you hear what he said? I am so disgusted, and superior to that!

    If you take away that cheap thrill of moral superiority, what's left of the series? Anything?

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call "moral porn" -- playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today's standard "correct" morality -- however anachronistically -- onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality. If, say, Napoleon is supposed to be a good guy in a movie, you will know because he has a black guy whom he treats with respect because he's a great artillery officer; if he's supposed to be a bad guy, he'll talk about how those blacks are just animals.

    I find this kind of relentless sermonizing in art repulsive; I just can't stomach it.

    But I can only conclude that I'm a pretty rare bird, because stuff like this sells like nobody's business.

    For a more nuanced take, here’s Benjamin Schwartz’s article on Mad Men in The Atlantic:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/mad-about-mad-men/307709/

  78. Tangential to the main topic, but touched upon by Steve, so I’ll throw it out there (perhaps to him only): have you ever noticed how Catholics in the USA, or perhaps only on the West Coast, did not have high schools for the upper class only? At least not for boys; girls did indeed have the Sacred Heart schools, which were, like women in general, ferociously snobbish. But for boys the top of the tree was the Jesuit schools, and these catered more for an intellectual than a social elite; indeed, their raison d’etre was precisely to prepare the former to become the latter and then continuously to reinforce it.
    Take Loyola: when my father and uncles were there in the 30s and 40s, they rubbed shoulders with people of their own upper middle class background, but also with very bright kids from a rung or two lower down as well as with the scions of very rich families like the Von der Ahes and the Montgomerys (these last becoming life long friends).
    Ironically it was Communism which brought an end to this in California: Benedictines from the ancient abbey of Pannonholma in Hungary arrived in the Bay Area in 1956 and founded a boarding school near Atherton which very quickly became the school of choice for well off Catholics (just as Vatican II was bringing a two thousand year tradition to an end, but that is another story).
    I grew up in that area and was furious when my father remained true to family tradition (his father had attended Georgetown Prep) and sent me to Bellarmine rather than to the Priory.
    As for the Harvard School for Boys (a non-Catholic cousin of mine of about my age was sent there, so I was aware of it from an early age): I have never thought of it as truly an upper class school. Surely that description should be reserved for places like Thacher and the Cate? My impression is that it was a place for the sons of doctors and lawyers.
    And, finally, as for people like Weiner (what an appropriate name if pronounced in the German way): sadly they have won, and all we can do now is to weep over past glories. (I do it all the time; it’s not so bad).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thacher is a boarding school in Ojai where each student gets a horse.

    The boarding schools are more like Eton and Harrow, out of the way places for the upper class to stash their scions while they enjoy their fabulous social lives, while Harvard-Westlake and Loyola are more like Westminister in London, day schools where the urban bourgeoisie who like having their children around send them to get very good educations.

  79. Steve, his name was Jock and he invented the crew cut. For all we know, he invented the wedgie as well. He’s the stuff of nebbish nightmares.

  80. @Cagey Beast
    I found the mention of the new media jumped out at me:

    I think it also plays into a particular politics in the media world in New York, which has been dominated by Jews for a long time. So, people come in, they feel like outsiders, and now they have a club that the Jews can’t dominate, even though of course they still try. And that combines in a funny way with the energy of new media, because old media is the thing that was supposedly owned and run by Jews. Therefore, the Israel-is-the-most-hateful-and-oppressive-country-on-earth meme is great because it expresses two kinds of hostility at once: The old resentments, and the will to power of the new medium.
     
    I'm not terribly interested in the Israeli angle to his theory but I found his resentment to the new media quite interesting. People critiquing and slamming Israel is only a tiny fraction of what's happening online. What's happening is millions of people being able to bypass the old media checkpoints where anyone trying to get an idea past them got strip searched and shaken down for bribes.

    I think these guys flatter themselves when they think resentment of the mass media is all about them and their Jewishness: the old media is smothering and domineering on any topic it touches. The reason there's been an explosion of activity on the web is that the rest of us have our own stories to tell and ideas to share. It's also because of the glaringly obvious fact that the old arrangements just aren't working in practical terms.

    What’s happening is millions of people being able to bypass the old media checkpoints where anyone trying to get an idea past them got strip searched and shaken down for bribes.

    Now that’s some mighty fine writing, Cagey Beast, if I may say so. One rarely, if ever, reads anything in the old stale media with that kind of pizzaz.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Thank you.
  81. @Jack D
    Growing up around Philadelphia in the '70s, this was the feeling that I had - that there was a WASP aristocracy that had at one time been dominant and that they still had their clubs and their strange customs (bright colored pants with whales on them, speaking with the Locust Valley Lockjaw accent) but that they didn't really run things anymore. The mayor was Italian (Rizzo), the main newspaper was owned by a Jew (Annenberg), etc. WASPs still had prominent roles but not dominant ones and they were clearly fading while other groups were rising. Local WASP institutions such as Budd (maker of railcars) were teetering on the brink of extinction, while the University of Pennsylvania (heavily Jewish from the 1920s onward) was rising. Campbell Soup was not setting the world on fire. So it never occurred to me that they were a threat or that I somehow had to take revenge upon them or destroy their stupid clubs which I had no desire to join any more than I wanted to join the Knights of Columbus.

    Weiner's whole shtick is strange. As he points out, Jews and the movie industry in effect created the Los Angeles that we know. There was no there there when they got there, just a small Midwestern city transplanted to a better climate. LA was not even in the top 10 - it was smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati and out where the studios were built was ranchland that they could buy up cheap. Beverly Hills was not incorporated until 1914 and in 1920 it had 674 residents. Defeating the WASP aristocracy of LA was a feat comparable to taking over Minneapolis.

    There was no there there when they got there, just a small Midwestern city transplanted to a better climate. LA was not even in the top 10 – it was smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati and out where the studios were built was ranchland that they could buy up cheap. Beverly Hills was not incorporated until 1914 and in 1920 it had 674 residents. Defeating the WASP aristocracy of LA was a feat comparable to taking over Minneapolis.

    County Population figures for 1910:

    Los Angeles, California: 504,000
    Wayne, Michigan (Detroit): 537,000
    St. Louis (City/County): 769,000
    Hennepin / Ramsey, Mn (Twin cities): 566,000
    Johnson/Jackson/Wynadotte/Clay (Kansas City): 421,000
    DC: 331,000
    Harris/Ft. Bend/Montgomery (Houston): 148,000
    Dallas, Tx: 135,000

    Smaller than New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago. Not small in context.

  82. @candid_observer
    I just the last few weeks started watching Mad Men.

    It's been a really disappointing experience. Yes, the period detail is pretty fascinating. But the entire energy of the show comes from its never ending reinterpretation of the sixties in the light of our current Zeitgeist. Every episode and every dramatic moment is animated by a question of: how are women being treated? how are blacks being treated? How are Jews being treated? You can hear in your head the invisible audience gasping at every such moment: OMG, did you hear what he said? I am so disgusted, and superior to that!

    If you take away that cheap thrill of moral superiority, what's left of the series? Anything?

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call "moral porn" -- playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today's standard "correct" morality -- however anachronistically -- onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality. If, say, Napoleon is supposed to be a good guy in a movie, you will know because he has a black guy whom he treats with respect because he's a great artillery officer; if he's supposed to be a bad guy, he'll talk about how those blacks are just animals.

    I find this kind of relentless sermonizing in art repulsive; I just can't stomach it.

    But I can only conclude that I'm a pretty rare bird, because stuff like this sells like nobody's business.

    Some elements of Mad Men’s appeal have been nicely explained by Charlie Rose (who can always be counted on to embrace the conventional wisdom) in that inimitably sycophantic, answering-his-own-question-that-isn’t-even-a-question way of his: “Why has this so resonated, especially with critics and people who like smart writing and tightly drawn characters?” he pronounced in an interview with the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner, and two of its male stars, Jon Hamm and John Slattery. The writing—and the direction, photography, and (with one important exception) acting—is superlative, the show is dramatically compelling. Moreover, as Rose’s customarily reverential invocation of the critics suggests, not just Rose but also Mad Men’s affluent, with-it target audience are particularly susceptible to liking what TheNew York Times’ Arts and Style sections tell them to like (30-plus articles in two years!). Add to this the meticulous, lush styling and art direction, which make the series eye candy for its (again) target audience, already in thrall to the so-called mid-century-modern aesthetic—an appeal that’s now further fueled by the slimline suit/pencil skirt marketing tie-in with Banana Republic, that canny purveyor of upper-mass-market urbanity. Then there is the miraculous Hamm, playing the lead character, Don Draper. Here is an actor who at once projects sexual mastery and ironic intelligence, poise and vulnerability. That alchemy has created the greatest male stars, from Gable to Grant to Bogart to McQueen to Clooney, because it wins for them both the desire of women and the fondness of men. So the show’s white-hotness was all but predetermined.

    Finally, there’s another factor, one that cuts both ways and thereby contributes to Mad Men’s inner tension: the peculiar emotional chord the show’s setting strikes with viewers over 30. Critics invariably discuss how the series echoes John Cheever’s stories, Billy Wilder’s The Apartment, and Richard Yates’s Revolutionary Road (a novel Weiner says he hadn’t read when he created the show). But for every audience member familiar with gin-soaked Shady Hill, there are dozens whose notions of the glamour of adult life, of Manhattan, and of “creative” careers were shaped by endless reruns of three sitcoms with concrete ties to Mad Men’s particular milieu: The Dick Van Dyke Show, Bewitched, and That Girl. The key to television success, Don Draper tosses off, is to offer “derivative with a twist.” Mad Men is those shows grown up, grown hard, and—in ways that flatter its writers’ and viewers’ images of themselves—grown wise.

    Keen observers, he and his staff understand that suits were sackier in 1960 than in 1963; that a department-store heiress in 1960 would wear a dress that had been featured in, say, Vogue in that year, and that she could have her hair done daily, while a secretary’s wardrobe in 1960 might include a new sweater from Klein’s but also a dress that had been in style in 1958, and her hairdo would degrade as the workweek ground on; that a suburban kitchen was far more likely to be decorated ersatz colonial than space-age; that clothes have to fit the performers as they did in 1960 or 1962; that actresses must be trussed up in period-accurate foundation garments, because otherwise the characters’ bearing will be anachronistic—and they understand that bearing reflects and informs temperament and behavior. At its best, this fetishistic attention to period accuracy succeeds in summoning an alien world in which characters move, fidget, and even kiss differently. Weiner, though, seeks a goal beyond that. He wants to achieve something like the satiric exactitude Canby spoke of: “The story is told in the detail, and those details have their own life,” he told The Times.

    By this standard, though, Weiner’s exercise is unavoidably sterile. The pattern of a necktie, the club frequented, the restaurant patronized, the shopping bag carried, the prep school attended, together with a thousand other details, signify minute social distinctions, and reveal and even define character. But crucially, the telling details from a lost world can’t tell today (even if the club, restaurant, store, and school still exist, they can’t connote now what they did then), which perforce means that Mad Men is something of a costume drama.

    This striving for verisimilitude serves another purpose: Weiner seems to hope that getting the vintage mitten clasps and IBM Selectrics right will help viewers believe that outrageously un-PC attitudes and behavior were as common as the series shows them to be. Mad Men is hailed for what The Times calls its “unflinching portrayal of Eisenhower/Kennedy–era sexism, racism, anti-Semitism,” and this unrelenting focus on the unenlightened aspects of the past is clearly central for Weiner and his writers. Most of the supplemental historical material in the DVD sets focuses on racial and gender issues and progressive politics, including a lengthy paean to the SDS’s gaseous Port Huron Statement. The takeaway is clear, as The Times approvingly quotes an academic who indulges in a rather Whiggish interpretation of history: “The show explains why the ’60s had to happen.”

    But even if the portrayal were as “dead-on” as The Times assures us it is, that portrayal is hardly neutral. In describing a scene in which sexist badinage is exchanged at an account meeting, McLean correctly points out that “the series is critical of this limited view and is not afraid to spell [its criticism] out.” That stance—which amounts to a defiant indictment of sexism and racism, sins about which a rough moral consensus would now seem to have formed—militates against viewers’ inhabiting the alien world the show has so carefully constructed, because it’s constantly pressing them to condemn that world.

    And that stance is responsible for the rare (and therefore especially grating) heavy-handed and patronizing touches in an otherwise nuanced drama. Must the only regular black characters be a noble and cool elevator operator, a noble and understanding housekeeper, and a perceptive and politicized supermarket clerk? Must said elevator operator, who goes unnoticed by the less sensitive characters, sagely say when discussing Marilyn Monroe’s death, “Some people just hide in plain sight”? Get it—he’s talking about himself. He’s invisible. Even worse, that stance evokes and encourages the condescension of posterity; just as insecure college students feel they must join the knowing hisses of the callow campus audience when a character in an old movie makes an un-PC comment, so Mad Men directs its audience to indulge in a most unlovely—because wholly unearned—smugness. As artistically mistaken as this stance is, it nonetheless helps account for the show’s success. We all like to congratulate ourselves, and as a group, Mad Men’s audience is probably particularly prone to the temptation.

    But other slips demonstrate an unsure grasp of the show’s setting and characters—and of the class differences that complicate the rather blunt stance the series takes. A supplement to the first season’s DVDs makes explicit what attentive viewers already understood: Mad Men deliberately shocks its audience by presenting as reasonable and commonplace behavior we now find appalling. This gambit, a signature feature of the show, can force the audience to viscerally experience the foreignness of the past, and when so used it can be a brilliant dramatic ploy—but only if the action portrayed is as de rigueur as the show suggests. At a child’s birthday party, for instance, a man hits a boy who has spilled a drink, and no one reacts, not even the boy’s father. The Draper family, in another case, drives away from the scene of a family picnic, nonchalantly leaving their trash on the ground where they were sitting. Yes, corporal punishment was more common then than now, and Iron Eyes Cody wouldn’t be tearing up on TV screens for another nine years. But Dr. Spock’s permissive parenting notions exercised a near-hegemonic sway over child-rearing practices in the bedroom communities of the Northeast’s professional class, and however one chose to correct one’s own children and whatever the state of America’s roadsides, the actions portrayed were simply not the done thing. Nice people—the educated and affluent—didn’t hit other people’s kids, and they didn’t, especially in front of their children, walk away from a pile of trash they had created.

    Mad Men’s most egregious stumble—though seemingly a small one—involves Betty Draper’s college career, and it is generally emblematic of this extraordinarily accomplished show’s greatest weaknesses, and specifically emblematic of its confused approach to this poorly defined character. Betty, the show establishes, was in a sorority. So far, okay. Pretty, with a little-girl voice and a childlike, almost lobotomized affect; humorless; bland but at times creepily calculating (as when she seeks solace by manipulating her vulnerable friend into an affair); obsessed with appearances and therefore lacking in inner resources; a consistently cold and frequently vindictive mother; a daddy’s girl—Betty is written, and clumsily performed by model-turned-actress January Jones, as a clichéd shallow sorority sister. (Just as Don’s self-invented identity is Gatsby-like, so Betty, his wife, is a jejune ornament like Daisy, though without the voice full of money.) But she’s also a character deeply wronged by her serial-philanderer husband, and she’s hazily presented as a stultified victim of soulless postwar suburban ennui (now there’s a cliché). So, perhaps to bestow gravitas on her, or at least some upper-classiness, the show establishes that she went to Bryn Mawr. But of course Bryn Mawr has never had sororities. By far the brainiest of the Seven Sisters—cussed, straight-backed, high-minded, and feminist (its students, so the wags said, preferred the Ph.D. to the Mrs.)—Bryn Mawr was probably the least likely college that Betty Draper, given to such non-U genteelisms as “passed away,” would have attended. So much for satiric exactitude. In the pilot and through the early stages of the series’s development, Weiner had planned to show little of the Drapers’ home life, which might explain Betty’s woefully undeveloped character. The strength of the megamovie is that it can build complex characters over time—but the telling details it accumulates to serve that process work only if the writers are clear and consistent about what they are trying to say.

    TO WATCH THIS megamovie as it should be watched, as a 26-hour (and counting) cycle, and to read McLean’s dissection of its intricacies, is to grasp Mad Men’s triumph: its emotional intelligence—evident not only in its writing and acting but in its exquisite direction, lighting, and photography—overwhelms its mushy ideology and whatever Important Points it wants to make. At its best—and it usually hits that mark—its characters are true to themselves and therefore to their time and place. Thus in the pilot, Don—who is quickly established as a sophisticated adult, wry, not lacking in sensitivity, genuinely curious about the inner lives of women (after all, fathoming their aspirations and desires is the key to his professional success), sexually adventurous but intolerant of the lewd frat-boy behavior of the junior executives—sternly rebuffs a pitiful pass from the new girl, Peggy, an innocent from Brooklyn, whose observations of the office culture have led her to believe that she must offer herself to him. Peggy is obviously relieved, as are the viewers, whose faith in their hero has been rewarded. But just as the audience is luxuriating in his admirableness, Don tries to buck up Peggy, still quaking from the scolding he gave her, by telling her to “go home, put your curlers in …” It’s the kind of casually sexist remark that makes today’s viewers squirm. And it’s precisely what Don would say to Peggy—because she’s a woman, but not just because she’s a woman: she’s also a secretary, dowdy, and from an outer borough.

    Don Draper is also consistently true to the past the writers have established for him. Some critics find his appealing unflappability implausible, and they fault the show for sacrificing its commitment to verisimilitude in the interest of maintaining the lead actor’s appeal. They fail to grasp that Don—whose entire identity is a fabrication—would have to possess preternatural cool. He’s always on. In the single most affecting scene of the entire series, Don pitches an advertising campaign to Kodak. He’s projecting slides of his children and his wife as he talks—tears welling, his voice slightly quivering—about the ache of memory. It’s a deeply poignant scene, made even more so by the modulation of Don’s emotions. And it’s a bravura performance by Hamm—of Don’s bravura performance (watch Don’s persona shift as he slips into the pitch). Viewers feel, and want to feel, that Don’s emotion is genuine—but they also know that Don is selling himself, and that it could all be an act. The series’s most chilling sequence follows Betty in the Draper house as she spends morning to night methodically searching suit pockets and papers and rifling through desk drawers to discover evidence of Don’s infidelity. Viewers are conditioned to know she’ll find it—what else would be the point of the sequence? And some are no doubt uncomfortable when they realize that, thanks to the way the directing and writing have built up the suspense, they’re rooting for the bad guy, as it were. As evening comes—the sequence nicely captures that yucky feeling at the close of a day spent shut up in the house—Betty has found … nothing. After a momentary surprise, the viewer realizes that of course Betty would find nothing, because—and it’s the same reason Don’s winning poise is entirely believable—like all great liars, Don never lets down his guard.

    Today the megamovie is America’s most accomplished and vital mass entertainment, so it’s fitting that Mad Men, which is the most quintessentially American megamovie made to date, explores a peculiarly American theme and exploits a peculiarly American asset. Leave it to a show that famously employs an unusually high number of women writers to capture—more vividly than anything I’ve encountered save Norman Mailer’s short story “The Language of Men” and, obliquely, John O’Hara’s “Graven Image”—the unrelenting, low-level competition and consequent posing, the miscues and jarringness, the monotonous lack of intimacy that characterize a good deal of the conversation among middle-class American males. And leave it to television to enshrine correct Americanese.

    Weiner’s policy of not allowing British actors to play American characters stems from his eminently reasonable logic that his show “is so American, it should be played by Americans.” And, unusual for a megamovie, its characters aren’t (as they say) “ethnic,” and they’re not cops, criminals, or the downtrodden. Rather, they’re predominantly well-educated, articulate WASPs. So verisimilitude doesn’t demand that the characters shave ts and drop g’s. Unlike so many fancy American TV dramas, Mad Men doesn’t require the viewer to pause and replay the DVD to make out what’s being said. Rather, the actors deliver their often fizzy but (because it’s guarded or reflective) never fast-talking dialogue with the clear, relaxed enunciation of casually elegant American speech. Unlike performers in most naturalistic American productions—theatrical, cinematic, or on television—who can only gesture at meaning with the fragmented language with which they’re supplied, the Mad Men actors are given precise words and whole, often clever and grammatically complex sentences to work with.

    The cognoscenti, though, have largely ignored this quiet virtue while extolling what are really the show’s considerable flaws. Ah, the media juggernaut. If Mad Men were half as good as the hype would have it, the show would be one of the best ever produced for American television. It’s both.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/mad-about-mad-men/307709/

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Just post the link.
  83. Many jews, i think, no have resentment about anglos. They only play this card as part of victimology strategy and justificable responses to “explain’ why they take and deformate your country, american guys. Psychopathic mind works this way.

    Santoculto

  84. @manton
    Steve, I think it is a serious understatement to call Hancock Park merely "pleasant." It is in fact one of the very best areas in all of Southern California. Architecturally, it is every bit as good as Beverly Hills, and probably better these days, as BH is continually afflicted by tear-downs where all the great pre-war Old California style homes get replaced by yet another Persian ziggurat.

    The streets are narrower, the lots are smaller, and HP is closer to some of the dicier parts of downtown and mid-Wilshire. But otherwise, it's a high income, upper-class enclave and always has been.

    Correct. Known in my day as the neighbourhood for the older, staider, Waspier lower uppers of Los Angeles. The upper uppers of the same description lived in Holmby Hills and Bel Air.
    Although, come to think of it, if you lived in Bel Air you probably weren’t particularly staid.

  85. @Jack D
    Growing up around Philadelphia in the '70s, this was the feeling that I had - that there was a WASP aristocracy that had at one time been dominant and that they still had their clubs and their strange customs (bright colored pants with whales on them, speaking with the Locust Valley Lockjaw accent) but that they didn't really run things anymore. The mayor was Italian (Rizzo), the main newspaper was owned by a Jew (Annenberg), etc. WASPs still had prominent roles but not dominant ones and they were clearly fading while other groups were rising. Local WASP institutions such as Budd (maker of railcars) were teetering on the brink of extinction, while the University of Pennsylvania (heavily Jewish from the 1920s onward) was rising. Campbell Soup was not setting the world on fire. So it never occurred to me that they were a threat or that I somehow had to take revenge upon them or destroy their stupid clubs which I had no desire to join any more than I wanted to join the Knights of Columbus.

    Weiner's whole shtick is strange. As he points out, Jews and the movie industry in effect created the Los Angeles that we know. There was no there there when they got there, just a small Midwestern city transplanted to a better climate. LA was not even in the top 10 - it was smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati and out where the studios were built was ranchland that they could buy up cheap. Beverly Hills was not incorporated until 1914 and in 1920 it had 674 residents. Defeating the WASP aristocracy of LA was a feat comparable to taking over Minneapolis.

    As he points out, Jews and the movie industry in effect created the Los Angeles that we know.

    The coarse categories which include the film industry, broadcasting, and arts-and-entertainment (and adjacent industries like publishing and data processing) account for 14% of local domestic product in the Los Angeles Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. It’s an important industry, but much else has gone on there and will go on there.

  86. @syonredux

    Some elements of Mad Men’s appeal have been nicely explained by Charlie Rose (who can always be counted on to embrace the conventional wisdom) in that inimitably sycophantic, answering-his-own-question-that-isn’t-even-a-question way of his: “Why has this so resonated, especially with critics and people who like smart writing and tightly drawn characters?” he pronounced in an interview with the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner, and two of its male stars, Jon Hamm and John Slattery. The writing—and the direction, photography, and (with one important exception) acting—is superlative, the show is dramatically compelling. Moreover, as Rose’s customarily reverential invocation of the critics suggests, not just Rose but also Mad Men’s affluent, with-it target audience are particularly susceptible to liking what TheNew York Times’ Arts and Style sections tell them to like (30-plus articles in two years!). Add to this the meticulous, lush styling and art direction, which make the series eye candy for its (again) target audience, already in thrall to the so-called mid-century-modern aesthetic—an appeal that’s now further fueled by the slimline suit/pencil skirt marketing tie-in with Banana Republic, that canny purveyor of upper-mass-market urbanity. Then there is the miraculous Hamm, playing the lead character, Don Draper. Here is an actor who at once projects sexual mastery and ironic intelligence, poise and vulnerability. That alchemy has created the greatest male stars, from Gable to Grant to Bogart to McQueen to Clooney, because it wins for them both the desire of women and the fondness of men. So the show’s white-hotness was all but predetermined.
     

    Finally, there’s another factor, one that cuts both ways and thereby contributes to Mad Men’s inner tension: the peculiar emotional chord the show’s setting strikes with viewers over 30. Critics invariably discuss how the series echoes John Cheever’s stories, Billy Wilder’s The Apartment, and Richard Yates’s Revolutionary Road (a novel Weiner says he hadn’t read when he created the show). But for every audience member familiar with gin-soaked Shady Hill, there are dozens whose notions of the glamour of adult life, of Manhattan, and of “creative” careers were shaped by endless reruns of three sitcoms with concrete ties to Mad Men’s particular milieu: The Dick Van Dyke Show, Bewitched, and That Girl. The key to television success, Don Draper tosses off, is to offer “derivative with a twist.” Mad Men is those shows grown up, grown hard, and—in ways that flatter its writers’ and viewers’ images of themselves—grown wise.
     

    Keen observers, he and his staff understand that suits were sackier in 1960 than in 1963; that a department-store heiress in 1960 would wear a dress that had been featured in, say, Vogue in that year, and that she could have her hair done daily, while a secretary’s wardrobe in 1960 might include a new sweater from Klein’s but also a dress that had been in style in 1958, and her hairdo would degrade as the workweek ground on; that a suburban kitchen was far more likely to be decorated ersatz colonial than space-age; that clothes have to fit the performers as they did in 1960 or 1962; that actresses must be trussed up in period-accurate foundation garments, because otherwise the characters’ bearing will be anachronistic—and they understand that bearing reflects and informs temperament and behavior. At its best, this fetishistic attention to period accuracy succeeds in summoning an alien world in which characters move, fidget, and even kiss differently. Weiner, though, seeks a goal beyond that. He wants to achieve something like the satiric exactitude Canby spoke of: “The story is told in the detail, and those details have their own life,” he told The Times.

    By this standard, though, Weiner’s exercise is unavoidably sterile. The pattern of a necktie, the club frequented, the restaurant patronized, the shopping bag carried, the prep school attended, together with a thousand other details, signify minute social distinctions, and reveal and even define character. But crucially, the telling details from a lost world can’t tell today (even if the club, restaurant, store, and school still exist, they can’t connote now what they did then), which perforce means that Mad Men is something of a costume drama.
     

    This striving for verisimilitude serves another purpose: Weiner seems to hope that getting the vintage mitten clasps and IBM Selectrics right will help viewers believe that outrageously un-PC attitudes and behavior were as common as the series shows them to be. Mad Men is hailed for what The Times calls its “unflinching portrayal of Eisenhower/Kennedy–era sexism, racism, anti-Semitism,” and this unrelenting focus on the unenlightened aspects of the past is clearly central for Weiner and his writers. Most of the supplemental historical material in the DVD sets focuses on racial and gender issues and progressive politics, including a lengthy paean to the SDS’s gaseous Port Huron Statement. The takeaway is clear, as The Times approvingly quotes an academic who indulges in a rather Whiggish interpretation of history: “The show explains why the ’60s had to happen.”

    But even if the portrayal were as “dead-on” as The Times assures us it is, that portrayal is hardly neutral. In describing a scene in which sexist badinage is exchanged at an account meeting, McLean correctly points out that “the series is critical of this limited view and is not afraid to spell [its criticism] out.” That stance—which amounts to a defiant indictment of sexism and racism, sins about which a rough moral consensus would now seem to have formed—militates against viewers’ inhabiting the alien world the show has so carefully constructed, because it’s constantly pressing them to condemn that world.
     

    And that stance is responsible for the rare (and therefore especially grating) heavy-handed and patronizing touches in an otherwise nuanced drama. Must the only regular black characters be a noble and cool elevator operator, a noble and understanding housekeeper, and a perceptive and politicized supermarket clerk? Must said elevator operator, who goes unnoticed by the less sensitive characters, sagely say when discussing Marilyn Monroe’s death, “Some people just hide in plain sight”? Get it—he’s talking about himself. He’s invisible. Even worse, that stance evokes and encourages the condescension of posterity; just as insecure college students feel they must join the knowing hisses of the callow campus audience when a character in an old movie makes an un-PC comment, so Mad Men directs its audience to indulge in a most unlovely—because wholly unearned—smugness. As artistically mistaken as this stance is, it nonetheless helps account for the show’s success. We all like to congratulate ourselves, and as a group, Mad Men’s audience is probably particularly prone to the temptation.
     

    But other slips demonstrate an unsure grasp of the show’s setting and characters—and of the class differences that complicate the rather blunt stance the series takes. A supplement to the first season’s DVDs makes explicit what attentive viewers already understood: Mad Men deliberately shocks its audience by presenting as reasonable and commonplace behavior we now find appalling. This gambit, a signature feature of the show, can force the audience to viscerally experience the foreignness of the past, and when so used it can be a brilliant dramatic ploy—but only if the action portrayed is as de rigueur as the show suggests. At a child’s birthday party, for instance, a man hits a boy who has spilled a drink, and no one reacts, not even the boy’s father. The Draper family, in another case, drives away from the scene of a family picnic, nonchalantly leaving their trash on the ground where they were sitting. Yes, corporal punishment was more common then than now, and Iron Eyes Cody wouldn’t be tearing up on TV screens for another nine years. But Dr. Spock’s permissive parenting notions exercised a near-hegemonic sway over child-rearing practices in the bedroom communities of the Northeast’s professional class, and however one chose to correct one’s own children and whatever the state of America’s roadsides, the actions portrayed were simply not the done thing. Nice people—the educated and affluent—didn’t hit other people’s kids, and they didn’t, especially in front of their children, walk away from a pile of trash they had created.
     

    Mad Men’s most egregious stumble—though seemingly a small one—involves Betty Draper’s college career, and it is generally emblematic of this extraordinarily accomplished show’s greatest weaknesses, and specifically emblematic of its confused approach to this poorly defined character. Betty, the show establishes, was in a sorority. So far, okay. Pretty, with a little-girl voice and a childlike, almost lobotomized affect; humorless; bland but at times creepily calculating (as when she seeks solace by manipulating her vulnerable friend into an affair); obsessed with appearances and therefore lacking in inner resources; a consistently cold and frequently vindictive mother; a daddy’s girl—Betty is written, and clumsily performed by model-turned-actress January Jones, as a clichéd shallow sorority sister. (Just as Don’s self-invented identity is Gatsby-like, so Betty, his wife, is a jejune ornament like Daisy, though without the voice full of money.) But she’s also a character deeply wronged by her serial-philanderer husband, and she’s hazily presented as a stultified victim of soulless postwar suburban ennui (now there’s a cliché). So, perhaps to bestow gravitas on her, or at least some upper-classiness, the show establishes that she went to Bryn Mawr. But of course Bryn Mawr has never had sororities. By far the brainiest of the Seven Sisters—cussed, straight-backed, high-minded, and feminist (its students, so the wags said, preferred the Ph.D. to the Mrs.)—Bryn Mawr was probably the least likely college that Betty Draper, given to such non-U genteelisms as “passed away,” would have attended. So much for satiric exactitude. In the pilot and through the early stages of the series’s development, Weiner had planned to show little of the Drapers’ home life, which might explain Betty’s woefully undeveloped character. The strength of the megamovie is that it can build complex characters over time—but the telling details it accumulates to serve that process work only if the writers are clear and consistent about what they are trying to say.
     

    TO WATCH THIS megamovie as it should be watched, as a 26-hour (and counting) cycle, and to read McLean’s dissection of its intricacies, is to grasp Mad Men’s triumph: its emotional intelligence—evident not only in its writing and acting but in its exquisite direction, lighting, and photography—overwhelms its mushy ideology and whatever Important Points it wants to make. At its best—and it usually hits that mark—its characters are true to themselves and therefore to their time and place. Thus in the pilot, Don—who is quickly established as a sophisticated adult, wry, not lacking in sensitivity, genuinely curious about the inner lives of women (after all, fathoming their aspirations and desires is the key to his professional success), sexually adventurous but intolerant of the lewd frat-boy behavior of the junior executives—sternly rebuffs a pitiful pass from the new girl, Peggy, an innocent from Brooklyn, whose observations of the office culture have led her to believe that she must offer herself to him. Peggy is obviously relieved, as are the viewers, whose faith in their hero has been rewarded. But just as the audience is luxuriating in his admirableness, Don tries to buck up Peggy, still quaking from the scolding he gave her, by telling her to “go home, put your curlers in …” It’s the kind of casually sexist remark that makes today’s viewers squirm. And it’s precisely what Don would say to Peggy—because she’s a woman, but not just because she’s a woman: she’s also a secretary, dowdy, and from an outer borough.
     

    Don Draper is also consistently true to the past the writers have established for him. Some critics find his appealing unflappability implausible, and they fault the show for sacrificing its commitment to verisimilitude in the interest of maintaining the lead actor’s appeal. They fail to grasp that Don—whose entire identity is a fabrication—would have to possess preternatural cool. He’s always on. In the single most affecting scene of the entire series, Don pitches an advertising campaign to Kodak. He’s projecting slides of his children and his wife as he talks—tears welling, his voice slightly quivering—about the ache of memory. It’s a deeply poignant scene, made even more so by the modulation of Don’s emotions. And it’s a bravura performance by Hamm—of Don’s bravura performance (watch Don’s persona shift as he slips into the pitch). Viewers feel, and want to feel, that Don’s emotion is genuine—but they also know that Don is selling himself, and that it could all be an act. The series’s most chilling sequence follows Betty in the Draper house as she spends morning to night methodically searching suit pockets and papers and rifling through desk drawers to discover evidence of Don’s infidelity. Viewers are conditioned to know she’ll find it—what else would be the point of the sequence? And some are no doubt uncomfortable when they realize that, thanks to the way the directing and writing have built up the suspense, they’re rooting for the bad guy, as it were. As evening comes—the sequence nicely captures that yucky feeling at the close of a day spent shut up in the house—Betty has found … nothing. After a momentary surprise, the viewer realizes that of course Betty would find nothing, because—and it’s the same reason Don’s winning poise is entirely believable—like all great liars, Don never lets down his guard.

     


    Today the megamovie is America’s most accomplished and vital mass entertainment, so it’s fitting that Mad Men, which is the most quintessentially American megamovie made to date, explores a peculiarly American theme and exploits a peculiarly American asset. Leave it to a show that famously employs an unusually high number of women writers to capture—more vividly than anything I’ve encountered save Norman Mailer’s short story “The Language of Men” and, obliquely, John O’Hara’s “Graven Image”—the unrelenting, low-level competition and consequent posing, the miscues and jarringness, the monotonous lack of intimacy that characterize a good deal of the conversation among middle-class American males. And leave it to television to enshrine correct Americanese.

    Weiner’s policy of not allowing British actors to play American characters stems from his eminently reasonable logic that his show “is so American, it should be played by Americans.” And, unusual for a megamovie, its characters aren’t (as they say) “ethnic,” and they’re not cops, criminals, or the downtrodden. Rather, they’re predominantly well-educated, articulate WASPs. So verisimilitude doesn’t demand that the characters shave ts and drop g’s. Unlike so many fancy American TV dramas, Mad Men doesn’t require the viewer to pause and replay the DVD to make out what’s being said. Rather, the actors deliver their often fizzy but (because it’s guarded or reflective) never fast-talking dialogue with the clear, relaxed enunciation of casually elegant American speech. Unlike performers in most naturalistic American productions—theatrical, cinematic, or on television—who can only gesture at meaning with the fragmented language with which they’re supplied, the Mad Men actors are given precise words and whole, often clever and grammatically complex sentences to work with.

    The cognoscenti, though, have largely ignored this quiet virtue while extolling what are really the show’s considerable flaws. Ah, the media juggernaut. If Mad Men were half as good as the hype would have it, the show would be one of the best ever produced for American television. It’s both.
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/mad-about-mad-men/307709/

    Just post the link.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Just post the link.
     
    Nah, rare case where the entire excerpt was to the point.
  87. @D. K.
    By coincidence, I picked up Robert Evans' 1994 memoir ("The Kid Stays in the Picture") at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount, under Charlie Bluhdorn. (Evans claims, at one point, that he never knew whether Bluhdorn was Jewish; yet, he has Bluhdorn dropping Yiddish words that I never have heard before-- which would strike me as highly unlikely, coming from an Austrian Catholic, who just happened to leave Europe for America, as a child or adolescent, in the 1930s!?!)

    Evans writes (p. 16-17) that on the evening of December 7, 1941, a family meeting was held at his richest uncle's home-- an eighteen-room penthouse, overlooking Central Park, which Evans, then 11 years old, attended with his father:

    "That night, all they were interested in was, first, how to keep their kids from going to war; second, how to expand their wealth; and third, how to protect it.

    "We were the first to leave. As we were going down in the elevator, I remember, Pop said in a voice barely above a whisper, 'The wealthy will get wealthier and the young will die.'"

    Imagine what Abe Foxman would have had to say about that incident's being included in the book, if Evans himself had not been Jewish!

    Evans' father was a dentist, up in Harlem, although Evans' mother had come from a wealthy family, and married beneath it, much to her parents' chagrin.

    I picked up Robert Evans’ 1994 memoir (“The Kid Stays in the Picture”) at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount, under Charlie Bluhdorn

    I never read the book, but the 2002 documentary is one of the most interesting films I ever have watched.

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kid_stays_in_the_picture

  88. @mack
    During my poor Southern high school years, my friends and I picked crops after school. Everyone we knew was working class or white trash. Regional doctors and lawyers were celebrities. Nobody felt slighted by their life circumstances because the expression of that indignation would be unseemly, what with all the unfortunate people in the world. Who were we to complain and who would care if we did?

    Imagine growing up in beautiful Los Angeles, before CA was ruined by immigration, with a renowned doctor/professor for a father and a lawyer for a mother (who could afford to stay home if she wanted), with housekeepers and private schools and leisure and your own books in your bedroom and fresh fruit in the kitchen. And then to become fixated because you couldn't have everything.

    Mad Men deserves all the praise it gets and Weiner seems like an insightful and decent guy. But where the hell does this attitude, this expectation, come from? It's beyond being spoiled or pampered. It's pathological entitlement with a twist of paranoia and it's a mental condition that doesn't seem to exist in even the most privileged WASP culture.

    I know little of German history, but if the Jews in Germany before World War II carried on there as they do now here in America–at the forefront of a movement hostile to the gentile majority and undermining of its position and traditions–it would go a long way toward explaining the awful turn of events that overtook the Jews during that war.

    I hate thinking that might be true, being myself a Jew, and a proud one at that.

  89. @syonredux

    The only thing I have to add is that liberalism seems to have replaced ethnic animus as a driving force–the liberal Jews I knew actually believed in this SJW diversity crap and were trying to save the world.
     
    People keep on saying that.We keep on hearing that Steve doesn't get it, that elite Jews aren't nursing grudges about country clubs and the Porcellian.

    But we keep on seeing evidence that Steve is on the money.Matthew Weiner was born in 1965, yet here he is going on about tropes that go back to the 1920s:

    “Let me tell you about Matt in high school” or whatever. It was like going behind the curtain. And I’m saying it in direct answer to your question. This guy said, “You guys, that was our school and this was our world and then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair
     
    Black hair. See, I'm not like those WASP bastards, with their light brown/blond Nazi hair!

    and your leather jacket.” That’s what he said. And I was like, “Oh my God, what, am I in like Chariots of Fire?” This is Los Angeles, the Sopranos was on the air, this was like 2004.
     
    In case anyone doesn't get the reference, a key plot point in Chariots of Fire (1981) involves the anti-Jewish prejudice that Harold Abrahams encounters while a student at Cambridge in the early 1920s.

    But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.
     
    Yeesh.Does anyone think that Weiner would ever refer to the Hillcrest as restricted? Or does he think that it's just a wonderful coincidence that it's majority Jewish?

    I’m guessing most elite Jews don’t know what “Porcellian” is.

    Steve is right about Weiner, but Weiner’s worldview doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to all elite Jews. Heck, Mickey Kaus grew up in the same area at about the same time as Steve and Weiner, and he doesn’t seem to have Weiner’s hang ups.

    Steve notes Weiner’s upper middle class background – maybe he grew up resenting upper class WASPs because he was close enough to their status to envy them? Maybe a middle class Jew in public school would have resented Weiner.

    Today, there are relatively fewer WASPs, and more mixing of upper class WASPs and Jews. You look at the cast of Girls, for example, and three of the four lead actresses are half-WASP, half-Jewish (roughly-speaking, in the event someone wants to note that Jemima Kirke’s father can’t be WASP because he is English).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.
    , @syonredux

    I’m guessing most elite Jews don’t know what “Porcellian” is.
     
    I tend to think that elite Jews obsess over the Porcellian Club....
    , @Jack D
    I suspect most elite Jews know what Porcellian is but that doesn't mean that they aspire to membership. Each year new membership is confined to about 25 or so Harvard rising juniors. This does not describe about 99.9% of elite Jews. Even if you happen to be a Jewish undergrad at Harvard (unless you yourself went to such a prep school), why would you want to join a club that consists mostly of stuffy preppies that you have nothing in common with?

    Some of this is just residual gall at the idea that there is still some tiny corner where discrimination still exists - as we see in Indiana, it is necessary to hunt down the stragglers of the defeated army, every last one of them. That they are a harmless social club or some dumb lady with a pizza shop quoted out of context by a reporter (we all know how prominent pizza shops are in the wedding trade) makes no difference - until they say uncle and submit to the new religion they cannot be allowed to breath the same air as the rest of us. How many of those screaming about Indiana would actually WANT their wedding catered by said pizza shop? Ewww. But it's the principle of the thing that counts.
  90. @D. K.
    By coincidence, I picked up Robert Evans' 1994 memoir ("The Kid Stays in the Picture") at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount, under Charlie Bluhdorn. (Evans claims, at one point, that he never knew whether Bluhdorn was Jewish; yet, he has Bluhdorn dropping Yiddish words that I never have heard before-- which would strike me as highly unlikely, coming from an Austrian Catholic, who just happened to leave Europe for America, as a child or adolescent, in the 1930s!?!)

    Evans writes (p. 16-17) that on the evening of December 7, 1941, a family meeting was held at his richest uncle's home-- an eighteen-room penthouse, overlooking Central Park, which Evans, then 11 years old, attended with his father:

    "That night, all they were interested in was, first, how to keep their kids from going to war; second, how to expand their wealth; and third, how to protect it.

    "We were the first to leave. As we were going down in the elevator, I remember, Pop said in a voice barely above a whisper, 'The wealthy will get wealthier and the young will die.'"

    Imagine what Abe Foxman would have had to say about that incident's being included in the book, if Evans himself had not been Jewish!

    Evans' father was a dentist, up in Harlem, although Evans' mother had come from a wealthy family, and married beneath it, much to her parents' chagrin.

    I picked up Robert Evans’ 1994 memoir (“The Kid Stays in the Picture”) at the library, recently, and I have been reading about his tenure as the head of Paramount

    I never read the book, but the 2002 documentary is one of the most interesting films I ever watched.

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kid_stays_in_the_picture

  91. @Chris C
    Wonderful article. I think resentment is always more a manifestation of one's internal state than a reflection of genuine slights suffered. For instance the resentful short guy, or the resentful mentally-ill person. My experience with resentful people has always been that they lack the ability to fit in happily, even if they want to, so they have to look for (or invent) reasons to justify their maladjustment. Often physical.

    Matthew Weiner is 5'7" and looks like a evil little gremlin. I usually look at people's physical appearance before I evaluate what they have to say nowadays.

    Careful, now you’ve introduced the concepts of physicalist and its cousin weinerist into the SJW world…

  92. I think the most fascinating thing that deserves the iSteve treatment is that no matter how much Jews demonstrate how much they hate WASPs and all things White, the more the WASPs and all things White really really love Jews.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    You said a mouthful. WASP people have had a collective Death Wish since--well, since they were trained that way by someone's takeover of academe and the mass media. Can't remember who that was, though...it's right on the tip of my tongue...
  93. @syonredux
    "Jock Whitney?

    Jock Whitney (1904-1982), the dashing grandson of Abe Lincoln’s personal secretary John Hay, has been dead for a third of a century. And the New York Herald-Tribune, the Republican newspaper he used to own, has been out of business for just under a half of a century."

    Come on, Steve. Elite Jews can never forget an Uber-WASP like Whitney.He represents everything that they love to hate:

    Born on August 17, 1904, in Ellsworth, Maine, Whitney was a descendant of John Whitney, a Puritan who settled in Massachusetts in 1635, as well as of William Bradford, who came over on the Mayflower. His father was Payne Whitney, and his grandfathers were William C. Whitney and John Hay, both presidential cabinet members. His mother was Helen Hay Whitney.

    The Whitneys' family mansion, Payne Whitney House on New York's Fifth Avenue, was around the corner from James B. Duke House, home of the founder of the American Tobacco Co. Whitney's uncle, Oliver Hazard Payne, a business partner of John D. Rockefeller, arranged the funding for Duke to buy out his competitors.

    "Jock" Whitney attended Yale College. He joined Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity (Phi chapter), as his father had. Whitney, his father, grandfather, and great-uncle were oarsmen at Yale, and his father was captain of the crew in 1898. He was a member of Scroll and Key. While at Yale, he reputedly coined the term "crew cut" for the haircut that now bears the name.

    After graduating in 1926, Whitney went to Oxford University, but the death of his father necessitated his returning home. He inherited a trust fund of $20 million (approximately $210 million in 2005 dollars), and later inherited four times that amount from his mother.
     

    Come on, Steve. Elite Jews can never forget an Uber-WASP like Whitney.He represents everything that they love to hate

    It’s not like the Whitneys didn’t do anything useful. Jock and his cousin C.V. backed Technicolor and movies like Gone with the Wind and The Searchers. C.V. also got in on the ground floor of Pan Am and he founded Hudbay Mining, since his first job was working in the old man’s mine out west. The rich used to do real things with real people, tools and resources. Both Jock and C.V. served in the Army, C.V. during both World Wars and Jock in WW2, with time as a POW in France before escaping. Could you imagine Mark Zuckerberg as a POW in Iraq? I don’t think so.

  94. @Buzz Mohawk
    My father qualified for country clubs everywhere we went as I grew up. He deliberately avoided them, and I am glad.

    I remember maps laid out on our dining tables during a couple of moves, showing us country club properties we could buy and build on by fairways. Dad would have none of it, even though he loved golf and played it often. He bought land away from the status seekers, and he built magnificent homes where I hiked and played in forests and on mountains. My friends tended to live next to each other by the golf courses.

    There are a lot of us out here in the woods who want nothing to do with your concerns with status and your cramped lifestyles. You all, Jews and Gentiles both, sound like the stereotypical, tacky, social-climbing new money to us, even though most of us are neither new nor old money. We just live well, and we wish the rest of you would grow up and find out there is more to life than what club you belong to, what neighborhood you're in, or even who your friends are.

    Get a life, people. (Grow up and leave high school behind, as Steve might suggest.)

    Greetings to another grown-up free range kid!
    There is a lot of extramural learning that would benefit more recent generations.

  95. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bugg
    Was struck last night that nothing really happens with the characters on MM, it's the same stuff with different groovy clothes and furnishings. No great moral dilemmas. Tony Soprano, an ethnic Catholic, knew he was moral failure because he was warned over and over, but choose to be a bad guy. Don Draper has no such qualms, heck, he barely changes anything. There is an emptiness there. It does look great. Having worked in a greasy spoon NOBODY working in a restaurant is having sex with a customer, and no customer is going warm to carnal pleasure to any enchantress encased and stinking of friolator grease.

    As to Wiener, as an Irishman from NYC,struck how Weiner repeatedly slagged on us Mcs as little more than drunken dumb thugs. Yet how reverential he was of the shiva. Suspect Weiner didn't like Irish guys or had some kind of issue growing up.

    As to Wiener, as an Irishman from NYC,struck how Weiner repeatedly slagged on us Mcs as little more than drunken dumb thugs. Yet how reverential he was of the shiva. Suspect Weiner didn’t like Irish guys or had some kind of issue growing up.

    I wouldn’t blame him, if he had some significant experience with east coast Irish, a majority of whom I experienced to be mean little shitheads when push comes to shove.

    Irish from Ireland would give you the shirts off their backs, but east coast Irish tend to be just mean and clannish, plain and simple.

    Look to Boston Irish Catholics to get a taste of the archetype. Crazy clannish drunk fucks who think they’re more than they are. Rent a video of Denis Leary. Wiki up the Kennedy’s. Also, see “gangs of new york.” I’m sure it wasn’t exaggerated. The remnants of that strange mass pathology still permeate the east coast Irish psyche. Anger management is not their strong suite. Neither is knowing their implicit limitations.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    We're not all characters from The Departed. Think Buckley, Haig, and Moynihan as well as Daley and Kennedy. (I write this from lakefront Chicago, an island of the northeast in the Midwest.)
    , @AnotherDad
    My grandparents were very careful to convey to my dad the difference between "lace curtain Irish" and "shanty Irish" ... and that they were "lace curtain Irish". This my dad in turn conveyed to me when our (upper middle class) next door neighbors displayed some profoundly "shanty Irish" behavior.

    ~~~

    That said, the truth is the WASPs would have been well served not to let *anyone* into the country but fellow WASPs. I'd say the Germanics have adapted pretty well. Good solid, community oriented Germanic farmers make Iowa--where my family hails from--a really pleasant place. (Of course, SAT out-migration has taken its toll on the stock and mexican kids are starting to creep into the schools.)

    But overall, while the Jews have been the outright disaster for America, the WASPs would have been better off keeping everyone out and peopling it a bit more slowly by natural increase.

  96. @syonredux

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.
     
    Somehow I tend to doubt that there has been a sea change.....

    More of a drift with the tides.

    Anyway, I’ve left New York, so I couldn’t tell you what they’re like now.

  97. @Jack D
    Growing up around Philadelphia in the '70s, this was the feeling that I had - that there was a WASP aristocracy that had at one time been dominant and that they still had their clubs and their strange customs (bright colored pants with whales on them, speaking with the Locust Valley Lockjaw accent) but that they didn't really run things anymore. The mayor was Italian (Rizzo), the main newspaper was owned by a Jew (Annenberg), etc. WASPs still had prominent roles but not dominant ones and they were clearly fading while other groups were rising. Local WASP institutions such as Budd (maker of railcars) were teetering on the brink of extinction, while the University of Pennsylvania (heavily Jewish from the 1920s onward) was rising. Campbell Soup was not setting the world on fire. So it never occurred to me that they were a threat or that I somehow had to take revenge upon them or destroy their stupid clubs which I had no desire to join any more than I wanted to join the Knights of Columbus.

    Weiner's whole shtick is strange. As he points out, Jews and the movie industry in effect created the Los Angeles that we know. There was no there there when they got there, just a small Midwestern city transplanted to a better climate. LA was not even in the top 10 - it was smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati and out where the studios were built was ranchland that they could buy up cheap. Beverly Hills was not incorporated until 1914 and in 1920 it had 674 residents. Defeating the WASP aristocracy of LA was a feat comparable to taking over Minneapolis.

    LA built on movies is a popular fiction.

    Reality as evidenced in the historical record shows that it was built on oil (yes, there was blood), and then came movies and later a lot of manufacturing such as the aerospace industry with supporting job shops.

  98. Weiner attended the Harvard School for Boys just south of Ventura Blvd.. where the Hollywood Hills trickle out into the the flat San Fernando Valley.

    Holy cow! Harvard-Westlake is in the Valley? As a midwesterner, somehow i’d always just assumed it was on the other side of the Hollywood Hills–Beverly Hills or Westwood over by UCLA or somewhere over there. So a bunch of kids are being driven over Coldwater Canyon everyday?

    Harvard prep school was the most expensive prep school in Los Angeles. (I can recall being astounded to learn around 1973 that Harvard’s tuition was $1,800 per year)

    This sort of unastounds me. The tuition at my Cincinnati Jesuit HS went up to $800 in ’73. (A stretch for my parents, with my brother off in college. A friend of mine of truly middle-middle class means had to drop out and go to Walnut Hills the public magnet.) The Jews and Protestants going private were at Cincinnati Country Day out east in Indian Hills. And i assumed their tuition was equal or greater. I’m sorta surprised Harvard-Westlake–California\Hollywood elite–was only twice as much.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Harvard School for Boys in North Hollywood on the edge of the San Fernando Valley merged with the Westlake girls school just north of Sunset on the LA Basin Side a generation ago to become Harvard-Westlake. Grades 7-9 go to the Westlake campus near UCLA and 10-12 to the Harvard campus just south of Ventura Blvd.
  99. @nglaer
    Somewhat off topic, but I wonder if Steve has watched Breaking Bad as much as Mad Men. It has pretty much nothing to do with Jews, which is pretty rare for a major cultural event on TV.

    Better call Saul!

  100. I guess I wasn’t paying attention , I thought it was just another prime time soap opera like Dallas .

  101. @Scotty G. Vito

    When I was getting my MBA at UCLA in 1980-1982, one of the professors had to tell the gentile women interested in retailing not to try to get jobs at any of the Jewish-owned department store chains in Los Angeles because they’d never get promoted above buyer. It doesn’t seem to come up much nowadays, however.
     
    Oh my God... you really are beyond hope, Sailer. The very first episode of "Mad Men" was about Don Draper deep-sixing a contract with a rude Jewish department store heiress. But till the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, you'll be pompously reciting how you're "the only one who remembers." Also, you were the first to notice that lots of movies are made by brothers. Also: you figured out that A's were doing more with juice than with spreadsheets. Also you discovered what a pain in the ass ethnic Chinese moms are.

    Something making you defensive?

    Steve doesn’t sound “pompous” to me at all.

  102. But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.

    That’s the Jewish ideology in a nutshell:

    Everything must be open to the Jews. Everything. Anything else is double-plus bad–racist!, anti-Semitic! If any other group builds anything that is not open to the Jews … evil, evil, evil!

    But Jewish, separatism, ethno-centrism, ethnic-networking … that’s all fine.

    ~

    The somewhat strange thing is it’s basically impossible to find a (prominent) Jew who can deal with the *obvious* reality here honestly.

    Christianity, Islam, Buddhism are all universals religions.

    It is Judaism that is uniquely a *racial religion*. And one that is explicitly separatist\rejectionist, with all sorts of practices and sanctions to prevent Jewish mingling with and contamination by the goyim.

    I have no idea what my ancient Irish, English and Germanic ancestors were up to 2000 years back, but there weren’t Christians. (Based on my predilections, i’d guess something Wickermanish involving big fires!) When Christianity came … they went with the flow of their fellow countrymen. Simply partook of the new dominant religion of their lands.

    Jews are very proud of themselves, their history, but don’t seem to quite want to except responsibility, that rather than being held apart by the majority, they–their ancestors–*chose* to reject, stay separate from the religion and culture of the majority. Rather than integrate into the culture of the places they lived, the Jews wanted\chose to stay separate, to instead keep themselves racially pure and practice a religion of racial supremacy\separatism while looting the goy majority. And what makes them Jews now is that they successfully kept up that separation for 2000 years. (The few Jews that were insufficiently racially separatist\supremacist melted into the majority and are *my* ancestors not theirs.)

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    That’s the Jewish ideology in a nutshell:

    Everything must be open to the Jews. Everything. Anything else is double-plus bad–racist!, anti-Semitic! If any other group builds anything that is not open to the Jews … evil, evil, evil!
     
    Nah, I think that's just the (ethnic) Jews trying to keep up with the Progressive/Post-Protestant Joneses. If there's one thing Progs believe as hard as their little hearts can stand, it's inclusivity. It's not just Jews; see all the corporate types losing their shit over Indiana.

    But Jewish, separatism, ethno-centrism, ethnic-networking … that’s all fine.
     
    Progs gotta keep it real, amirite? Are, say, Blacks any different? The Prog powers that be frown on ethnics who aren't true to their roots. Jews didn't make that rule either.
    , @Hibernian
    Branches of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Ortodoxy, Anglicanism, and lutheranism, are in practice ethnocentric. The Great Commission has not been taken seriously at all times and in all places during the last 2000 years.
  103. @Dave Pinsen

    When did David marry Matthew?
     
    When did you start confusing parentheses with commas of apposition?

    When did you start confusing parentheses with commas of apposition?

    I was going by how it sounded, not how it looked. Either way, it’s clumsy phrasing.

  104. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Globo-oligarchs control the media.

    It’s like this. Everyone owns his or her own TV set, but what comes through every TV set is not controlled by those who own the TV sets. It’s controlled by those who control the TV stations, and it just so happens that a handful of globo-oligarchs own all the media. So, 300 million people may have 300 million TV sets, but a mere 5 media conglomerations, all of them owned or controlled by globo-oligarchs(and their favorite allies the homos), decide what 300 million people see.

    That is power.

    So, when everyone gets ‘my TV’, he or she is really surrendering his or her mind, as does everyone else who owns a TV set, to the Globo Big Brother and Homo Big Sister who control the handful of media corporations. And the globo-oligarchs use the TV and mass media to brainwash us and to command us to BOW DOWN BEFORE THE GLOBO AND HOMO.

    So, US is all about AIPAC and GAY-PAC.
    Is it any wonder that 75% of Americans sympathize more with Israelis than with Palestinians even though Zionists are oppressing the Palestinians? Is it any wonder that 80% of millennials and 55% of Americans are for ‘gay marriage’ when their minds have been warped by mass media controlled by globo and homo oligarchs?

    I am the last one who won’t bend over and collaborate.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    It’s like this. Everyone owns his or her own TV set, but what comes through every TV set is not controlled by those who own the TV sets.

    That sounds like something a Frenchman would say, and I mean that in a good way. That sounds like the sort of next level thinking Roland Barthes or Jacques Ellul were laying down back in the day, gnome sane?
  105. @candid_observer
    I just the last few weeks started watching Mad Men.

    It's been a really disappointing experience. Yes, the period detail is pretty fascinating. But the entire energy of the show comes from its never ending reinterpretation of the sixties in the light of our current Zeitgeist. Every episode and every dramatic moment is animated by a question of: how are women being treated? how are blacks being treated? How are Jews being treated? You can hear in your head the invisible audience gasping at every such moment: OMG, did you hear what he said? I am so disgusted, and superior to that!

    If you take away that cheap thrill of moral superiority, what's left of the series? Anything?

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call "moral porn" -- playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today's standard "correct" morality -- however anachronistically -- onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality. If, say, Napoleon is supposed to be a good guy in a movie, you will know because he has a black guy whom he treats with respect because he's a great artillery officer; if he's supposed to be a bad guy, he'll talk about how those blacks are just animals.

    I find this kind of relentless sermonizing in art repulsive; I just can't stomach it.

    But I can only conclude that I'm a pretty rare bird, because stuff like this sells like nobody's business.

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call “moral porn” — playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today’s standard “correct” morality — however anachronistically — onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality.

    That was my first take on MM. The stereotypes and theatrical devices are played so far over the top as to be highly entertaining–assuming you recognize that. But I find so many people assuming it’s an accurate portrayal–and assuming their moral superiority over the earlier era as to be disheartening. But then MM is not alone, nor the first to do it, in entertainment/Hollywood.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    They do that a lot, with these pseudo-historical action films where characters say things that nobody would have said during that period. I don't expect to see any films that honestly portray people as they understood themselves any time soon, though I'm not a movie buff and I've probably missed something.

    It's like dropping some fellow in a time machine to comfort the audience that they really don't have to take these long-dead people seriously. Tocqueville noted how democratic man denies ancestors and hides descendants.

    , @Kyle McKenna
    I have a lot of fun discussing what I call 'entertainment propaganda' with friends and family. These are all people who by most objective standards are intelligent and accomplished individuals.

    I always ask, as subtly as possible, if they caught various subtexts and references in whatever example we're discussing. 99% of the time, they didn't, which means the propaganda was effective. The other 1% of the time, they pass off as trivial and irrelevant.

    People have no idea--no idea--why they think what they think.

  106. @Anonymous
    Calling obvious bullsh*t on this:

    ... then you guys came in and you were there with your big mouth and your black hair and your leather jacket.

    This is a quote from Weiner's own paranoid internal dialog. Nobody ever said to him anything about black hair. That's the giveaway.

    Weiner projects the well known Jewish fear/hatred of blondes onto his enemy.

    Weiner projects the well known Jewish fear/hatred of blondes onto his enemy.

    The Romans thought otherwise:

    Candida me docuit nigras odisse puellas

    “A blond has taught me to hate brunettes.” Inscribed on a wall at Pompeii.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Given some of the other comments on that wall, I think he was probably talking about his girlfriend.
  107. @Merema
    Maybe many Jews resent WASPS because WASPs are Christians AND for having created an amazingly decent and successful country. America represents for them a repudiation of what they have been taught about the goyim i.e. that the goyim are really unintelligent genocidaires.

    They don't resent Irish and Italian Catholics anywhere as much probably because they are fond of them -they grew up with them as underdogs in the immigrant tenements of New York. In fact in NYC, the Jews, Irish and Italians have always worked together to form the formidable coalition that displaced the WASP power structure of NY, while at the same time, taking care to keep the hapless (and socially and economically useless) Puerto Ricans and Blacks in their place. I live in NYC, and I am always amazed at how these three ethnic whites get along famously, but I guess it helps to have a common enemy they hold in deep contempt -Blacks. (full disclosure: I am an african muslim "immigrant" myself)

    Of course in this coalition, for the most parts, the leaders are mostly Jews, and the cops that crack minority heads are irish or italian. Think obese cigarette seller Eric Garner of "I can't breathe" and the cop Pantaleo. Blacks try to fight back (well, at least they try), and hence the formidable Al Sharpton. But NY Jews also have a strange sympathetic side towards Blacks , so even as they get their moderate IQ irish/italian cop goons to crack some heads, they are also providing blacks and hispanics with assistance-jobs, subsidized housing, and such. Blacks know this, and well, they don't really "Fight the Power" too hard. They know they have it tougher in the WASP lands of the South.

    Anyway, the reason Jews are so politically powerful is because they have the tactical support of a lot of non-WASP gentiles, AND the frightened dysfunctional minorities who need them for their welfare. Non WASP gentiles support comes more in the form of being neutral and not defending the WASP Establishment and the South. So the historical America becomes comprised. Oh and by the way, it does not help that the WASPs in the south dumbly oppose unions even though unions are job protection for the working and lower middle class white ethnic Catholics and jews. Southern Whites are so unreasonable they drive everyone straight into the hands of liberal Jews. (Also, why do they care if promiscuous women want to use birth control, or abort? Another discussion).

    I still can not figure out completely why American Jews have such a DEEP hatred of WASPs -and hence historical America-though.
    I mean we all resent our betters to a certain extent, but we don't try to destroy them- we even try to emulate them (even if we don't admit it).

    The New York Times makes its living by constantly telling its readers that they are morally superior to the wrong kind of white people (WASP’s, Midwesterners, Southerners, Republicans). The NYT is all attacks on the wrong kind of white people, all the time. The truth, of course, is that NYT readers are not really morally superior, just more vengeful.

    The NYT also has readers that are into wealth porn, and they also make money catering to that audience.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The New York Times makes its living by constantly telling its readers that they are morally superior to the wrong kind of white people (WASP’s, Midwesterners, Southerners, Republicans). The NYT is all attacks on the wrong kind of white people, all the time.
     
    That's a game that goes all the way back to England and well beyond. These days it's globalists (the Davosoisie) on top, nativists on bottom, and particular religious traditions* don't fit well with globalism. Jewish distaste for WASPs is much more a joining in with elite despising of this retro particularism than envy for anything Christians still have that Jews lack. The latter may serve as a cover story for the former, but that's all it is.

    * - Judaism can double as authentic personal ethnicity in a way that Western Christianity is not allowed to among the right crowd
  108. “Gee, I wonder which people they meant?” – well given that the school was only 1/10th jewish, and that whites so often mistake jews for gentiles, doesn’t it seem statistically likely that they were by and large speaking of gentiles?

  109. @bjdubbs
    This is Bret Easton Ellis and Weiner discussing LA.

    Starts at 21:22 and cotillon comes up at 23:29, country clubs at 23:40.

    http://cdn46.castfire.com/audio/522/3396/25152/2339886/2339886_2014-09-29-115326-7770-0-0-0.64k.mp3?cdn_id=46&uuid=71585272a91d72e0ad7480e0b332e70c&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.podcastone.com%2Fpodcast%3FcategoryID2%3D592

    I like how he happily admits his parents insisted on sending him to a private school to avoid mandated busing and then turns around and complains about WASP dominance in literally the next breath.

    He really comes across as a catty and prickly guy.

  110. “W.C. Fields couldn’t live there, Cecil B. DeMille couldn’t live there”

    Hold it, hold it. In the case of Cecil B. DeMille, that’s a complete lie, or doesn’t know bupkus.

    As it is well established that DeMille made the first feature film in Hollywood, he was able to choose where exactly he wanted to live within a few yrs time.
    DeMille bought his house in 1916, roughly before very many Jews were in the Hollywood area. He lived at the same address for the rest of his life. He simply wasn’t that interested in schmoozing with elites per se at parties, country clubs, etc. By Hollywood’s standards he was a recluse. He didn’t want a fancy house in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc since those swanky ritzy areas hardly existed in 1916. Now his Paradise Ranch (used mainly for weekend and seclusion, getaways etc) was quite a different matter.

    It isn’t that he couldn’t, its that he wasn’t interested in living there. He got to Hollywood basically before most of…well anyone of importance who were still concentrated in NY, and so he got to choose before the rest exactly where he wanted to live.

    Interesting enough, in his first sound film 1929’s Dynamite, about 15% of the film takes place in an exclusive Country Club, (Bevery Hills CC?) and is filled with stereotypical WASPS, old money, etc. They show Polo, Tennis, Golf, and something different, an event of giant hula hoops for ladies to race each other on a track. The Roaring Twenties, where established old money is on full display. And a bit role by young Joel McCrea.

    The way the scene is shot, one would almost expect Jack Whitney to be in the audience, if not actually riding the Polo horses.

  111. @Reg Cæsar

    Weiner projects the well known Jewish fear/hatred of blondes onto his enemy.

     

    The Romans thought otherwise:

    Candida me docuit nigras odisse puellas

    "A blond has taught me to hate brunettes." Inscribed on a wall at Pompeii.

    Given some of the other comments on that wall, I think he was probably talking about his girlfriend.

  112. @AnotherDad

    Weiner attended the Harvard School for Boys just south of Ventura Blvd.. where the Hollywood Hills trickle out into the the flat San Fernando Valley.
     
    Holy cow! Harvard-Westlake is in the Valley? As a midwesterner, somehow i'd always just assumed it was on the other side of the Hollywood Hills--Beverly Hills or Westwood over by UCLA or somewhere over there. So a bunch of kids are being driven over Coldwater Canyon everyday?

    Harvard prep school was the most expensive prep school in Los Angeles. (I can recall being astounded to learn around 1973 that Harvard’s tuition was $1,800 per year)
     
    This sort of unastounds me. The tuition at my Cincinnati Jesuit HS went up to $800 in '73. (A stretch for my parents, with my brother off in college. A friend of mine of truly middle-middle class means had to drop out and go to Walnut Hills the public magnet.) The Jews and Protestants going private were at Cincinnati Country Day out east in Indian Hills. And i assumed their tuition was equal or greater. I'm sorta surprised Harvard-Westlake--California\Hollywood elite--was only twice as much.

    The Harvard School for Boys in North Hollywood on the edge of the San Fernando Valley merged with the Westlake girls school just north of Sunset on the LA Basin Side a generation ago to become Harvard-Westlake. Grades 7-9 go to the Westlake campus near UCLA and 10-12 to the Harvard campus just south of Ventura Blvd.

  113. @Dave Pinsen
    I'm guessing most elite Jews don't know what "Porcellian" is.

    Steve is right about Weiner, but Weiner's worldview doesn't necessarily extrapolate to all elite Jews. Heck, Mickey Kaus grew up in the same area at about the same time as Steve and Weiner, and he doesn't seem to have Weiner's hang ups.

    Steve notes Weiner's upper middle class background - maybe he grew up resenting upper class WASPs because he was close enough to their status to envy them? Maybe a middle class Jew in public school would have resented Weiner.

    Today, there are relatively fewer WASPs, and more mixing of upper class WASPs and Jews. You look at the cast of Girls, for example, and three of the four lead actresses are half-WASP, half-Jewish (roughly-speaking, in the event someone wants to note that Jemima Kirke's father can't be WASP because he is English).

    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.
     
    Could be, Steve.A lot of fans of the show have complained that Betty Draper (January Jones' character) has been severely treated by the writers over the years (depicted as a cold, uncaring mother, etc).And Don's had a lot of passionate relationships with brunettes, both during his marriage (Rachel in series 1) and after (Megan Calvet).Here's a photo of Matt Weiner with his wife, Linda Brettler:

    http://www.aceshowbiz.com/events/Linda%20Brettler/brettler-weiner-24th-annual-producers-guild-awards-01.html

    Perhaps, like a lot of brunettes, she has a grudge against blondes?
    , @syonredux
    Perhaps Rachel Menken in series 1 (with whom Don was having an affair) is an idealized version of Mrs Weiner?

    Here's Mrs Weiner:

    http://www.aceshowbiz.com/events/Linda%20Brettler/brettler-weiner-24th-annual-producers-guild-awards-01.html

    And here's Rachel Menken:

    https://sabscan.wordpress.com/tag/rachel-menken/

    http://mad-men-caps.tumblr.com/

    A lot of fans think that she was "the one" for Don ....
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    She seems to have been rather successful. The Weiners have been married almost 25 years, which is amazing by Hollywood standards.

    By the way, I'd add that there are a lot of of very beautiful Jewish adventuresses these days. Many of them are of Russian and Persian Jewish origin. The Russian girls are particularly adventuresome. That's a lesson Mel Gibson found out the hard way when he dated a Russian Jewish woman (Oksana Grigorieva,).

    Speaking of Weiners, Anthony Weiner learned a lesson about Jewish adventuresses just a few years ago.
  114. @Anon
    Globo-oligarchs control the media.

    It's like this. Everyone owns his or her own TV set, but what comes through every TV set is not controlled by those who own the TV sets. It's controlled by those who control the TV stations, and it just so happens that a handful of globo-oligarchs own all the media. So, 300 million people may have 300 million TV sets, but a mere 5 media conglomerations, all of them owned or controlled by globo-oligarchs(and their favorite allies the homos), decide what 300 million people see.

    That is power.

    So, when everyone gets 'my TV', he or she is really surrendering his or her mind, as does everyone else who owns a TV set, to the Globo Big Brother and Homo Big Sister who control the handful of media corporations. And the globo-oligarchs use the TV and mass media to brainwash us and to command us to BOW DOWN BEFORE THE GLOBO AND HOMO.

    So, US is all about AIPAC and GAY-PAC.
    Is it any wonder that 75% of Americans sympathize more with Israelis than with Palestinians even though Zionists are oppressing the Palestinians? Is it any wonder that 80% of millennials and 55% of Americans are for 'gay marriage' when their minds have been warped by mass media controlled by globo and homo oligarchs?

    I am the last one who won't bend over and collaborate.

    It’s like this. Everyone owns his or her own TV set, but what comes through every TV set is not controlled by those who own the TV sets.

    That sounds like something a Frenchman would say, and I mean that in a good way. That sounds like the sort of next level thinking Roland Barthes or Jacques Ellul were laying down back in the day, gnome sane?

  115. @Dave Pinsen
    I'm guessing most elite Jews don't know what "Porcellian" is.

    Steve is right about Weiner, but Weiner's worldview doesn't necessarily extrapolate to all elite Jews. Heck, Mickey Kaus grew up in the same area at about the same time as Steve and Weiner, and he doesn't seem to have Weiner's hang ups.

    Steve notes Weiner's upper middle class background - maybe he grew up resenting upper class WASPs because he was close enough to their status to envy them? Maybe a middle class Jew in public school would have resented Weiner.

    Today, there are relatively fewer WASPs, and more mixing of upper class WASPs and Jews. You look at the cast of Girls, for example, and three of the four lead actresses are half-WASP, half-Jewish (roughly-speaking, in the event someone wants to note that Jemima Kirke's father can't be WASP because he is English).

    I’m guessing most elite Jews don’t know what “Porcellian” is.

    I tend to think that elite Jews obsess over the Porcellian Club….

  116. @Jesuit boy
    Tangential to the main topic, but touched upon by Steve, so I'll throw it out there (perhaps to him only): have you ever noticed how Catholics in the USA, or perhaps only on the West Coast, did not have high schools for the upper class only? At least not for boys; girls did indeed have the Sacred Heart schools, which were, like women in general, ferociously snobbish. But for boys the top of the tree was the Jesuit schools, and these catered more for an intellectual than a social elite; indeed, their raison d'etre was precisely to prepare the former to become the latter and then continuously to reinforce it.
    Take Loyola: when my father and uncles were there in the 30s and 40s, they rubbed shoulders with people of their own upper middle class background, but also with very bright kids from a rung or two lower down as well as with the scions of very rich families like the Von der Ahes and the Montgomerys (these last becoming life long friends).
    Ironically it was Communism which brought an end to this in California: Benedictines from the ancient abbey of Pannonholma in Hungary arrived in the Bay Area in 1956 and founded a boarding school near Atherton which very quickly became the school of choice for well off Catholics (just as Vatican II was bringing a two thousand year tradition to an end, but that is another story).
    I grew up in that area and was furious when my father remained true to family tradition (his father had attended Georgetown Prep) and sent me to Bellarmine rather than to the Priory.
    As for the Harvard School for Boys (a non-Catholic cousin of mine of about my age was sent there, so I was aware of it from an early age): I have never thought of it as truly an upper class school. Surely that description should be reserved for places like Thacher and the Cate? My impression is that it was a place for the sons of doctors and lawyers.
    And, finally, as for people like Weiner (what an appropriate name if pronounced in the German way): sadly they have won, and all we can do now is to weep over past glories. (I do it all the time; it's not so bad).

    Thacher is a boarding school in Ojai where each student gets a horse.

    The boarding schools are more like Eton and Harrow, out of the way places for the upper class to stash their scions while they enjoy their fabulous social lives, while Harvard-Westlake and Loyola are more like Westminister in London, day schools where the urban bourgeoisie who like having their children around send them to get very good educations.

    • Replies: @Jesuit boy
    I appreciate your point, but both Eton and particularly Harrow are only just outside London. Winchester and Stowe would make your case better.
    The Jesuits in England played it both ways: Beaumont near Eton for the city gents, and Stonyhurst way up North in rural Lancashire for the real toffs. Beaumont cost more however and was indeed the most expensive of the Catholic boarding schools. This too is typically Jesuit: educate the not necessarily very well off gentry in a setting which they recognise (Stonyhurst was originally a seat of an ancient recusant house) and don't scare them off with prohibitive fees; get it all back by overcharging the rich and nouveau riche Catholics of London and the stockbroker belt.
  117. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.

    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.

    Could be, Steve.A lot of fans of the show have complained that Betty Draper (January Jones’ character) has been severely treated by the writers over the years (depicted as a cold, uncaring mother, etc).And Don’s had a lot of passionate relationships with brunettes, both during his marriage (Rachel in series 1) and after (Megan Calvet).Here’s a photo of Matt Weiner with his wife, Linda Brettler:

    http://www.aceshowbiz.com/events/Linda%20Brettler/brettler-weiner-24th-annual-producers-guild-awards-01.html

    Perhaps, like a lot of brunettes, she has a grudge against blondes?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I was going to mention that Jon Hamm is in a longterm relationship with a Jew, the star of Kissing Jessica Stein, but then I looked up her Wikipedia profile, and apparently she is another WASP-Jewish combo (assuming her father counts as a WASP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Westfeldt
  118. @Whiskey
    Steve, Weiner is a BS artist. There is a big interview with him (Lunch with the Financial Times) in the FT this weekend. He says none of that, in the interview, and I've seen other interviews with him on Deadline Hollywood (Nikki Finke's old site, not the new one) where he basically copped to setting Mad Men in the 1960s so that he could get women viewers to swoon over bad boy Don Draper. That in his words the sexism made bedroom scenes great.

    Nor is ethnic resentment a path to success. Think about it -- screenwriters must collaborate with actors and producers and directors, and even TV which is a show-runners/writers medium, needs collaboration with talented actors (dull ones don't generate viewers or excitement and cause cancellation). You can't run an enterprise costing about $66 million a year (production cost of $3 million times 22 episodes) minimum seething with ethnic resentment. Nor would Mad Men generate such a loyal viewership out of Jewish resentment because there are not that many Jews period. [And the show is not very Jewish either -- no matzoh balls or gefilte fish AFAIK, I've never watched it sounds dull to me, but then the Flash and Person of Interest and the Blacklist are my kind of shows.]

    Weiner is just another Show Business BS artist, telling a reporter what he wants to hear.

    Jews are in the US anyway, just another group of White people, like Italians or Irish. Israel is like Switzerland and Ireland, one of the Whitest nations on earth, just different in the way that Ireland and Switzerland are different in people and environment.

    More evidence of Weiner's BS: you'll note he did not blast the Murdoch Oligarchy. He'd no doubt like to work for Fox.

    Mad Men grew out of (according to the FT interview) Weiner sending in a script to David Chase, and the desire to appeal to women by showing bad old sexist days, but with sexy bad boys.

    Or David Samuels is an expert at getting his Jewish subjects to drop the mask and tell him how they really feel.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    RE: the Impetus behind Mad Men,

    I think that your initial notion was correct, Steve.Weiner feels a strong sense of nostalgia for the early to mid '60s Jet Age Moderne Aesthetic: the Connery Bond films, original series Star Trek, The Man From Uncle, JFK in the White House, etc

    Now, once the show is actually put into production, other factors will come into play (half-acknowledged ethnic resentments, etc), but I don't think that one can deny that the initial impulse was aesthetic in nature.

    While we're on it, much like Obama, I don't think that Weiner really believes in the whole feminism business.Sure, he makes certain noises, but a huge part of the show's appeal lies in Don's Alpha Male status....
    , @km
    The more I reflect upon this subject, the more I wonder whether Steve is being rather selective with his material. Mad Men is informed by its creators' Jewish obsessions, but such things work in more than one way. For instance, the film adaptation of Mordechai Richler's Barney's Version shows Montreal WASPs as paragons of virtue and good looks among rustic Frenchmen and obnoxious Jews. Did Steve comment upon this film and its Jewish inspiration? True, it is a Canadian tale. Canadian Jews, like British ones, and French, and most others, are relatively less prone to the lamentations of their American counterparts, despite, oddly enough, less success and prominence. But this raises a question: perhaps American Jewish cultural output is so successful in the US because the outsider theme and underdog theme, among others, are tapping into the Protestant and Puritan substratum of the country? After all, no one is forced to watch Mad Men. May I also add that Jews are also fully capable of self-criticism. The Coen brothers' A Serious Man is an absolutely devastating film. Brutal dissection. So once again: why no WASPs making more positive films?

    PS: Steve was wrong about the Wolf. He is portrayed as Jewish. His parents are very clearly Jewish in the film.
  119. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.

    Perhaps Rachel Menken in series 1 (with whom Don was having an affair) is an idealized version of Mrs Weiner?

    Here’s Mrs Weiner:

    http://www.aceshowbiz.com/events/Linda%20Brettler/brettler-weiner-24th-annual-producers-guild-awards-01.html

    And here’s Rachel Menken:

    https://sabscan.wordpress.com/tag/rachel-menken/

    http://mad-men-caps.tumblr.com/

    A lot of fans think that she was “the one” for Don ….

  120. Reading people’s comments here about their different American childhoods just underscores how many stories get neglected when guys like Matthew Weiner hog the Megaphone. Just as one example, where are the movies about the many Americans who grew up on military bases?

  121. @OilcanFloyd
    I get so tired of the Jewish grudge against whites and America. If whites and WASPs wanted to get together and keep Jews out of the country, and out of power, they could have easily done this. Instead, Jews were allowed into the country and allowed in elite circles. Jews are a privileged class in America and use phony claims of discrimination to justify their own grudges and discrimination and to solidify a grip on power.

    Of course Jews have lots of power in the media. From my lowly position way on the outside, that much is obvious. It's also obvious what movies like Caddyshack and Meatballs were about. Fox News, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren't all Isrul all the time for nothing, and there is a reason that NPR is heavily staffed by Jews, and the programming heavily focused on Jews and Jewish issues. Instead of constant hostility, derision and opposition, I think Jews owe WASPs/America a big thank you and some cooperation, but I'm not holding my breath.

    FWIW, I've yet to find an ancestor on either side of my family who isn't descended from colonists. According to census info and family lore, they were almost all small farmers in good times, and laborers when the economy soured. The counties where my grandparents grew up didn't have public schools until the 1910s, and fees were still required, and I'm sure that they wouldn't have been welcomed in any elite schools, circles or country clubs.

    “The counties where my grandparents grew up didn’t have public schools until the 1910s, and fees were still required, and I’m sure that they wouldn’t have been welcomed in any elite schools, circles or country clubs.”

    Oh, come on. When Jews state that they’ve been discriminated against and weren’t allowed into the finest country clubs, that doesn’t mean that they have some kind of organic solidarity with lower class whites.

    They’re not white, theyre descended from Abraham.

    Who said anything about them being on the same level with other gentile lower class whites?

    Can still remember neighbor talking about how their kid “only” got into Duke and not Harvard. “ONLY” Duke. The neighbor kept saying ‘Oh, my god. How bad were his grades anyway? And that school is in North Carolina, right near all those Fundamentalist weirdos!’

    Neighbors weren’t Irish. Nor Italian.

    They did look like they were white, really did. Wonder if they’d have taken offense at being thought of as mere white?

  122. @Steve Sailer
    Or David Samuels is an expert at getting his Jewish subjects to drop the mask and tell him how they really feel.

    RE: the Impetus behind Mad Men,

    I think that your initial notion was correct, Steve.Weiner feels a strong sense of nostalgia for the early to mid ’60s Jet Age Moderne Aesthetic: the Connery Bond films, original series Star Trek, The Man From Uncle, JFK in the White House, etc

    Now, once the show is actually put into production, other factors will come into play (half-acknowledged ethnic resentments, etc), but I don’t think that one can deny that the initial impulse was aesthetic in nature.

    While we’re on it, much like Obama, I don’t think that Weiner really believes in the whole feminism business.Sure, he makes certain noises, but a huge part of the show’s appeal lies in Don’s Alpha Male status….

  123. @syonredux

    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.
     
    Could be, Steve.A lot of fans of the show have complained that Betty Draper (January Jones' character) has been severely treated by the writers over the years (depicted as a cold, uncaring mother, etc).And Don's had a lot of passionate relationships with brunettes, both during his marriage (Rachel in series 1) and after (Megan Calvet).Here's a photo of Matt Weiner with his wife, Linda Brettler:

    http://www.aceshowbiz.com/events/Linda%20Brettler/brettler-weiner-24th-annual-producers-guild-awards-01.html

    Perhaps, like a lot of brunettes, she has a grudge against blondes?

    I was going to mention that Jon Hamm is in a longterm relationship with a Jew, the star of Kissing Jessica Stein, but then I looked up her Wikipedia profile, and apparently she is another WASP-Jewish combo (assuming her father counts as a WASP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Westfeldt

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I was going to mention that Jon Hamm is in a longterm relationship with a Jew, the star of Kissing Jessica Stein, but then I looked up her Wikipedia profile, and apparently she is another WASP-Jewish combo (assuming her father counts as a WASP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Westfeldt
     
    Yeah, but I'm not quite sure how that influences casting decisions.....
  124. @syonredux

    That I believe. The people I knew would have been born about 1980.
     
    Somehow I tend to doubt that there has been a sea change.....

    Looking back, I went to a very hippie-ish school, so it’s quite possible the people I know actually believed in liberalism and the Matthew Weiner types are actually trying to settle ethnic grievances. Wouldn’t be surprised.

  125. @Art Deco
    Just post the link.

    Just post the link.

    Nah, rare case where the entire excerpt was to the point.

  126. @Dave Pinsen
    I was going to mention that Jon Hamm is in a longterm relationship with a Jew, the star of Kissing Jessica Stein, but then I looked up her Wikipedia profile, and apparently she is another WASP-Jewish combo (assuming her father counts as a WASP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Westfeldt

    I was going to mention that Jon Hamm is in a longterm relationship with a Jew, the star of Kissing Jessica Stein, but then I looked up her Wikipedia profile, and apparently she is another WASP-Jewish combo (assuming her father counts as a WASP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Westfeldt

    Yeah, but I’m not quite sure how that influences casting decisions…..

  127. km says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Or David Samuels is an expert at getting his Jewish subjects to drop the mask and tell him how they really feel.

    The more I reflect upon this subject, the more I wonder whether Steve is being rather selective with his material. Mad Men is informed by its creators’ Jewish obsessions, but such things work in more than one way. For instance, the film adaptation of Mordechai Richler’s Barney’s Version shows Montreal WASPs as paragons of virtue and good looks among rustic Frenchmen and obnoxious Jews. Did Steve comment upon this film and its Jewish inspiration? True, it is a Canadian tale. Canadian Jews, like British ones, and French, and most others, are relatively less prone to the lamentations of their American counterparts, despite, oddly enough, less success and prominence. But this raises a question: perhaps American Jewish cultural output is so successful in the US because the outsider theme and underdog theme, among others, are tapping into the Protestant and Puritan substratum of the country? After all, no one is forced to watch Mad Men. May I also add that Jews are also fully capable of self-criticism. The Coen brothers’ A Serious Man is an absolutely devastating film. Brutal dissection. So once again: why no WASPs making more positive films?

    PS: Steve was wrong about the Wolf. He is portrayed as Jewish. His parents are very clearly Jewish in the film.

    • Replies: @Matra
    the film adaptation of Mordechai Richler’s Barney’s Version shows Montreal WASPs as paragons of virtue and good looks among rustic Frenchmen and obnoxious Jews. Did Steve comment upon this film and its Jewish inspiration? True, it is a Canadian tale

    And obscure even in Canada. Besides, in Quebec WASPs are a minority. Richler, who was quite an entertaining guy, spent the last decade of his life in constant conflict with his home province's dominant ethnic majority. Jews in Quebec are more likely to keep an eye on Quebec nationalists whilst those in English Canada are focussed on Anglos, Christians, and homophobes. Though I think some prominent ones are starting to worry more about Muslims.

    Canadian Jews, like British ones, and French, and most others, are relatively less prone to the lamentations of their American counterparts

    Debatable. Especially with regards to France.

    But this raises a question: perhaps American Jewish cultural output is so successful in the US because the outsider theme and underdog theme, among others, are tapping into the Protestant and Puritan substratum of the country?

    Jews are very prominent in France's entertainment industry. Many Jewish British and Canadian directors etc just go to Hollywood as its more lucrative and influential. Sam Mendes packed a harder punch with American Beauty than he would've done with some similar screenplay by a malcontented English gay activist.

    why no WASPs making more positive films?

    Maybe they don't have the power anymore. From the outside they certainly look like a defeated people.
  128. @AnotherDad

    But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.
     
    That's the Jewish ideology in a nutshell:

    Everything must be open to the Jews. Everything. Anything else is double-plus bad--racist!, anti-Semitic! If any other group builds anything that is not open to the Jews ... evil, evil, evil!

    But Jewish, separatism, ethno-centrism, ethnic-networking ... that's all fine.

    ~

    The somewhat strange thing is it's basically impossible to find a (prominent) Jew who can deal with the *obvious* reality here honestly.

    Christianity, Islam, Buddhism are all universals religions.

    It is Judaism that is uniquely a *racial religion*. And one that is explicitly separatist\rejectionist, with all sorts of practices and sanctions to prevent Jewish mingling with and contamination by the goyim.

    I have no idea what my ancient Irish, English and Germanic ancestors were up to 2000 years back, but there weren't Christians. (Based on my predilections, i'd guess something Wickermanish involving big fires!) When Christianity came ... they went with the flow of their fellow countrymen. Simply partook of the new dominant religion of their lands.

    Jews are very proud of themselves, their history, but don't seem to quite want to except responsibility, that rather than being held apart by the majority, they--their ancestors--*chose* to reject, stay separate from the religion and culture of the majority. Rather than integrate into the culture of the places they lived, the Jews wanted\chose to stay separate, to instead keep themselves racially pure and practice a religion of racial supremacy\separatism while looting the goy majority. And what makes them Jews now is that they successfully kept up that separation for 2000 years. (The few Jews that were insufficiently racially separatist\supremacist melted into the majority and are *my* ancestors not theirs.)

    That’s the Jewish ideology in a nutshell:

    Everything must be open to the Jews. Everything. Anything else is double-plus bad–racist!, anti-Semitic! If any other group builds anything that is not open to the Jews … evil, evil, evil!

    Nah, I think that’s just the (ethnic) Jews trying to keep up with the Progressive/Post-Protestant Joneses. If there’s one thing Progs believe as hard as their little hearts can stand, it’s inclusivity. It’s not just Jews; see all the corporate types losing their shit over Indiana.

    But Jewish, separatism, ethno-centrism, ethnic-networking … that’s all fine.

    Progs gotta keep it real, amirite? Are, say, Blacks any different? The Prog powers that be frown on ethnics who aren’t true to their roots. Jews didn’t make that rule either.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Are, say, Blacks any different?"

    You just said that blacks are the same as Jews (in all ways). Might want to rethink that. Do you really think that most Jews consciously think that blacks are their intellectual and moral equals?

    "The Prog powers that be frown on ethnics who aren’t true to their roots."

    Yes, they're called individuals who have their own conscience, moral compass to follow and not after the tribal herd that they happened to have been born into.

    "Jews didn’t make that rule either."

    Debatable. The Old Testament goes back several thousand yrs. Western Europe wasn't as strict thousands of years ago about those sorts of things.

    In short, the point would tend to be that Jews have a hand in leading these post-America and post-modern kinds of thinkings (e.g. Cultural Marxism, etc) and are at their most effective when they make others think that they wield no direct influence at all whatsoever, or if they do, it tends to be equivalent to other every ethnic and/or is no different than anyone else.

    Pay no attention to that group behind the curtain. They don't have any relevance at all over the culture, the media, academia, business, etc. They alllll just happen to be at the higher echelons of power and prestige.

    All just one great giant coincidence that continues to occur with each succeeding passing generation.

    Just happens. Just like that. Out of the blue. No one knows how it occurs. Just does. Like that. And don't ever make the mistake of noticing, or then problems will occur.

  129. @Jeff W.
    The New York Times makes its living by constantly telling its readers that they are morally superior to the wrong kind of white people (WASP's, Midwesterners, Southerners, Republicans). The NYT is all attacks on the wrong kind of white people, all the time. The truth, of course, is that NYT readers are not really morally superior, just more vengeful.

    The NYT also has readers that are into wealth porn, and they also make money catering to that audience.

    The New York Times makes its living by constantly telling its readers that they are morally superior to the wrong kind of white people (WASP’s, Midwesterners, Southerners, Republicans). The NYT is all attacks on the wrong kind of white people, all the time.

    That’s a game that goes all the way back to England and well beyond. These days it’s globalists (the Davosoisie) on top, nativists on bottom, and particular religious traditions* don’t fit well with globalism. Jewish distaste for WASPs is much more a joining in with elite despising of this retro particularism than envy for anything Christians still have that Jews lack. The latter may serve as a cover story for the former, but that’s all it is.

    * – Judaism can double as authentic personal ethnicity in a way that Western Christianity is not allowed to among the right crowd

  130. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe Mrs. Weiner encourages Mr. Weiner to dislike gentiles, especially dislike young blonde gentile adventuresses such as January Jones and other starlets he comes in contact with daily.

    She seems to have been rather successful. The Weiners have been married almost 25 years, which is amazing by Hollywood standards.

    By the way, I’d add that there are a lot of of very beautiful Jewish adventuresses these days. Many of them are of Russian and Persian Jewish origin. The Russian girls are particularly adventuresome. That’s a lesson Mel Gibson found out the hard way when he dated a Russian Jewish woman (Oksana Grigorieva,).

    Speaking of Weiners, Anthony Weiner learned a lesson about Jewish adventuresses just a few years ago.

    • Replies: @Paratwat
    Curious to find out what you meant by "adventuresses" I Goggled Grigivoria. In old money, that's a hoh right?
    She just shook her money-maker and it just keeps rolling in.
    At least a traditional hoh just does cash-and carry, but she has two kids as collateral damage to her single-mother adventure.
    What's the difference between a welfare witch and Grigoveria?
    The amount they can screw out of a father, apparently.

    From the Daily Mail:


    "In 2011, Gibson admitted a 2010 battery charge filed by his ex Grigorieva.
    It was reported that Gibson initially offered his ex a settlement of $15million, but she refused.

    Radar report that Grigorieva is currently paid $20,000 a month in child support, and receives an additional $2,500 a month from her other ex, James Bond actor Timothy Dalton.


    A source tells the publication she is now worried Gibson will fight for full custody of their daughter Lucia.
  131. @jackson
    I grew up in Pasadena in a middle-upper class household, and even went to cotillion in my early teens in the late 70s with a bunch of snooty kids from San Marino! The only time, really, I heard the people around me talk about Jews was at Sunday service (at the rather waspy Lake Ave. Congregational Church). The talk was uniformly favorable. Besides that, nobody seemed to care one way or another.

    >>I heard the people around me talk about Jews was at Sunday service (at the rather waspy Lake Ave. Congregational Church). The talk was uniformly favorable. Besides that, nobody seemed to care one way or another.

    That’s the thing here. You may not care about Jews but Jews care about you.

  132. @Whiskey
    Add on, useful tidbits from the FT interview:

    Weiner grew up in a Baltimore suburb until age 11. His parents were uberliberal and he remembers befriending a boy just to play with his toy guns, soldiers and bb gun. He was not allowed to watch TV much growing up, devoured it in college watching every episode of Quincy. Weiner is a big fan of David Lynch and in particular, Blue Velvet. There was a movie made at his house in Hancock Park growing up.

    He also talks a bit about cable tv shows. Weiner believes that the cheapness allowed by new writers/actors contracts makes shows like Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Sopranos much, much cheaper and therefore cable outlets more willing to experiment.

    [I think this has been mostly bad, TV being an upper class female/gay ghetto, whereas shows like say Miami Vice or WKRP in Cincinnati were broader, made for the entire family and meant to be enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people not just upper class SJW types.]

    So, to sum up:

    Weiner is typical of show business today, from a privileged, upper class background. Not the top 1% but certainly part of the Murray SuperZips. [How many movies were shot in your childhood house?]

    Weiner is very uber-liberal, and unaware of how removed this puts him from most people.

    Weiner does not seem able to put out anything broadly appealing -- his influences are all uber-arty and nothing the least bit popular it seems.

    Interview here.

    >>He also talks a bit about cable tv shows. Weiner believes that the cheapness allowed by new writers/actors contracts makes shows like Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Sopranos much, much cheaper and therefore cable outlets more willing to experiment.

    The rise of cable producers, big cable producers (HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc..) has brought back one of the advantages of the old Hollywood system: predictable revenue. With predictable revenue streams producers can take risks. That is why we see some quality on cable. If a theatrical producer has a failure or two he is history. So why take risks, play it safe, more Batman, Spiderman, Fast and Furious, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.

  133. @Dave Pinsen
    I'm guessing most elite Jews don't know what "Porcellian" is.

    Steve is right about Weiner, but Weiner's worldview doesn't necessarily extrapolate to all elite Jews. Heck, Mickey Kaus grew up in the same area at about the same time as Steve and Weiner, and he doesn't seem to have Weiner's hang ups.

    Steve notes Weiner's upper middle class background - maybe he grew up resenting upper class WASPs because he was close enough to their status to envy them? Maybe a middle class Jew in public school would have resented Weiner.

    Today, there are relatively fewer WASPs, and more mixing of upper class WASPs and Jews. You look at the cast of Girls, for example, and three of the four lead actresses are half-WASP, half-Jewish (roughly-speaking, in the event someone wants to note that Jemima Kirke's father can't be WASP because he is English).

    I suspect most elite Jews know what Porcellian is but that doesn’t mean that they aspire to membership. Each year new membership is confined to about 25 or so Harvard rising juniors. This does not describe about 99.9% of elite Jews. Even if you happen to be a Jewish undergrad at Harvard (unless you yourself went to such a prep school), why would you want to join a club that consists mostly of stuffy preppies that you have nothing in common with?

    Some of this is just residual gall at the idea that there is still some tiny corner where discrimination still exists – as we see in Indiana, it is necessary to hunt down the stragglers of the defeated army, every last one of them. That they are a harmless social club or some dumb lady with a pizza shop quoted out of context by a reporter (we all know how prominent pizza shops are in the wedding trade) makes no difference – until they say uncle and submit to the new religion they cannot be allowed to breath the same air as the rest of us. How many of those screaming about Indiana would actually WANT their wedding catered by said pizza shop? Ewww. But it’s the principle of the thing that counts.

  134. “Matthew Weiner on How “Mad Men” Is Driven by His Resentment of WASP Country Clubs”

    My take on this is: The Jews did not care on bit about the country clubs, very overrated in terms of networking. Their real aim was the Ivy League. Once upon a time, most of the Ivy universities were Christian based and the route to power. The WASP response should have been, well your ancestors moved to the wrong country then. But they were too weak to make that case.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I think clubs are more about socializing than networking. An old friend of my father is a member of the University Club in New York. They actually have a no business rule at the club, according to him. I took out a pen and pad in a conversation with him once there and he gestured for me to put it away and told me about that rule.
  135. @candid_observer
    I just the last few weeks started watching Mad Men.

    It's been a really disappointing experience. Yes, the period detail is pretty fascinating. But the entire energy of the show comes from its never ending reinterpretation of the sixties in the light of our current Zeitgeist. Every episode and every dramatic moment is animated by a question of: how are women being treated? how are blacks being treated? How are Jews being treated? You can hear in your head the invisible audience gasping at every such moment: OMG, did you hear what he said? I am so disgusted, and superior to that!

    If you take away that cheap thrill of moral superiority, what's left of the series? Anything?

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call "moral porn" -- playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today's standard "correct" morality -- however anachronistically -- onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality. If, say, Napoleon is supposed to be a good guy in a movie, you will know because he has a black guy whom he treats with respect because he's a great artillery officer; if he's supposed to be a bad guy, he'll talk about how those blacks are just animals.

    I find this kind of relentless sermonizing in art repulsive; I just can't stomach it.

    But I can only conclude that I'm a pretty rare bird, because stuff like this sells like nobody's business.

    Mad Men is written and produced by people who were didn’t become adults until decades after the period in which it is set and who don’t seem to know anything about what things were like in those days. In a way, that’s odd, because they could just watch their studios’ archives of movies and tv shows that were made back then, which fairly accurately document the prevailing attitudes and mores of the time.

    I have a close friend, Jewish in his 70’s, who was actually in the advertising business in New York during the late-1950’s and early-1960’s. He told me that he tried to watch the show but found it too preposterous.

    He said the one thing that it got most right was the smoking, drinking and reasonable working hours. Most people smoked and they smoked everywhere without complaint by non-smokers. The three-martini lunch was a reality, and my friend swears that it was routine for ad men to return to their offices after lunch (especially if it was with clients), close the door, tell their secretaries to hold their calls, sleep on the couch until 4:00 or 4:30, when it was almost time to go home, and then resume drinking in the club car on the way back to the suburbs, arriving home in time for the cocktail hour. If a man could hold his liquor, he wasn’t viewed as an alcoholic, he was just convivial.

    The thing that Mad Men got most preposterously wrong was its portrayal of women. Contrary to the show’s notions: Wife-beating was considered disgraceful. Treating secretaries and the typing pool like prostitutes would have gotten a man fired and probably blackballed from the industry. Nice girls really didn’t put out until they were married, with rare, unfortunate exceptions, and men didn’t expect them to. No ad man would have dreamed of refusing to work with a high-paying potential client because she was a woman. Men liked women, women liked men, and they enjoyed each other’s company.

    Likewise, to a somewhat lesser extent, for the show’s displays of overt anti-Semitism and racism, both of which were already déclassé by the time in which the show was set.

  136. @Anonymous

    As to Wiener, as an Irishman from NYC,struck how Weiner repeatedly slagged on us Mcs as little more than drunken dumb thugs. Yet how reverential he was of the shiva. Suspect Weiner didn’t like Irish guys or had some kind of issue growing up.
     
    I wouldn't blame him, if he had some significant experience with east coast Irish, a majority of whom I experienced to be mean little shitheads when push comes to shove.

    Irish from Ireland would give you the shirts off their backs, but east coast Irish tend to be just mean and clannish, plain and simple.

    Look to Boston Irish Catholics to get a taste of the archetype. Crazy clannish drunk fucks who think they're more than they are. Rent a video of Denis Leary. Wiki up the Kennedy's. Also, see "gangs of new york." I'm sure it wasn't exaggerated. The remnants of that strange mass pathology still permeate the east coast Irish psyche. Anger management is not their strong suite. Neither is knowing their implicit limitations.

    We’re not all characters from The Departed. Think Buckley, Haig, and Moynihan as well as Daley and Kennedy. (I write this from lakefront Chicago, an island of the northeast in the Midwest.)

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Those being the Talented Tenth, vastly outnumbered by the idiot boyos.
  137. @Forbes

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call “moral porn” — playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today’s standard “correct” morality — however anachronistically — onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality.
     
    That was my first take on MM. The stereotypes and theatrical devices are played so far over the top as to be highly entertaining--assuming you recognize that. But I find so many people assuming it's an accurate portrayal--and assuming their moral superiority over the earlier era as to be disheartening. But then MM is not alone, nor the first to do it, in entertainment/Hollywood.

    They do that a lot, with these pseudo-historical action films where characters say things that nobody would have said during that period. I don’t expect to see any films that honestly portray people as they understood themselves any time soon, though I’m not a movie buff and I’ve probably missed something.

    It’s like dropping some fellow in a time machine to comfort the audience that they really don’t have to take these long-dead people seriously. Tocqueville noted how democratic man denies ancestors and hides descendants.

    • Replies: @Honorary Thief
    This seems to be a peculiar form of hate creep. Soon we will be treated to "period" pieces in which slavery still existed during World War II and the tech boom of the 1990s was really the story of a few spunky Jewish kids overcoming rampant antisemitism to bring about the Internet age.
  138. @Desiderius

    That’s the Jewish ideology in a nutshell:

    Everything must be open to the Jews. Everything. Anything else is double-plus bad–racist!, anti-Semitic! If any other group builds anything that is not open to the Jews … evil, evil, evil!
     
    Nah, I think that's just the (ethnic) Jews trying to keep up with the Progressive/Post-Protestant Joneses. If there's one thing Progs believe as hard as their little hearts can stand, it's inclusivity. It's not just Jews; see all the corporate types losing their shit over Indiana.

    But Jewish, separatism, ethno-centrism, ethnic-networking … that’s all fine.
     
    Progs gotta keep it real, amirite? Are, say, Blacks any different? The Prog powers that be frown on ethnics who aren't true to their roots. Jews didn't make that rule either.

    “Are, say, Blacks any different?”

    You just said that blacks are the same as Jews (in all ways). Might want to rethink that. Do you really think that most Jews consciously think that blacks are their intellectual and moral equals?

    “The Prog powers that be frown on ethnics who aren’t true to their roots.”

    Yes, they’re called individuals who have their own conscience, moral compass to follow and not after the tribal herd that they happened to have been born into.

    “Jews didn’t make that rule either.”

    Debatable. The Old Testament goes back several thousand yrs. Western Europe wasn’t as strict thousands of years ago about those sorts of things.

    In short, the point would tend to be that Jews have a hand in leading these post-America and post-modern kinds of thinkings (e.g. Cultural Marxism, etc) and are at their most effective when they make others think that they wield no direct influence at all whatsoever, or if they do, it tends to be equivalent to other every ethnic and/or is no different than anyone else.

    Pay no attention to that group behind the curtain. They don’t have any relevance at all over the culture, the media, academia, business, etc. They alllll just happen to be at the higher echelons of power and prestige.

    All just one great giant coincidence that continues to occur with each succeeding passing generation.

    Just happens. Just like that. Out of the blue. No one knows how it occurs. Just does. Like that. And don’t ever make the mistake of noticing, or then problems will occur.

  139. @AnotherDad

    But Los Angeles was not integrated. Los Angeles had restricted country clubs.
     
    That's the Jewish ideology in a nutshell:

    Everything must be open to the Jews. Everything. Anything else is double-plus bad--racist!, anti-Semitic! If any other group builds anything that is not open to the Jews ... evil, evil, evil!

    But Jewish, separatism, ethno-centrism, ethnic-networking ... that's all fine.

    ~

    The somewhat strange thing is it's basically impossible to find a (prominent) Jew who can deal with the *obvious* reality here honestly.

    Christianity, Islam, Buddhism are all universals religions.

    It is Judaism that is uniquely a *racial religion*. And one that is explicitly separatist\rejectionist, with all sorts of practices and sanctions to prevent Jewish mingling with and contamination by the goyim.

    I have no idea what my ancient Irish, English and Germanic ancestors were up to 2000 years back, but there weren't Christians. (Based on my predilections, i'd guess something Wickermanish involving big fires!) When Christianity came ... they went with the flow of their fellow countrymen. Simply partook of the new dominant religion of their lands.

    Jews are very proud of themselves, their history, but don't seem to quite want to except responsibility, that rather than being held apart by the majority, they--their ancestors--*chose* to reject, stay separate from the religion and culture of the majority. Rather than integrate into the culture of the places they lived, the Jews wanted\chose to stay separate, to instead keep themselves racially pure and practice a religion of racial supremacy\separatism while looting the goy majority. And what makes them Jews now is that they successfully kept up that separation for 2000 years. (The few Jews that were insufficiently racially separatist\supremacist melted into the majority and are *my* ancestors not theirs.)

    Branches of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Ortodoxy, Anglicanism, and lutheranism, are in practice ethnocentric. The Great Commission has not been taken seriously at all times and in all places during the last 2000 years.

  140. @km
    The more I reflect upon this subject, the more I wonder whether Steve is being rather selective with his material. Mad Men is informed by its creators' Jewish obsessions, but such things work in more than one way. For instance, the film adaptation of Mordechai Richler's Barney's Version shows Montreal WASPs as paragons of virtue and good looks among rustic Frenchmen and obnoxious Jews. Did Steve comment upon this film and its Jewish inspiration? True, it is a Canadian tale. Canadian Jews, like British ones, and French, and most others, are relatively less prone to the lamentations of their American counterparts, despite, oddly enough, less success and prominence. But this raises a question: perhaps American Jewish cultural output is so successful in the US because the outsider theme and underdog theme, among others, are tapping into the Protestant and Puritan substratum of the country? After all, no one is forced to watch Mad Men. May I also add that Jews are also fully capable of self-criticism. The Coen brothers' A Serious Man is an absolutely devastating film. Brutal dissection. So once again: why no WASPs making more positive films?

    PS: Steve was wrong about the Wolf. He is portrayed as Jewish. His parents are very clearly Jewish in the film.

    the film adaptation of Mordechai Richler’s Barney’s Version shows Montreal WASPs as paragons of virtue and good looks among rustic Frenchmen and obnoxious Jews. Did Steve comment upon this film and its Jewish inspiration? True, it is a Canadian tale

    And obscure even in Canada. Besides, in Quebec WASPs are a minority. Richler, who was quite an entertaining guy, spent the last decade of his life in constant conflict with his home province’s dominant ethnic majority. Jews in Quebec are more likely to keep an eye on Quebec nationalists whilst those in English Canada are focussed on Anglos, Christians, and homophobes. Though I think some prominent ones are starting to worry more about Muslims.

    Canadian Jews, like British ones, and French, and most others, are relatively less prone to the lamentations of their American counterparts

    Debatable. Especially with regards to France.

    But this raises a question: perhaps American Jewish cultural output is so successful in the US because the outsider theme and underdog theme, among others, are tapping into the Protestant and Puritan substratum of the country?

    Jews are very prominent in France’s entertainment industry. Many Jewish British and Canadian directors etc just go to Hollywood as its more lucrative and influential. Sam Mendes packed a harder punch with American Beauty than he would’ve done with some similar screenplay by a malcontented English gay activist.

    why no WASPs making more positive films?

    Maybe they don’t have the power anymore. From the outside they certainly look like a defeated people.

    • Replies: @km
    This didn't answer anything. Why is Mad Men a smashing hit while few have heard of Barney's Version, which was a rather good film? Steve goes on and on about Jewish artists, but never explains why everyone seems to like their cultural output, especially Americans, and will pay to see it. This is really a basic question of supply and demand.
  141. @Big Bill
    The "hate Israel=hate Jews" meme is their weak point. Flip the script. I tell everyone that I don't hate Israel, I "embrace" it. I "celebrate" it. I love it and see it as a wonderful working example of a successful ethnocentric supremacist white country.

    Think of all their successful cultural and political innovations: desert concentration camps for "illegal infiltrators", defining minority portions of the country as "security zones" under white military rule, 30 foot walls around ghettos, internal passports with racial/ethnic identifiers for everyone, barbed wire fences with advanced sensor systems around the entire country, segregated schools, contracting with foreign countries to haul thousands of illegal infiltrators away, no civil marriages, armed teen citizen soldiers riding public buses and keeping the peace, etc.

    What's not to like? And (as liberal AND conservative Jews are proud to point out) the goyim in Israel are STILL better off in in Israel than they are in their homelands!

    I LOVE these guys! They show, like no other nation in the world, that racial/ethnic supremacism is alive and well ... and it WORKS! God bless Israel and the Jewish Nation! Let them be an eternal example of what America can be, WILL be in the future, if we just follow the "Light unto the Nations".

    Well-put. Breathtaking even. I’m saving your post for re-use 😉

  142. A very well-written and cogent piece, Mr Sailer. But Weiner is just one of hundreds like him. Remember Steven Spielberg says that being teased as a child informed his later work. Apparently someone called him a Jew on the school playground–and a lot of Jews don’t realise that children can just be mean. They’re actually equal-opportunity meanies–whatever you got, they’ll hit you with. Little Nazis amirite?

  143. @Whiskey
    Steve, Weiner is a BS artist. There is a big interview with him (Lunch with the Financial Times) in the FT this weekend. He says none of that, in the interview, and I've seen other interviews with him on Deadline Hollywood (Nikki Finke's old site, not the new one) where he basically copped to setting Mad Men in the 1960s so that he could get women viewers to swoon over bad boy Don Draper. That in his words the sexism made bedroom scenes great.

    Nor is ethnic resentment a path to success. Think about it -- screenwriters must collaborate with actors and producers and directors, and even TV which is a show-runners/writers medium, needs collaboration with talented actors (dull ones don't generate viewers or excitement and cause cancellation). You can't run an enterprise costing about $66 million a year (production cost of $3 million times 22 episodes) minimum seething with ethnic resentment. Nor would Mad Men generate such a loyal viewership out of Jewish resentment because there are not that many Jews period. [And the show is not very Jewish either -- no matzoh balls or gefilte fish AFAIK, I've never watched it sounds dull to me, but then the Flash and Person of Interest and the Blacklist are my kind of shows.]

    Weiner is just another Show Business BS artist, telling a reporter what he wants to hear.

    Jews are in the US anyway, just another group of White people, like Italians or Irish. Israel is like Switzerland and Ireland, one of the Whitest nations on earth, just different in the way that Ireland and Switzerland are different in people and environment.

    More evidence of Weiner's BS: you'll note he did not blast the Murdoch Oligarchy. He'd no doubt like to work for Fox.

    Mad Men grew out of (according to the FT interview) Weiner sending in a script to David Chase, and the desire to appeal to women by showing bad old sexist days, but with sexy bad boys.

    “Jews are in the US anyway, just another group of White people, like Italians or Irish. Israel is like Switzerland and Ireland…”

    I read your entire post as ironic humor and found it entertaining. Sorry if you didn’t intend it that way.

  144. @Pat Hannagan
    I think the most fascinating thing that deserves the iSteve treatment is that no matter how much Jews demonstrate how much they hate WASPs and all things White, the more the WASPs and all things White really really love Jews.

    You said a mouthful. WASP people have had a collective Death Wish since–well, since they were trained that way by someone’s takeover of academe and the mass media. Can’t remember who that was, though…it’s right on the tip of my tongue…

  145. @Forbes

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call “moral porn” — playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today’s standard “correct” morality — however anachronistically — onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality.
     
    That was my first take on MM. The stereotypes and theatrical devices are played so far over the top as to be highly entertaining--assuming you recognize that. But I find so many people assuming it's an accurate portrayal--and assuming their moral superiority over the earlier era as to be disheartening. But then MM is not alone, nor the first to do it, in entertainment/Hollywood.

    I have a lot of fun discussing what I call ‘entertainment propaganda’ with friends and family. These are all people who by most objective standards are intelligent and accomplished individuals.

    I always ask, as subtly as possible, if they caught various subtexts and references in whatever example we’re discussing. 99% of the time, they didn’t, which means the propaganda was effective. The other 1% of the time, they pass off as trivial and irrelevant.

    People have no idea–no idea–why they think what they think.

  146. Weiner’s policy of not allowing British actors to play American characters stems from his eminently reasonable logic that his show “is so American, it should be played by Americans.”

    The one man in Hollywood willing to stick up for American actors is a resentful WASP-hating Jew? Interesting.

    He’s right, you know. Americans give off a vibe that Brits don’t. Some Brits are better at faking it than others, but few of them are nearly as convincing as they think they are.

    [I think this has been mostly bad, TV being an upper class female/gay ghetto, whereas shows like say Miami Vice or WKRP in Cincinnati were broader, made for the entire family and meant to be enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people not just upper class SJW types.]

    The idea of a “middlebrow” mainstream is long gone.

    At one time, Spaceship Earth at EPCOT was narrated by Walter Cronkite, who perfectly embodied the old middlebrow-American sensibility. His on-air persona was authoritative but approachable – not too high, not too low. One of his producers once said that the staff aimed the broadcast at the intelligence level of a “smart 12-year-old” – someone who could handle a wide range of material if things were spelled out clearly without too many big words.

    Disney dumped Cronkite for Brits – first Jeremy Irons, then Judi Dench.

    If you want to see how TV – the medium itself, apart from the sociopolitical content of the shows – has changed over the years, it’s illustrative to look at “boring” stuff like the Weather Channel.

    A two-hour block from 1995:

    A 90-minute block from 2014:

    In ’95, everything was “calmer” – even the commercials. The graphics were ugly but clean and informative. The music was soothing.

    Now the channel is an overproduced nightmare – frenetic and exhausting. The viewer never gets even a few seconds to catch his breath. There’s a lot of crap on the screen, but how much of it can anyone read, let alone understand?

    TV gives us more – a lot more – nowadays, but do we get more out of it? What good are slick HD graphics if they don’t stay on-screen long enough for us to make sense of them?

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Great stuff. I once got into an extended conversation (over email) with a Weather Channel programmer. He was quite friendly but denied that they had ever posted the forecast info without voiceovers announcing what we're seeing on the screen ("Your local forecast" and "Current Conditions" etc) with only music playing.

    Couldn't convince him otherwise. Never occurred to me that someone might have posted proof on YouTube. Yes, it was so pleasant you could leave it playing while you did other things (go back far enough and they didn't even have commercials).

    The goal of marketers in our society is to ensure that no surface remains untouched by their handiwork...and that goes for aural surfaces as well. Young people cannot understand what I'm talking about, or why I care. They have grown up in a society where everything must be monetized else it has no meaning.

  147. @Unknown Man
    "Matthew Weiner on How "Mad Men" Is Driven by His Resentment of WASP Country Clubs"

    My take on this is: The Jews did not care on bit about the country clubs, very overrated in terms of networking. Their real aim was the Ivy League. Once upon a time, most of the Ivy universities were Christian based and the route to power. The WASP response should have been, well your ancestors moved to the wrong country then. But they were too weak to make that case.

    I think clubs are more about socializing than networking. An old friend of my father is a member of the University Club in New York. They actually have a no business rule at the club, according to him. I took out a pen and pad in a conversation with him once there and he gestured for me to put it away and told me about that rule.

  148. For once I have to defend a fairly whiny Jew. Weiner definitely has an overstated sense of grievance, but Sailer comes across in this piece as overly bitter and snarky. Take the closing paragraph:

    But, of course, the real lesson is that racial resentment can be a great goad for your career. Here’s Matthew Weiner, son of a leading neurologist and a lawyer who stopped practicing to keep house, yet it still drives him nuts that Jews were a minority at Harvard School for Boys. He gets up in the morning and goes to work to get revenge for that.

    Small-minded seems a fair description. I doubt Sailer has watched enough of the show to care, but it’s actually considerably fair-minded, even where Weiner’s liberal biases and somewhat overstated examples of period sexism should push it over the edge. Getting a show anywhere near this level of quality is extremely difficult, but Sailer seems obsessed with issues that Weiner doesn’t bring to the table.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Says you. From my vantage (and that of many others), 'Mad Men' is a glossy but predictable soap opera with overwrought racist and/or sexist agitprop carefully interleaved into nearly every scene. Smug and incredibly tiresome with its endless socio-political clichés. There now...Snarky and bitter enough for ya?

    I will grant you one thing, though: Weiner is effectively re-writing history, and he knows it. Most people get their education from tripe like 'Mad Men'.
  149. @Udolpho
    For once I have to defend a fairly whiny Jew. Weiner definitely has an overstated sense of grievance, but Sailer comes across in this piece as overly bitter and snarky. Take the closing paragraph:

    But, of course, the real lesson is that racial resentment can be a great goad for your career. Here’s Matthew Weiner, son of a leading neurologist and a lawyer who stopped practicing to keep house, yet it still drives him nuts that Jews were a minority at Harvard School for Boys. He gets up in the morning and goes to work to get revenge for that.
     
    Small-minded seems a fair description. I doubt Sailer has watched enough of the show to care, but it's actually considerably fair-minded, even where Weiner's liberal biases and somewhat overstated examples of period sexism should push it over the edge. Getting a show anywhere near this level of quality is extremely difficult, but Sailer seems obsessed with issues that Weiner doesn't bring to the table.

    Says you. From my vantage (and that of many others), ‘Mad Men’ is a glossy but predictable soap opera with overwrought racist and/or sexist agitprop carefully interleaved into nearly every scene. Smug and incredibly tiresome with its endless socio-political clichés. There now…Snarky and bitter enough for ya?

    I will grant you one thing, though: Weiner is effectively re-writing history, and he knows it. Most people get their education from tripe like ‘Mad Men’.

  150. “Small-minded seems a fair description. I doubt Sailer has watched enough of the show to care, but it’s actually considerably fair-minded, even where Weiner’s liberal biases and somewhat overstated examples of period sexism should push it over the edge. ”

    Second this take. Steve is definitely overselling his case when interpreting Weiner as “getting up every day motivated by revenge” or “much of television being driven by country clubs”. I certainly don’t agree with Weiner’s opinions at all. But there’s really nothing to indicate that these particular beliefs form the underlying core of Mad Men, or even that he thinks about them much at all.

    Weiner’s being interviewed for a magazine that’s explicitly devoted to American Jewish life regarding his personal background. Similarly if he was being interviewed by Car and Driver he might express a personal about how CAFE standards affected auto design in the 70s. That wouldn’t mean that Mad Men is fundamentally a critique of the EPA.

    In the dozens of Mad Men episodes and hundreds of Weiner interviews, “Jewish issues” are maybe mentioned 2% of the time. For a show about the Jewish struggle, there isn’t even a primary Jewish character. Contrary to what modern race hustlers will have you believe, somebody can (incorrectly) believe their group was discriminated against, and not endlessly agonize over it in every little thing they do.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Obviously this would be unprovable absent a detailed, colossal analysis, but my remark upthread seems pertinent: if you're aware of the propaganda, it's not doing its job.

    What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It's what he does with his show that matters.
    , @Anonymous
    In the dozens of Mad Men episodes and hundreds of Weiner interviews, “Jewish issues” are maybe mentioned 2% of the time. For a show about the Jewish struggle, there isn’t even a primary Jewish character. Contrar

    Judaism is an aggressive racial stratagem. "Jewish issues" therefore include the denigration of potential competitors--outgroups (especially their men) and cultural practices that help maintain such outgroups.

    Exhibit A: Mad Men
  151. @Stan Adams

    Weiner’s policy of not allowing British actors to play American characters stems from his eminently reasonable logic that his show “is so American, it should be played by Americans.”
     
    The one man in Hollywood willing to stick up for American actors is a resentful WASP-hating Jew? Interesting.

    He's right, you know. Americans give off a vibe that Brits don't. Some Brits are better at faking it than others, but few of them are nearly as convincing as they think they are.

    [I think this has been mostly bad, TV being an upper class female/gay ghetto, whereas shows like say Miami Vice or WKRP in Cincinnati were broader, made for the entire family and meant to be enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people not just upper class SJW types.]
     
    The idea of a "middlebrow" mainstream is long gone.

    At one time, Spaceship Earth at EPCOT was narrated by Walter Cronkite, who perfectly embodied the old middlebrow-American sensibility. His on-air persona was authoritative but approachable - not too high, not too low. One of his producers once said that the staff aimed the broadcast at the intelligence level of a "smart 12-year-old" - someone who could handle a wide range of material if things were spelled out clearly without too many big words.

    Disney dumped Cronkite for Brits - first Jeremy Irons, then Judi Dench.

    If you want to see how TV - the medium itself, apart from the sociopolitical content of the shows - has changed over the years, it's illustrative to look at "boring" stuff like the Weather Channel.

    A two-hour block from 1995:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_NCehduFTI

    A 90-minute block from 2014:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmLsKNUAN7k

    In '95, everything was "calmer" - even the commercials. The graphics were ugly but clean and informative. The music was soothing.

    Now the channel is an overproduced nightmare - frenetic and exhausting. The viewer never gets even a few seconds to catch his breath. There's a lot of crap on the screen, but how much of it can anyone read, let alone understand?

    TV gives us more - a lot more - nowadays, but do we get more out of it? What good are slick HD graphics if they don't stay on-screen long enough for us to make sense of them?

    Great stuff. I once got into an extended conversation (over email) with a Weather Channel programmer. He was quite friendly but denied that they had ever posted the forecast info without voiceovers announcing what we’re seeing on the screen (“Your local forecast” and “Current Conditions” etc) with only music playing.

    Couldn’t convince him otherwise. Never occurred to me that someone might have posted proof on YouTube. Yes, it was so pleasant you could leave it playing while you did other things (go back far enough and they didn’t even have commercials).

    The goal of marketers in our society is to ensure that no surface remains untouched by their handiwork…and that goes for aural surfaces as well. Young people cannot understand what I’m talking about, or why I care. They have grown up in a society where everything must be monetized else it has no meaning.

  152. @Doug
    "Small-minded seems a fair description. I doubt Sailer has watched enough of the show to care, but it’s actually considerably fair-minded, even where Weiner’s liberal biases and somewhat overstated examples of period sexism should push it over the edge. "

    Second this take. Steve is definitely overselling his case when interpreting Weiner as "getting up every day motivated by revenge" or "much of television being driven by country clubs". I certainly don't agree with Weiner's opinions at all. But there's really nothing to indicate that these particular beliefs form the underlying core of Mad Men, or even that he thinks about them much at all.

    Weiner's being interviewed for a magazine that's explicitly devoted to American Jewish life regarding his personal background. Similarly if he was being interviewed by Car and Driver he might express a personal about how CAFE standards affected auto design in the 70s. That wouldn't mean that Mad Men is fundamentally a critique of the EPA.

    In the dozens of Mad Men episodes and hundreds of Weiner interviews, "Jewish issues" are maybe mentioned 2% of the time. For a show about the Jewish struggle, there isn't even a primary Jewish character. Contrary to what modern race hustlers will have you believe, somebody can (incorrectly) believe their group was discriminated against, and not endlessly agonize over it in every little thing they do.

    Obviously this would be unprovable absent a detailed, colossal analysis, but my remark upthread seems pertinent: if you’re aware of the propaganda, it’s not doing its job.

    What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It’s what he does with his show that matters.

    • Replies: @Doug
    " if you’re aware of the propaganda, it’s not doing its job."

    You're begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion. You claim work X is driven by theme Y. When challenged, with the absence of any significant appearance of Y in X, you cite it as a strength, rather than weakness, to the argument. The ostensible absence is merely evidence of highly effective propaganda, which only goes to prove how well integrated Y is in X. This line of reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. The most outlandish claims about literary works become the most likely. Lord of the Rings is really about Quebecois independence, the fact that it doesn't make sense proves how carefully Tolkien crafted his propaganda.

    "What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It’s what he does with his show that matters."

    Given the fact that the entirety of the Steve's post was an analysis of Weiner's interview, I don't think its particularly irrelevant to this discussion.
  153. @Kyle McKenna
    Obviously this would be unprovable absent a detailed, colossal analysis, but my remark upthread seems pertinent: if you're aware of the propaganda, it's not doing its job.

    What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It's what he does with his show that matters.

    ” if you’re aware of the propaganda, it’s not doing its job.”

    You’re begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion. You claim work X is driven by theme Y. When challenged, with the absence of any significant appearance of Y in X, you cite it as a strength, rather than weakness, to the argument. The ostensible absence is merely evidence of highly effective propaganda, which only goes to prove how well integrated Y is in X. This line of reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. The most outlandish claims about literary works become the most likely. Lord of the Rings is really about Quebecois independence, the fact that it doesn’t make sense proves how carefully Tolkien crafted his propaganda.

    “What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It’s what he does with his show that matters.”

    Given the fact that the entirety of the Steve’s post was an analysis of Weiner’s interview, I don’t think its particularly irrelevant to this discussion.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Weiner just explained at length to David Samuels that "Mad Men" is consciously driven by his high school ethnic resentments.

    Like I said in 2009, however, Weiner has certain artistic urges and skills that he doesn't really understand himself, but that make "Mad Men" better than it would be if it was only driven by Weiner's conscious emotions.

    , @Kyle McKenna
    The witness is directed to the first clause of the first sentence of my post. The analysis I mention would, in my opinion, be quite fruitful and productive, but would require enormous resources. If you would like to contribute yours, have at it.

    Here's a place to start: what you call the "absence of any significant appearance" I call examples too subtle and well-integrated to attract most people's attention.

    , @Daniel H
    >>You’re begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion.

    "begging the question", "unfalsifiable assertion" ???

    You're at the wrong blog.

  154. @Doug
    " if you’re aware of the propaganda, it’s not doing its job."

    You're begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion. You claim work X is driven by theme Y. When challenged, with the absence of any significant appearance of Y in X, you cite it as a strength, rather than weakness, to the argument. The ostensible absence is merely evidence of highly effective propaganda, which only goes to prove how well integrated Y is in X. This line of reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. The most outlandish claims about literary works become the most likely. Lord of the Rings is really about Quebecois independence, the fact that it doesn't make sense proves how carefully Tolkien crafted his propaganda.

    "What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It’s what he does with his show that matters."

    Given the fact that the entirety of the Steve's post was an analysis of Weiner's interview, I don't think its particularly irrelevant to this discussion.

    Weiner just explained at length to David Samuels that “Mad Men” is consciously driven by his high school ethnic resentments.

    Like I said in 2009, however, Weiner has certain artistic urges and skills that he doesn’t really understand himself, but that make “Mad Men” better than it would be if it was only driven by Weiner’s conscious emotions.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Like I said in 2009, however, Weiner has certain artistic urges and skills that he doesn’t really understand himself, but that make “Mad Men” better than it would be if it was only driven by Weiner’s conscious emotions."

    Yeah, this conflict between artistic urges and skills and conscious emotions really comes out where Black characters are concerned:

    And that stance is responsible for the rare (and therefore especially grating) heavy-handed and patronizing touches in an otherwise nuanced drama. Must the only regular black characters be a noble and cool elevator operator, a noble and understanding housekeeper, and a perceptive and politicized supermarket clerk? Must said elevator operator, who goes unnoticed by the less sensitive characters, sagely say when discussing Marilyn Monroe’s death, “Some people just hide in plain sight”? Get it—he’s talking about himself.
     
    Weiner has been under a lot of pressure to have a significant Black character on the show, but he knows what that would mean. His surface liberalism would turn the character into the kind of OTT racial symbol that Schwartz excoriates.The artist in Weiner balks at that.
    , @Desiderius
    Mad Men is Jerry Springer with better aesthetics.

    The WASP envy stuff is a smokescreen so that the rubes being looked down on (i.e. having our history defamed) don't catch on to the ruse.

  155. Didn’t Michael Barone write once that Jews always vote against the Czar? So Jews, no matter their heights of success, are always worried about pogroms, even though in the United States they have long ceased being Hofjuden and are now masters of the universe in their own right.

  156. @Doug
    " if you’re aware of the propaganda, it’s not doing its job."

    You're begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion. You claim work X is driven by theme Y. When challenged, with the absence of any significant appearance of Y in X, you cite it as a strength, rather than weakness, to the argument. The ostensible absence is merely evidence of highly effective propaganda, which only goes to prove how well integrated Y is in X. This line of reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. The most outlandish claims about literary works become the most likely. Lord of the Rings is really about Quebecois independence, the fact that it doesn't make sense proves how carefully Tolkien crafted his propaganda.

    "What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It’s what he does with his show that matters."

    Given the fact that the entirety of the Steve's post was an analysis of Weiner's interview, I don't think its particularly irrelevant to this discussion.

    The witness is directed to the first clause of the first sentence of my post. The analysis I mention would, in my opinion, be quite fruitful and productive, but would require enormous resources. If you would like to contribute yours, have at it.

    Here’s a place to start: what you call the “absence of any significant appearance” I call examples too subtle and well-integrated to attract most people’s attention.

  157. High School is the first place you look in the bathroom mirror and see the ugly pig face of status staring back at you.’ Little You’ used to be adored and now you are ignored. A lot of people have grudges and resentments from high school but only Jewish people are taught that these resentments are totally justified and evidence of genocidal feelings on the part of non Jews. They are taught to think these HS resentments are about their very survival so they better squash it quash it and erase it from the memory of the world. Most people go on and sort of forget about these resentments but Jewish people are taught to blow on those slights like embers on a survival show. Never forget(‘I remember when Jack Whitney stepped in front of me in line at the cafeteria!’).

    Who were those people who did bad shit to the Jews waay back when? Oh yeah…..the Amalekites(how do you spell that?). Those bastards, how dare they! Make them disappear! Blot out their memory!(only 372K hits on Google).
    Men women and children should be beaten to death with Drivers and Cricket bats gathered from the playing fields of the Amalekite Golf and Cricket Club.

    Jewish people are taught to rehearse the resentments, the rest of us say,
    ” Oh well it does not make me happy”

  158. @nglaer
    Somewhat off topic, but I wonder if Steve has watched Breaking Bad as much as Mad Men. It has pretty much nothing to do with Jews, which is pretty rare for a major cultural event on TV.

    I’ve watched 6 hours of “Mad Men,” 6 hours of “Breaking Bad,” 6 hours of “Downton Abbey.” These are good shows, but I get bored with dramas after, oh, say, 6 hours. That’s enough to get what the creator’s world is about, and I don’t really care about what happens to the characters since they aren’t real. In general, I figure out the artist’s tricks pretty fast and get bored, which is why I like 2 hour movies: because pretty soon they are over.

    I watched 9 hours of “Lord of the Rings” because it was extremely good, but the last half hour was kind of a drag.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The top movie critic of the century, Stephen Hunter who used to write for the Washington Post, had trouble sitting all the way through a movie. He'd show up late and leave early. An hour was plenty of inspiration for him.

    Hugh Kenner recounted that Marshall McCluhan was always dragging him to movies, but McCluhan could only sit through about 20 minutes of his choice before walking out so he could theorize about what he'd seen for the rest of the evening at a bar.
    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. Sailer:
    I (humbly, who am I to say that) commend you for actually watching the particular movies in full, the ones you later write a review about.
    Without ever reading reviews by Stephen Hunter or by Marshall McCluhan, mentioned by you in the next your post, I have nothing to say about them. A priory I disapprove their superficial approach.
    , @Boomstick
    From the great "Metropolitan":

    Audrey Rouget: What Jane Austen novels have you read?

    Tom Townsend: None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.
     
  159. Hancock Park is western neighbor to Koreatown, while the poorest congressional district in the US is eastern neighbor to Koreatown.

    That’s just goofy.

  160. @Steve Sailer
    I've watched 6 hours of "Mad Men," 6 hours of "Breaking Bad," 6 hours of "Downton Abbey." These are good shows, but I get bored with dramas after, oh, say, 6 hours. That's enough to get what the creator's world is about, and I don't really care about what happens to the characters since they aren't real. In general, I figure out the artist's tricks pretty fast and get bored, which is why I like 2 hour movies: because pretty soon they are over.

    I watched 9 hours of "Lord of the Rings" because it was extremely good, but the last half hour was kind of a drag.

    The top movie critic of the century, Stephen Hunter who used to write for the Washington Post, had trouble sitting all the way through a movie. He’d show up late and leave early. An hour was plenty of inspiration for him.

    Hugh Kenner recounted that Marshall McCluhan was always dragging him to movies, but McCluhan could only sit through about 20 minutes of his choice before walking out so he could theorize about what he’d seen for the rest of the evening at a bar.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Not sure who the top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?) but I don't think it was Stephen Hunter. As Exhibit A, I present his review of Starship Troopers. As frenzied, paranoid Hebraic interpretation* of the world as you'll find, and AFAIK Hunter isn't even of the tribe. Though he was writing for the WP...

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here's the exceedingly strange new movie "Starship Troopers" commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, "Sieg Heil!"

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It's an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it's Nazi to the core.
     
    See Stephen Hunter, "Goosestepping at the Movies: Starship Troopers and the Nazi Aesthetic," Washington Post , 11 Nov. 1997.

    Alas, I can't find his classic quote therein about the equation of Giant Bugs with Chosen People.

    Stephen Hunter: I think Starship Troopers was the best Nazi movie ever made, much better than "Triumph of the Will."
     
    * Sorry if that's a tad redundant.
  161. @JohnnyWalker123
    She seems to have been rather successful. The Weiners have been married almost 25 years, which is amazing by Hollywood standards.

    By the way, I'd add that there are a lot of of very beautiful Jewish adventuresses these days. Many of them are of Russian and Persian Jewish origin. The Russian girls are particularly adventuresome. That's a lesson Mel Gibson found out the hard way when he dated a Russian Jewish woman (Oksana Grigorieva,).

    Speaking of Weiners, Anthony Weiner learned a lesson about Jewish adventuresses just a few years ago.

    Curious to find out what you meant by “adventuresses” I Goggled Grigivoria. In old money, that’s a hoh right?
    She just shook her money-maker and it just keeps rolling in.
    At least a traditional hoh just does cash-and carry, but she has two kids as collateral damage to her single-mother adventure.
    What’s the difference between a welfare witch and Grigoveria?
    The amount they can screw out of a father, apparently.

    From the Daily Mail:

    “In 2011, Gibson admitted a 2010 battery charge filed by his ex Grigorieva.
    It was reported that Gibson initially offered his ex a settlement of $15million, but she refused.

    Radar report that Grigorieva is currently paid $20,000 a month in child support, and receives an additional $2,500 a month from her other ex, James Bond actor Timothy Dalton.

    A source tells the publication she is now worried Gibson will fight for full custody of their daughter Lucia.

  162. Let me do a rough draft on my concept of the Ethnocentric Liberal Jew — Matthew Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, etc. — and why they are the central pivot of the culture.

    A lot of people on the left are on the left because they aren’t very effectual and they resent people who are. They tend to have leapfrogging loyalties because they feel inferior.

    A lot of people on the right are on the right because they understand that it’s difficult to get organized and they respect organization and teamwork and enjoy competition. They tend to have concentric loyalties.

    In the middle you get a small number of people who are conservative by personality and liberal by family heritage. They’re good at getting things done and they like teaming up and winning, but they don’t waste time and money on college football teams and the like when they can promote their ethnic interests.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The leapfrogging/concentric loyalties idea is not really a good description of political affiliation. Both people on the left and right have "leapfrogging loyalties"; they just differ on what they are. Rightists don't have "concentric loyalties"; they leapfrog to a certain level and suppress loyalties within and beyond the level. The whole point of nationalism, for example, is to focus loyalties on the level of the nation and to suppress sub-national and supra-national loyalties. I've never heard of anyone saying that they had concentric loyalties or behaving as if they did.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    I think this is a fairly good model for intelligentsia.

    For common people, I think this model is somewhat less applicable. For example, union men are well organized and understand teamwork. They also tend to be highly masculine and patriotic. Union guys are typically Democrats though. So what are they? Was Jimmy Hoffa a liberal or conservative?
  163. What I find most significant is the envy of the cotillion. I doubt very much that the WASP boys liked having to go, and most of us, of course, didn’t go and didn’t miss it, WASP or not. Yet it rankles for Weiner and the other nouveau riche. And they think they would have been invited if they hadn’t been Jewish, which they wouldn’t have.

  164. @Rifleman
    Time for a post on the legendary Dick Wolf!

    Famous for all the "Law and Order" agit prop but lets not forget 1992's "School Ties"!!

    A Jewish boy goes to an elite prep school in the 1950's and hides his religion until a jealous bigot forces it out in the open.
     

    Taglines: Just Because You're Accepted Doesn't Mean You Belong.
     
    David Green is brought into a prestigious 1950s school to help their football team to beat the school's old rivals. David, however, is from a working class background, so he isn't really "one of them", but he's very successful at making friends. David is a Jew, and has to keep this a secret from his friends for fear of being rejected.

    Dick Wolf has a Jewish father and Irish Catholic mother. Seems to be naturally more Jewish identified if only in a secular tribal way.

    I remember when School Ties came out for Paramount and Sherry Lansing the Jewish president of Paramount was VERY enthusiastic about the movie seeing it as an important statement about the Hell Jews in America had to overcome.

    Related to all this I always remember how important it was for many Jews when Disney studios was taken over by Jews and that deep wound was finally healed when the Evil Anti Semite Walt Disney was finally vanquished.

    I knew David Simon of The Wire, and big fan of Martyred Saint Trayvon Martin, was basically a Jewish bigot but I had though Matthew Weiner was beyond that. But I was wrong.

    So Lennie Brisco was Dick Wolf ‘s self-insert character?

  165. @Jonathan Silber
    What’s happening is millions of people being able to bypass the old media checkpoints where anyone trying to get an idea past them got strip searched and shaken down for bribes.

    Now that's some mighty fine writing, Cagey Beast, if I may say so. One rarely, if ever, reads anything in the old stale media with that kind of pizzaz.

    Thank you.

  166. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Doug
    "Small-minded seems a fair description. I doubt Sailer has watched enough of the show to care, but it’s actually considerably fair-minded, even where Weiner’s liberal biases and somewhat overstated examples of period sexism should push it over the edge. "

    Second this take. Steve is definitely overselling his case when interpreting Weiner as "getting up every day motivated by revenge" or "much of television being driven by country clubs". I certainly don't agree with Weiner's opinions at all. But there's really nothing to indicate that these particular beliefs form the underlying core of Mad Men, or even that he thinks about them much at all.

    Weiner's being interviewed for a magazine that's explicitly devoted to American Jewish life regarding his personal background. Similarly if he was being interviewed by Car and Driver he might express a personal about how CAFE standards affected auto design in the 70s. That wouldn't mean that Mad Men is fundamentally a critique of the EPA.

    In the dozens of Mad Men episodes and hundreds of Weiner interviews, "Jewish issues" are maybe mentioned 2% of the time. For a show about the Jewish struggle, there isn't even a primary Jewish character. Contrary to what modern race hustlers will have you believe, somebody can (incorrectly) believe their group was discriminated against, and not endlessly agonize over it in every little thing they do.

    In the dozens of Mad Men episodes and hundreds of Weiner interviews, “Jewish issues” are maybe mentioned 2% of the time. For a show about the Jewish struggle, there isn’t even a primary Jewish character. Contrar

    Judaism is an aggressive racial stratagem. “Jewish issues” therefore include the denigration of potential competitors–outgroups (especially their men) and cultural practices that help maintain such outgroups.

    Exhibit A: Mad Men

  167. @Steve Sailer
    Weiner just explained at length to David Samuels that "Mad Men" is consciously driven by his high school ethnic resentments.

    Like I said in 2009, however, Weiner has certain artistic urges and skills that he doesn't really understand himself, but that make "Mad Men" better than it would be if it was only driven by Weiner's conscious emotions.

    “Like I said in 2009, however, Weiner has certain artistic urges and skills that he doesn’t really understand himself, but that make “Mad Men” better than it would be if it was only driven by Weiner’s conscious emotions.”

    Yeah, this conflict between artistic urges and skills and conscious emotions really comes out where Black characters are concerned:

    And that stance is responsible for the rare (and therefore especially grating) heavy-handed and patronizing touches in an otherwise nuanced drama. Must the only regular black characters be a noble and cool elevator operator, a noble and understanding housekeeper, and a perceptive and politicized supermarket clerk? Must said elevator operator, who goes unnoticed by the less sensitive characters, sagely say when discussing Marilyn Monroe’s death, “Some people just hide in plain sight”? Get it—he’s talking about himself.

    Weiner has been under a lot of pressure to have a significant Black character on the show, but he knows what that would mean. His surface liberalism would turn the character into the kind of OTT racial symbol that Schwartz excoriates.The artist in Weiner balks at that.

  168. @Steve Sailer
    Weiner just explained at length to David Samuels that "Mad Men" is consciously driven by his high school ethnic resentments.

    Like I said in 2009, however, Weiner has certain artistic urges and skills that he doesn't really understand himself, but that make "Mad Men" better than it would be if it was only driven by Weiner's conscious emotions.

    Mad Men is Jerry Springer with better aesthetics.

    The WASP envy stuff is a smokescreen so that the rubes being looked down on (i.e. having our history defamed) don’t catch on to the ruse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The WASP envy stuff is a smokescreen so that the rubes being looked down on (i.e. having our history defamed) don’t catch on to the ruse.

    It seems you may be making an interesting observation here. Please explain. Smokescreen for what? Who are the rubes?
  169. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I've watched 6 hours of "Mad Men," 6 hours of "Breaking Bad," 6 hours of "Downton Abbey." These are good shows, but I get bored with dramas after, oh, say, 6 hours. That's enough to get what the creator's world is about, and I don't really care about what happens to the characters since they aren't real. In general, I figure out the artist's tricks pretty fast and get bored, which is why I like 2 hour movies: because pretty soon they are over.

    I watched 9 hours of "Lord of the Rings" because it was extremely good, but the last half hour was kind of a drag.

    Dear Mr. Sailer:
    I (humbly, who am I to say that) commend you for actually watching the particular movies in full, the ones you later write a review about.
    Without ever reading reviews by Stephen Hunter or by Marshall McCluhan, mentioned by you in the next your post, I have nothing to say about them. A priory I disapprove their superficial approach.

  170. @candid_observer
    I just the last few weeks started watching Mad Men.

    It's been a really disappointing experience. Yes, the period detail is pretty fascinating. But the entire energy of the show comes from its never ending reinterpretation of the sixties in the light of our current Zeitgeist. Every episode and every dramatic moment is animated by a question of: how are women being treated? how are blacks being treated? How are Jews being treated? You can hear in your head the invisible audience gasping at every such moment: OMG, did you hear what he said? I am so disgusted, and superior to that!

    If you take away that cheap thrill of moral superiority, what's left of the series? Anything?

    Hollywood seems to make its living these days trucking in what I would call "moral porn" -- playing to our lowest moral impulses. The standard method is to take an earlier era, or removed subculture (such as Southern whites, or Evangelicals), and project today's standard "correct" morality -- however anachronistically -- onto that setting, dividing the good and evil people in that setting by how well they conform to our morality. If, say, Napoleon is supposed to be a good guy in a movie, you will know because he has a black guy whom he treats with respect because he's a great artillery officer; if he's supposed to be a bad guy, he'll talk about how those blacks are just animals.

    I find this kind of relentless sermonizing in art repulsive; I just can't stomach it.

    But I can only conclude that I'm a pretty rare bird, because stuff like this sells like nobody's business.

    Thanks for confirming exactly what I expected Mad Men to be, and why I didn’t even try to watch it.

    What you get is one Jewish man’s interpretation of what contemporary mores are, projected onto the past. But because it’s moving pictures, it tattoos itself onto people’s brains and the history teachers of 2040 who are dopey teenage girls now, will teach the series’ atmosphere as fact.

    Partaking of any historical fiction is generally a bad idea if you want to get an accurate picture of what the past was like.

    No, the ancient Romans didn’t have the kind adolescent angst about gender roles that we’re familiar with. No, Victorians weren’t very worried about human rights. People were different.

  171. @Desiderius
    Mad Men is Jerry Springer with better aesthetics.

    The WASP envy stuff is a smokescreen so that the rubes being looked down on (i.e. having our history defamed) don't catch on to the ruse.

    The WASP envy stuff is a smokescreen so that the rubes being looked down on (i.e. having our history defamed) don’t catch on to the ruse.

    It seems you may be making an interesting observation here. Please explain. Smokescreen for what? Who are the rubes?

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Smokescreen for what?
     
    The lurid defamation of an entire era and it's people.

    Who are the rubes?
     
    Those inclined, whether from age, upbringing (or lack thereof), ideology, or ignorance to take it as an accurate, let alone evocative, depiction.

    Look, to the extent I was able to watch it, I think Hamm managed to subvert all that and make it about a suppressed masculinity that those who missed that era are definitely missing now, but I have little doubt what Weiner himself intended it to be about.
  172. @advancedatheist
    My maternal grandfather, Ervin Langley (1907-2001), grew up in the Ozarks and had black hair as a young man. He identified his family's roots as "black Irish." But then many of the riffraff kinds of white people migrated from the British Isles to the American colonies and became the ancestors of much of the South's white population.

    This is ridicoules, there are many Scottish/WASP people, that have pale skin/blue eyes/black hair. Look up millenial woes, youtube commentator. Black hair does not indicate non-wasp ancestry lol. There are tons of slavs with blonde/light features, yet they are non-white by WASP standards which is ridicoules. To all outsiders, you people are the same, it’s tiring to see so much infighting of pettiness.

    Plus recent genetic tests have revealed that WASPS have much more in common with Irish people via DNA, then it was previously believed. They share a lot in common genetically, and the Germanic ancestry is minor.

  173. km says:
    @Matra
    the film adaptation of Mordechai Richler’s Barney’s Version shows Montreal WASPs as paragons of virtue and good looks among rustic Frenchmen and obnoxious Jews. Did Steve comment upon this film and its Jewish inspiration? True, it is a Canadian tale

    And obscure even in Canada. Besides, in Quebec WASPs are a minority. Richler, who was quite an entertaining guy, spent the last decade of his life in constant conflict with his home province's dominant ethnic majority. Jews in Quebec are more likely to keep an eye on Quebec nationalists whilst those in English Canada are focussed on Anglos, Christians, and homophobes. Though I think some prominent ones are starting to worry more about Muslims.

    Canadian Jews, like British ones, and French, and most others, are relatively less prone to the lamentations of their American counterparts

    Debatable. Especially with regards to France.

    But this raises a question: perhaps American Jewish cultural output is so successful in the US because the outsider theme and underdog theme, among others, are tapping into the Protestant and Puritan substratum of the country?

    Jews are very prominent in France's entertainment industry. Many Jewish British and Canadian directors etc just go to Hollywood as its more lucrative and influential. Sam Mendes packed a harder punch with American Beauty than he would've done with some similar screenplay by a malcontented English gay activist.

    why no WASPs making more positive films?

    Maybe they don't have the power anymore. From the outside they certainly look like a defeated people.

    This didn’t answer anything. Why is Mad Men a smashing hit while few have heard of Barney’s Version, which was a rather good film? Steve goes on and on about Jewish artists, but never explains why everyone seems to like their cultural output, especially Americans, and will pay to see it. This is really a basic question of supply and demand.

  174. @yaqub the mad scientist
    They do that a lot, with these pseudo-historical action films where characters say things that nobody would have said during that period. I don't expect to see any films that honestly portray people as they understood themselves any time soon, though I'm not a movie buff and I've probably missed something.

    It's like dropping some fellow in a time machine to comfort the audience that they really don't have to take these long-dead people seriously. Tocqueville noted how democratic man denies ancestors and hides descendants.

    This seems to be a peculiar form of hate creep. Soon we will be treated to “period” pieces in which slavery still existed during World War II and the tech boom of the 1990s was really the story of a few spunky Jewish kids overcoming rampant antisemitism to bring about the Internet age.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Isn't that the plot of "The Social Network?"
  175. @Honorary Thief
    This seems to be a peculiar form of hate creep. Soon we will be treated to "period" pieces in which slavery still existed during World War II and the tech boom of the 1990s was really the story of a few spunky Jewish kids overcoming rampant antisemitism to bring about the Internet age.

    Isn’t that the plot of “The Social Network?”

  176. @Anonymous

    As to Wiener, as an Irishman from NYC,struck how Weiner repeatedly slagged on us Mcs as little more than drunken dumb thugs. Yet how reverential he was of the shiva. Suspect Weiner didn’t like Irish guys or had some kind of issue growing up.
     
    I wouldn't blame him, if he had some significant experience with east coast Irish, a majority of whom I experienced to be mean little shitheads when push comes to shove.

    Irish from Ireland would give you the shirts off their backs, but east coast Irish tend to be just mean and clannish, plain and simple.

    Look to Boston Irish Catholics to get a taste of the archetype. Crazy clannish drunk fucks who think they're more than they are. Rent a video of Denis Leary. Wiki up the Kennedy's. Also, see "gangs of new york." I'm sure it wasn't exaggerated. The remnants of that strange mass pathology still permeate the east coast Irish psyche. Anger management is not their strong suite. Neither is knowing their implicit limitations.

    My grandparents were very careful to convey to my dad the difference between “lace curtain Irish” and “shanty Irish” … and that they were “lace curtain Irish”. This my dad in turn conveyed to me when our (upper middle class) next door neighbors displayed some profoundly “shanty Irish” behavior.

    ~~~

    That said, the truth is the WASPs would have been well served not to let *anyone* into the country but fellow WASPs. I’d say the Germanics have adapted pretty well. Good solid, community oriented Germanic farmers make Iowa–where my family hails from–a really pleasant place. (Of course, SAT out-migration has taken its toll on the stock and mexican kids are starting to creep into the schools.)

    But overall, while the Jews have been the outright disaster for America, the WASPs would have been better off keeping everyone out and peopling it a bit more slowly by natural increase.

  177. Do Jews do something to their navels as well as their penis?

    ‘cuz there’s an extraordinary amount of Jewish navel gazing that goes on.

  178. @Doug
    " if you’re aware of the propaganda, it’s not doing its job."

    You're begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion. You claim work X is driven by theme Y. When challenged, with the absence of any significant appearance of Y in X, you cite it as a strength, rather than weakness, to the argument. The ostensible absence is merely evidence of highly effective propaganda, which only goes to prove how well integrated Y is in X. This line of reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. The most outlandish claims about literary works become the most likely. Lord of the Rings is really about Quebecois independence, the fact that it doesn't make sense proves how carefully Tolkien crafted his propaganda.

    "What Mr Weiner says in interviews is frankly irrelevant. It’s what he does with his show that matters."

    Given the fact that the entirety of the Steve's post was an analysis of Weiner's interview, I don't think its particularly irrelevant to this discussion.

    >>You’re begging the question with an unfalsifiable assertion.

    “begging the question”, “unfalsifiable assertion” ???

    You’re at the wrong blog.

  179. @Steve Sailer
    I've watched 6 hours of "Mad Men," 6 hours of "Breaking Bad," 6 hours of "Downton Abbey." These are good shows, but I get bored with dramas after, oh, say, 6 hours. That's enough to get what the creator's world is about, and I don't really care about what happens to the characters since they aren't real. In general, I figure out the artist's tricks pretty fast and get bored, which is why I like 2 hour movies: because pretty soon they are over.

    I watched 9 hours of "Lord of the Rings" because it was extremely good, but the last half hour was kind of a drag.

    From the great “Metropolitan”:

    Audrey Rouget: What Jane Austen novels have you read?

    Tom Townsend: None. I don’t read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists’ ideas as well as the critics’ thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it’s all just made up by the author.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
    Metropolitan was a great film. Too bad Stillman's oeuvre is so small and the media/general interest in it so limited.

    The most revealing part of the exchange from which you quote is when Tom reveals that he, a WASP, actually has all his ideas on English literature filtered through the thinking of Lionel Trilling and other Jewish literary critics. The WASP doesn't actually consume even "his own" literature directly but only through Jewish criticism of it.

    The cultural metaphor is pitch perfect.

  180. @SFG
    So neoteny is proceeding, and the generation after them will wear diapers? And after them, they will exist in womb-like virtual reality environments?

    There is quite a bit to this 'arrested development' bit. At the age of 36, I am finally losing interest in science fiction, just as it becomes more acceptable in the general culture. I wonder what's with this whole childishness thing? Lack of parenting due to the feminist revolution? Any ideas?

    I’m not sure interest in science fiction really qualifies, stereotypes notwithstanding. From a mass culture angle, going to see implausible space fantasies or robot movies is not meaningfully a less sophisticated pursuit than all consuming pro-sports obsession. The two are parallel in terms of level of cultural sophistication and contribution to society, and reflect comparably unrealistic wish fulfillment fantasies, for the overwhelming majority of sports fans who play no sport themselves at least.

    On the printed page, science fiction is a genre fiction like westerns, mysteries, police procedurals, and so forth, all of which attract fans of varying age groups today, usually skewing older, and/or were once more popular. Or romance fiction. In each category, there are more or less sophisticated examples in every author generation, to be sure, but not notably to the disadvantage of science fiction. All contain a lot of slop reliant on absurd tropes, moralized plot lines and weak characterization. All also contain better output than that.

    Your average old duffer circa 1960 devouring Zane Grey was not engaging in a more intellectual or more real-life reflective experience than some nerd at the same time reading Asimov or Bester or Clarke. Arguably less so.

    Not that I want real life to be the standard of judgment for literature, though. Most “serious” or “literary” fiction today seems to be either women obsessing about female characters with tedious problems that a rational person could easily solve, various gen x [my own generation] or millennials obsessing that life isn’t all they had hoped for [life spoiler alert!], or boomers with the same problem. Not to necessarily knock the works of Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, or John Updike, but postwar American literary fiction had its own characteristic flaw- endless rumination on the sexual fixations and misunderstandings of the middle class male.

    I refuse to accept the argument that any of this is in any way more sophisticated or useful than ruminations on possible future societies, disasters, technical challenges, exploratory endeavours, or indeed efforts at constructed mythologies that mimic the ancient storytelling traditions.

    Granted, matters of taste. But a trip to a bookstore today can be a dispiriting experience.

  181. @Steve Sailer
    Thacher is a boarding school in Ojai where each student gets a horse.

    The boarding schools are more like Eton and Harrow, out of the way places for the upper class to stash their scions while they enjoy their fabulous social lives, while Harvard-Westlake and Loyola are more like Westminister in London, day schools where the urban bourgeoisie who like having their children around send them to get very good educations.

    I appreciate your point, but both Eton and particularly Harrow are only just outside London. Winchester and Stowe would make your case better.
    The Jesuits in England played it both ways: Beaumont near Eton for the city gents, and Stonyhurst way up North in rural Lancashire for the real toffs. Beaumont cost more however and was indeed the most expensive of the Catholic boarding schools. This too is typically Jesuit: educate the not necessarily very well off gentry in a setting which they recognise (Stonyhurst was originally a seat of an ancient recusant house) and don’t scare them off with prohibitive fees; get it all back by overcharging the rich and nouveau riche Catholics of London and the stockbroker belt.

  182. @Anonymous
    The WASP envy stuff is a smokescreen so that the rubes being looked down on (i.e. having our history defamed) don’t catch on to the ruse.

    It seems you may be making an interesting observation here. Please explain. Smokescreen for what? Who are the rubes?

    Smokescreen for what?

    The lurid defamation of an entire era and it’s people.

    Who are the rubes?

    Those inclined, whether from age, upbringing (or lack thereof), ideology, or ignorance to take it as an accurate, let alone evocative, depiction.

    Look, to the extent I was able to watch it, I think Hamm managed to subvert all that and make it about a suppressed masculinity that those who missed that era are definitely missing now, but I have little doubt what Weiner himself intended it to be about.

  183. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Let me do a rough draft on my concept of the Ethnocentric Liberal Jew -- Matthew Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, etc. -- and why they are the central pivot of the culture.

    A lot of people on the left are on the left because they aren't very effectual and they resent people who are. They tend to have leapfrogging loyalties because they feel inferior.

    A lot of people on the right are on the right because they understand that it's difficult to get organized and they respect organization and teamwork and enjoy competition. They tend to have concentric loyalties.

    In the middle you get a small number of people who are conservative by personality and liberal by family heritage. They're good at getting things done and they like teaming up and winning, but they don't waste time and money on college football teams and the like when they can promote their ethnic interests.

    The leapfrogging/concentric loyalties idea is not really a good description of political affiliation. Both people on the left and right have “leapfrogging loyalties”; they just differ on what they are. Rightists don’t have “concentric loyalties”; they leapfrog to a certain level and suppress loyalties within and beyond the level. The whole point of nationalism, for example, is to focus loyalties on the level of the nation and to suppress sub-national and supra-national loyalties. I’ve never heard of anyone saying that they had concentric loyalties or behaving as if they did.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I’ve never heard of anyone saying that they had concentric loyalties or behaving as if they did.
     
    Time-Life has:

    http://www.allmusic.com/album/classic-country-god-family-country-mw0000207891

    I'm sure there's an appropriate P.T. Barnum quote...
  184. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Matthew Weiner is 5’7″

    This and the mention of high school made me think of something. Puberty in boys leads to increased height, muscle, aggression, loudness, noise, physical presence etc so what happens if you have two different groups in a school with a different average age of puberty?

    I know how it works with black and white as black kids hit puberty earlier on average but now I wonder if it’s the same white and jewish?

    What would the media be like if it was run by white people who’d gone to majority black schools?

    My family all hit puberty very young so it wasn’t as bad for us but guessing what the majority of kids with that background would be like my guess is a media run by average white people who’d gone to majority black schools would be wall-to-wall slave-era torture porn.

    Which maybe explains all those Hollywood slasher movies.

  185. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P
    Half the private school Episcopalian kids I knew growing up were actually half Jewish. If gentile Episcopalians really were antisemites, their marriage patterns sure didn't show it.

    I suspect this is another example of projection, like Jewish feminism. In this case, ethnic type Jews seethe with resentment toward assimilated upper class Jews, who look down on their uncouth brethren, and then take it out on us hapless, unsuspecting straight white gentile males.

    Well, maybe being the scapegoat for all of America will finally give us a little bit of the ethnic resentment that apparently contributes to success in modern society.

    My father is Jewish and my mother is Protestant. I am always amused/angered by Jews who obsess over anti-Semitism among white Christians in the United States. My Protestant grandfather was part of the American army that liberated Jews from the concentration camps. Jews have never known friends like they have in white Protestants and yet they often denigrate them and discriminate against them in business and employment. I am sure Matthew Weiner is yet another Jew who discriminates against people who never harmed him in any way as payback for imagined slights that may have happened 40 years ago.

    The fact of the matter is that the American Left has forced the United States to admit large numbers of Third World immigrants who really do hate Jews. We are about to know real anti-Semitism again.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    "The fact of the matter is that the American Left has forced the United States to admit large numbers of Third World immigrants who really do hate Jews. We are about to know real anti-Semitism again."

    The problem is that they won't just be anti-'semitic' (although, of course, many are themselves real Semites.) They will also be anti-White, anti-Christian, and brutal to gays, feminists, public atheists, and nonconformists of every stripe, as well. Plus, the general Third World lack of progress, chaos, filth and misery will be ours forever.

    I think the US will probably break up before Canada does (although, qua Covington, BC and Alberta could well go with the Pacific NW "NARedoubt") and maybe before the EU even. It won't be pleasant. I doubt one group will get all the nukes, and every group will get enough radioactive material to make an insane mess, to say nothing of chemical plants and biotech labs.

    Probably one piece will get all the Jews, but there's no guarantee they'll even get one piece. They will have a more miserable time than anyone else, which many may find a comforting thought.

    The other alternative is that with the left and right in tatters and general economic chaos, the Iron Fist will take over the whole thing, coming up the center. In that case the Jews will be well advised to do what Polanski did when his friend overheard the judge in the toilet. Psalm 137:1 will play out yet again.

  186. @Mike Zwick
    All I had at my blue collar high school, which was once described as a football team with an English department, were Mexican gangbangers and big Italian guys waiting for me outside so they could kick my ass. Shouldn't I have some "animus?"

    If you wrote a TV show would the bad/stupid guys be Mexican and Italian and the guy who gets the girls be called something like Dahinda?

  187. For disliking the era that Mad Men is set in, the show sure makes that era come off as incredibly attractive, including the “retrograde” behaviors that the show depicts.

  188. @Steve Sailer
    The top movie critic of the century, Stephen Hunter who used to write for the Washington Post, had trouble sitting all the way through a movie. He'd show up late and leave early. An hour was plenty of inspiration for him.

    Hugh Kenner recounted that Marshall McCluhan was always dragging him to movies, but McCluhan could only sit through about 20 minutes of his choice before walking out so he could theorize about what he'd seen for the rest of the evening at a bar.

    Not sure who the top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?) but I don’t think it was Stephen Hunter. As Exhibit A, I present his review of Starship Troopers. As frenzied, paranoid Hebraic interpretation* of the world as you’ll find, and AFAIK Hunter isn’t even of the tribe. Though he was writing for the WP…

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here’s the exceedingly strange new movie “Starship Troopers” commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, “Sieg Heil!”

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It’s an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it’s Nazi to the core.

    See Stephen Hunter, “Goosestepping at the Movies: Starship Troopers and the Nazi Aesthetic,” Washington Post , 11 Nov. 1997.

    Alas, I can’t find his classic quote therein about the equation of Giant Bugs with Chosen People.

    Stephen Hunter: I think Starship Troopers was the best Nazi movie ever made, much better than “Triumph of the Will.”

    * Sorry if that’s a tad redundant.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?)

    "The century" I referred to is "this century."

    Yeah, Verhoeven is a big fan of Nazi propaganda movies he saw as a small child in Holland. He likes to indulge in Nazi aesthetics while being sort of satirical of them on the surface.

    Verhoeven's kinks don't have much to do with Heinlein (who had kinks of his own, but different ones).

    , @Stan Adams
    Here's the whole article:

    The Washington Post - Tuesday, November 11, 1997

    Goosestepping At the Movies
    Starship Troopers' and the Nazi Aesthetic

    By Stephen Hunter
    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here's the exceedingly strange new movie "Starship Troopers" commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, "Sieg Heil!"

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It's an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it's Nazi to the core.

    I don't mean to suggest that it's political propaganda in the literal sense or that it advocates Nazism. But it's a film that presupposes it. It's spiritually Nazi, psychologically Nazi. It comes directly out of the Nazi imagination, and is set in the Nazi universe.

    It hails from what would be Year 64 of the Thousand-Year Reich, a sanitized utopia of heroic, sexless young folk grandly aware of their role as defenders of the known reality and descended from the Nazi pioneer generation of the 1930s and '40s. Of course the great Fuehrer has gone to Valhalla, but it's possible that in a home in some mountain fastness, some shiny facsimile of Holy Berchtesgaden, the 97-year-old Heinrich Himmler still dodders about, drooling and filling his Depends with waste, and on the odd clear day when his mind doesn't buzz with Alzheimer's he remembers with pride the greatness he helped create. In this universe, he has already seen "Starship Troopers" 14 times. He has been quoted in the New York Volkischer Beobachter as saying "Thumbs up!"

    Fortunately, back here in grumpy reality, all that was blown to dust, crushed bone and ash back in Year 12, a very bad year for the Thousand-Year Reich and a very good year for the rest of us.

    But you couldn't tell that from "Starship Troopers."

    We'll skip the obvious Nazi fashions and the appearance of Doogie Howser late in the film in a black shirt, overcoat and SS-style cap; we'll skip the stylized swastika that is the Mobile Infantry's symbol; we'll skip the fact that the movie will soon be abbreviated in the vernacular "SS Troopers"; we'll skip the hazy intimation of a world fascist order contained in the film. Begin with the faces.

    At first I thought that the notoriously perverse director, Paul Verhoeven, had a particularly inane imagination when it came to faces. No indeed; he has a very good imagination when it comes to faces. He knows exactly what he wants. So regular are the faces of the "cast" -- the acting is so bad, the quotation marks are required -- that it clearly represents a conscious decision. The stars, Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, Jake Busey and Neil Patrick Harris, share this in common: They all look alike.

    They have oddly square faces and broad cheekbones, unprominent noses. They're blond or at least fair and boast some of the whitest choppers seen this side of a Dentyne commercial. But it's more than shape and form: Their faces are also somehow uncomplicated, almost cartoon versions in flesh of actual humanity. Van Dien and Richards are particularly noteworthy in this regard. There's a simplicity and emotionless beauty that's far too vivid to be coincidental. They are generic. And all through the cast you see other iterations of the same principle: smooth, hairless, square, almost idealized faces. Even the odd token black person in this universe has the same bone structure and close-cropped hair.

    What's going on? Well, one idea would be that these beings are produced through genetic engineering on an industrial basis, as in "Brave New World" or more recently "Gattaca." But there's no mention of that in the film. A more insidious possibility relates exactly to Hitler's crazed state: that the size and range of the gene pool has been greatly reduced through some form of purification. So in an unsettling sense, "Starship Troopers" appears to be set in a post-Holocaust world, a world where the body count didn't stop at 6 million but went on and on and on until only Aryan stock remained.

    There are other, deeper issues. One is the movie's obsession that parallels a particularly loathsome Nazi obsession -- cleanliness. In fact the Nazis saw their adversaries as representing some form of filth or infection.

    Their idea of the best world was Judenrein, meaning cleansed of Jews. They murdered, in the millions, under the guise of showering. In their hyperfervid imagination -- visible in all their documents and propaganda -- Jews and Bolsheviks were seen as eastern "hordes" representing not merely the swarm but the swarm of infection and disease. Look at the concept of Lebensraum, living room: Essentially, it is freedom from the filth of crowding.

    And that's exactly the obsession with the spiders of Klendathu. In the movie's best special-effects sequence, our heroic platoon stands off hordes of the monsters (who aren't even armed, as a matter of fact, and would seem to be no big deal for any moderately equipped industrialized power with good Krupp and Mauser firepower). The creatures have been imagined horribly as the worst kind of body filth -- they are not spiders at all, they are lice, huge infestations of crab lice, with ripping mandibles and piercing claws, who slay by rending their victims into parts. How filthy is that?

    At its most visually impressive, the movie seems to recount a Hitlerian fantasy: a platoon of SS men in the far regions of the world standing firm against subhuman hordes, killing them in their millions and themselves dying in the best kind of nobility and sacrifice. The movie has a kind of pornographic relish in its depictions of slaughter. It isn't really set on Klendathu at all, but at Stalingrad.

    You can take this even further with just a little research. The best description of the method of "Starship Troopers" came not from the great critics Anthony Lane or Janet Maslin or my brilliant colleague Rita Kempley. Rather, it came from historian Richard Grunberger, who noted that "brutal descriptions of fighting alternated with bathos-dripping `comradeship.'" That's it perfectly: the utter savagery of the fighting to the last quarter, intercut with the most sentimentalized, infantilized version of human relationships, as reflected in dialogue so bereft of individuality that it could have been written by either a hack or a machine. It's a world where two forms of emotional expression exist: puppy love or death battle.

    What Grunberger is describing, however, isn't "Starship Troopers" but a lost work of utter banality titled "Gruppe Bosemueller," by Werner Beumelburg, a bestseller in Nazi Germany that was representative of a genre called Fronterlebnis, the notion of "war as a spiritual experience."

    And that is exactly what "Starship Troopers" is selling. Unlike films from a civilized society that see war as a debilitating, tragic necessity, such as "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "Platoon" or "A Farewell to Arms," this movie sees it as a profoundly moving experience: war as ultimate self-help course.

    Its most blasphemous stroke is its inversion of one of the greatest war novels ever written, Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front." This film is explicitly conceived as a rebuke to that great humanitarian soliloquy. It plays with Remarque's opening scene, where a schoolteacher lectures the boys sternly on the duties of manhood, the disciplines of the fatherland and the glories of war. Believing him literally, our hero Paul rushes to the front, where he discovers the hideous lie his teacher has told him, as millions of other boys the world over are discovering the same lie.

    "Starship Troopers" takes this conceit and literally perverts it. Not only does the teacher (Michael Ironside) tell them of the glories of war, he turns up as their platoon leader, a legendary figure known as "the Lieutenant." Initially missing an arm, he now has a mechanical one; he has been gloriously completed by war. Here, what Remarque treated ironically, Verhoeven treats literally. The lieutenant stoically guides the platoon through its most savage encounters with the spider hordes, and then -- this is the film's idea of heavy emotion -- is trapped and has his legs ripped off. His stumps spurting blood, he asks our hero Van Dien, who, far from being brutalized by the war, has turned into a butt-kicking NCO, for the ultimate act of intimacy in this world: to kill him. Now Van Dien is man enough to do just that.

    That is love among the Nazis: a blast of withering fire through the heart.
  189. anon • Disclaimer says:

    @Dahinda

    If you wrote a TV show would the bad/stupid guys be Mexican and Italian and the guy who gets the girls be called something like Dahinda?

    That’s not a criticism by the way. I am trying to think how school era resentments could creep into media. School was okay for me (ty early puberty and aggression) so I don’t have much anger from that time except over what happened to the kids with no fight in them.

  190. MC says:

    Related:

    Michael Weinreb says in Rolling Stone that Duke’s Grayson Allen is destined to be “the latest in a long line of Duke guards who appear to have been genetically engineered to get under America’s skin.” The basis for this claim is only “a couple of things” he picked up from reading his bio: 1) he was magna cum laude at 2) his Christian high school.

    That’s apparently enough to make Weinreb “want to see him fail in some publicly humiliating fashion, merely because of the uniform he is wearing. He is every over-entitled, Izod-clad jerk I’ve ever come across in a bar, and I want him to spill his celebratory sparking cider.”

    He also says that Allen “will no doubt be a vice president at Morgan Stanley someday, if he so desires.” I guess Goldman Sachs isn’t hiring.

    Exit question: Who was the last “entitled,” Izod-wearing WASP to graduate from a devoutly Christian high school? Maybe in the Deep South, but in Weinreb’s circles?

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Why on earth are you still reading Rolling Stone?
  191. @Anonymous
    The leapfrogging/concentric loyalties idea is not really a good description of political affiliation. Both people on the left and right have "leapfrogging loyalties"; they just differ on what they are. Rightists don't have "concentric loyalties"; they leapfrog to a certain level and suppress loyalties within and beyond the level. The whole point of nationalism, for example, is to focus loyalties on the level of the nation and to suppress sub-national and supra-national loyalties. I've never heard of anyone saying that they had concentric loyalties or behaving as if they did.

    I’ve never heard of anyone saying that they had concentric loyalties or behaving as if they did.

    Time-Life has:

    http://www.allmusic.com/album/classic-country-god-family-country-mw0000207891

    I’m sure there’s an appropriate P.T. Barnum quote…

  192. @Kyle McKenna
    Not sure who the top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?) but I don't think it was Stephen Hunter. As Exhibit A, I present his review of Starship Troopers. As frenzied, paranoid Hebraic interpretation* of the world as you'll find, and AFAIK Hunter isn't even of the tribe. Though he was writing for the WP...

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here's the exceedingly strange new movie "Starship Troopers" commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, "Sieg Heil!"

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It's an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it's Nazi to the core.
     
    See Stephen Hunter, "Goosestepping at the Movies: Starship Troopers and the Nazi Aesthetic," Washington Post , 11 Nov. 1997.

    Alas, I can't find his classic quote therein about the equation of Giant Bugs with Chosen People.

    Stephen Hunter: I think Starship Troopers was the best Nazi movie ever made, much better than "Triumph of the Will."
     
    * Sorry if that's a tad redundant.

    top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?)

    “The century” I referred to is “this century.”

    Yeah, Verhoeven is a big fan of Nazi propaganda movies he saw as a small child in Holland. He likes to indulge in Nazi aesthetics while being sort of satirical of them on the surface.

    Verhoeven’s kinks don’t have much to do with Heinlein (who had kinks of his own, but different ones).

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    “The century” I referred to is “this century.”
     
    Sorry, my bad... I wasn't sure Hunter was still alive, even.

    Sort of early to be giving out accolades for XXI though, no?
  193. @Kyle McKenna
    Not sure who the top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?) but I don't think it was Stephen Hunter. As Exhibit A, I present his review of Starship Troopers. As frenzied, paranoid Hebraic interpretation* of the world as you'll find, and AFAIK Hunter isn't even of the tribe. Though he was writing for the WP...

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here's the exceedingly strange new movie "Starship Troopers" commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, "Sieg Heil!"

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It's an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it's Nazi to the core.
     
    See Stephen Hunter, "Goosestepping at the Movies: Starship Troopers and the Nazi Aesthetic," Washington Post , 11 Nov. 1997.

    Alas, I can't find his classic quote therein about the equation of Giant Bugs with Chosen People.

    Stephen Hunter: I think Starship Troopers was the best Nazi movie ever made, much better than "Triumph of the Will."
     
    * Sorry if that's a tad redundant.

    Here’s the whole article:

    The Washington Post – Tuesday, November 11, 1997

    Goosestepping At the Movies
    Starship Troopers’ and the Nazi Aesthetic

    By Stephen Hunter
    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here’s the exceedingly strange new movie “Starship Troopers” commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, “Sieg Heil!”

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It’s an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it’s Nazi to the core.

    I don’t mean to suggest that it’s political propaganda in the literal sense or that it advocates Nazism. But it’s a film that presupposes it. It’s spiritually Nazi, psychologically Nazi. It comes directly out of the Nazi imagination, and is set in the Nazi universe.

    It hails from what would be Year 64 of the Thousand-Year Reich, a sanitized utopia of heroic, sexless young folk grandly aware of their role as defenders of the known reality and descended from the Nazi pioneer generation of the 1930s and ’40s. Of course the great Fuehrer has gone to Valhalla, but it’s possible that in a home in some mountain fastness, some shiny facsimile of Holy Berchtesgaden, the 97-year-old Heinrich Himmler still dodders about, drooling and filling his Depends with waste, and on the odd clear day when his mind doesn’t buzz with Alzheimer’s he remembers with pride the greatness he helped create. In this universe, he has already seen “Starship Troopers” 14 times. He has been quoted in the New York Volkischer Beobachter as saying “Thumbs up!”

    Fortunately, back here in grumpy reality, all that was blown to dust, crushed bone and ash back in Year 12, a very bad year for the Thousand-Year Reich and a very good year for the rest of us.

    But you couldn’t tell that from “Starship Troopers.”

    We’ll skip the obvious Nazi fashions and the appearance of Doogie Howser late in the film in a black shirt, overcoat and SS-style cap; we’ll skip the stylized swastika that is the Mobile Infantry’s symbol; we’ll skip the fact that the movie will soon be abbreviated in the vernacular “SS Troopers”; we’ll skip the hazy intimation of a world fascist order contained in the film. Begin with the faces.

    At first I thought that the notoriously perverse director, Paul Verhoeven, had a particularly inane imagination when it came to faces. No indeed; he has a very good imagination when it comes to faces. He knows exactly what he wants. So regular are the faces of the “cast” — the acting is so bad, the quotation marks are required — that it clearly represents a conscious decision. The stars, Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, Jake Busey and Neil Patrick Harris, share this in common: They all look alike.

    They have oddly square faces and broad cheekbones, unprominent noses. They’re blond or at least fair and boast some of the whitest choppers seen this side of a Dentyne commercial. But it’s more than shape and form: Their faces are also somehow uncomplicated, almost cartoon versions in flesh of actual humanity. Van Dien and Richards are particularly noteworthy in this regard. There’s a simplicity and emotionless beauty that’s far too vivid to be coincidental. They are generic. And all through the cast you see other iterations of the same principle: smooth, hairless, square, almost idealized faces. Even the odd token black person in this universe has the same bone structure and close-cropped hair.

    What’s going on? Well, one idea would be that these beings are produced through genetic engineering on an industrial basis, as in “Brave New World” or more recently “Gattaca.” But there’s no mention of that in the film. A more insidious possibility relates exactly to Hitler’s crazed state: that the size and range of the gene pool has been greatly reduced through some form of purification. So in an unsettling sense, “Starship Troopers” appears to be set in a post-Holocaust world, a world where the body count didn’t stop at 6 million but went on and on and on until only Aryan stock remained.

    There are other, deeper issues. One is the movie’s obsession that parallels a particularly loathsome Nazi obsession — cleanliness. In fact the Nazis saw their adversaries as representing some form of filth or infection.

    Their idea of the best world was Judenrein, meaning cleansed of Jews. They murdered, in the millions, under the guise of showering. In their hyperfervid imagination — visible in all their documents and propaganda — Jews and Bolsheviks were seen as eastern “hordes” representing not merely the swarm but the swarm of infection and disease. Look at the concept of Lebensraum, living room: Essentially, it is freedom from the filth of crowding.

    And that’s exactly the obsession with the spiders of Klendathu. In the movie’s best special-effects sequence, our heroic platoon stands off hordes of the monsters (who aren’t even armed, as a matter of fact, and would seem to be no big deal for any moderately equipped industrialized power with good Krupp and Mauser firepower). The creatures have been imagined horribly as the worst kind of body filth — they are not spiders at all, they are lice, huge infestations of crab lice, with ripping mandibles and piercing claws, who slay by rending their victims into parts. How filthy is that?

    At its most visually impressive, the movie seems to recount a Hitlerian fantasy: a platoon of SS men in the far regions of the world standing firm against subhuman hordes, killing them in their millions and themselves dying in the best kind of nobility and sacrifice. The movie has a kind of pornographic relish in its depictions of slaughter. It isn’t really set on Klendathu at all, but at Stalingrad.

    You can take this even further with just a little research. The best description of the method of “Starship Troopers” came not from the great critics Anthony Lane or Janet Maslin or my brilliant colleague Rita Kempley. Rather, it came from historian Richard Grunberger, who noted that “brutal descriptions of fighting alternated with bathos-dripping `comradeship.’” That’s it perfectly: the utter savagery of the fighting to the last quarter, intercut with the most sentimentalized, infantilized version of human relationships, as reflected in dialogue so bereft of individuality that it could have been written by either a hack or a machine. It’s a world where two forms of emotional expression exist: puppy love or death battle.

    What Grunberger is describing, however, isn’t “Starship Troopers” but a lost work of utter banality titled “Gruppe Bosemueller,” by Werner Beumelburg, a bestseller in Nazi Germany that was representative of a genre called Fronterlebnis, the notion of “war as a spiritual experience.”

    And that is exactly what “Starship Troopers” is selling. Unlike films from a civilized society that see war as a debilitating, tragic necessity, such as “Bridge on the River Kwai” or “Platoon” or “A Farewell to Arms,” this movie sees it as a profoundly moving experience: war as ultimate self-help course.

    Its most blasphemous stroke is its inversion of one of the greatest war novels ever written, Erich Maria Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front.” This film is explicitly conceived as a rebuke to that great humanitarian soliloquy. It plays with Remarque’s opening scene, where a schoolteacher lectures the boys sternly on the duties of manhood, the disciplines of the fatherland and the glories of war. Believing him literally, our hero Paul rushes to the front, where he discovers the hideous lie his teacher has told him, as millions of other boys the world over are discovering the same lie.

    “Starship Troopers” takes this conceit and literally perverts it. Not only does the teacher (Michael Ironside) tell them of the glories of war, he turns up as their platoon leader, a legendary figure known as “the Lieutenant.” Initially missing an arm, he now has a mechanical one; he has been gloriously completed by war. Here, what Remarque treated ironically, Verhoeven treats literally. The lieutenant stoically guides the platoon through its most savage encounters with the spider hordes, and then — this is the film’s idea of heavy emotion — is trapped and has his legs ripped off. His stumps spurting blood, he asks our hero Van Dien, who, far from being brutalized by the war, has turned into a butt-kicking NCO, for the ultimate act of intimacy in this world: to kill him. Now Van Dien is man enough to do just that.

    That is love among the Nazis: a blast of withering fire through the heart.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    That's a pretty silly review. Verhooven and the script writer talk in the DVD commentary track; at one point they say "War makes fascists of us all." It's a safe bet that Verhoeven isn't on the side of the fascists. He likes to do send-ups of the people he disagrees with, as in Robocop.

    Though one has to admit the Nazis were sharp dressers and had a sense of style. They were evil but they had Hugo Boss on their side and they looked fabulous.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    Thanks for the post. The guy is pretty much psychotic imho.
  194. @MC
    Related:

    Michael Weinreb says in Rolling Stone that Duke's Grayson Allen is destined to be "the latest in a long line of Duke guards who appear to have been genetically engineered to get under America's skin." The basis for this claim is only "a couple of things" he picked up from reading his bio: 1) he was magna cum laude at 2) his Christian high school.

    That's apparently enough to make Weinreb "want to see him fail in some publicly humiliating fashion, merely because of the uniform he is wearing. He is every over-entitled, Izod-clad jerk I've ever come across in a bar, and I want him to spill his celebratory sparking cider."

    He also says that Allen "will no doubt be a vice president at Morgan Stanley someday, if he so desires." I guess Goldman Sachs isn't hiring.

    Exit question: Who was the last "entitled," Izod-wearing WASP to graduate from a devoutly Christian high school? Maybe in the Deep South, but in Weinreb's circles?

    Why on earth are you still reading Rolling Stone?

    • Replies: @MC
    Fair question. I did a search for articles about Grayson Allen and clicked on the link without seeing the url.
  195. @Steve Sailer
    top movie critic of the century might have been (Bazin? Truffaut? Sarris?)

    "The century" I referred to is "this century."

    Yeah, Verhoeven is a big fan of Nazi propaganda movies he saw as a small child in Holland. He likes to indulge in Nazi aesthetics while being sort of satirical of them on the surface.

    Verhoeven's kinks don't have much to do with Heinlein (who had kinks of his own, but different ones).

    “The century” I referred to is “this century.”

    Sorry, my bad… I wasn’t sure Hunter was still alive, even.

    Sort of early to be giving out accolades for XXI though, no?

  196. @Steve Sailer
    Let me do a rough draft on my concept of the Ethnocentric Liberal Jew -- Matthew Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, etc. -- and why they are the central pivot of the culture.

    A lot of people on the left are on the left because they aren't very effectual and they resent people who are. They tend to have leapfrogging loyalties because they feel inferior.

    A lot of people on the right are on the right because they understand that it's difficult to get organized and they respect organization and teamwork and enjoy competition. They tend to have concentric loyalties.

    In the middle you get a small number of people who are conservative by personality and liberal by family heritage. They're good at getting things done and they like teaming up and winning, but they don't waste time and money on college football teams and the like when they can promote their ethnic interests.

    I think this is a fairly good model for intelligentsia.

    For common people, I think this model is somewhat less applicable. For example, union men are well organized and understand teamwork. They also tend to be highly masculine and patriotic. Union guys are typically Democrats though. So what are they? Was Jimmy Hoffa a liberal or conservative?

  197. @Stan Adams
    Here's the whole article:

    The Washington Post - Tuesday, November 11, 1997

    Goosestepping At the Movies
    Starship Troopers' and the Nazi Aesthetic

    By Stephen Hunter
    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here's the exceedingly strange new movie "Starship Troopers" commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, "Sieg Heil!"

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It's an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it's Nazi to the core.

    I don't mean to suggest that it's political propaganda in the literal sense or that it advocates Nazism. But it's a film that presupposes it. It's spiritually Nazi, psychologically Nazi. It comes directly out of the Nazi imagination, and is set in the Nazi universe.

    It hails from what would be Year 64 of the Thousand-Year Reich, a sanitized utopia of heroic, sexless young folk grandly aware of their role as defenders of the known reality and descended from the Nazi pioneer generation of the 1930s and '40s. Of course the great Fuehrer has gone to Valhalla, but it's possible that in a home in some mountain fastness, some shiny facsimile of Holy Berchtesgaden, the 97-year-old Heinrich Himmler still dodders about, drooling and filling his Depends with waste, and on the odd clear day when his mind doesn't buzz with Alzheimer's he remembers with pride the greatness he helped create. In this universe, he has already seen "Starship Troopers" 14 times. He has been quoted in the New York Volkischer Beobachter as saying "Thumbs up!"

    Fortunately, back here in grumpy reality, all that was blown to dust, crushed bone and ash back in Year 12, a very bad year for the Thousand-Year Reich and a very good year for the rest of us.

    But you couldn't tell that from "Starship Troopers."

    We'll skip the obvious Nazi fashions and the appearance of Doogie Howser late in the film in a black shirt, overcoat and SS-style cap; we'll skip the stylized swastika that is the Mobile Infantry's symbol; we'll skip the fact that the movie will soon be abbreviated in the vernacular "SS Troopers"; we'll skip the hazy intimation of a world fascist order contained in the film. Begin with the faces.

    At first I thought that the notoriously perverse director, Paul Verhoeven, had a particularly inane imagination when it came to faces. No indeed; he has a very good imagination when it comes to faces. He knows exactly what he wants. So regular are the faces of the "cast" -- the acting is so bad, the quotation marks are required -- that it clearly represents a conscious decision. The stars, Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, Jake Busey and Neil Patrick Harris, share this in common: They all look alike.

    They have oddly square faces and broad cheekbones, unprominent noses. They're blond or at least fair and boast some of the whitest choppers seen this side of a Dentyne commercial. But it's more than shape and form: Their faces are also somehow uncomplicated, almost cartoon versions in flesh of actual humanity. Van Dien and Richards are particularly noteworthy in this regard. There's a simplicity and emotionless beauty that's far too vivid to be coincidental. They are generic. And all through the cast you see other iterations of the same principle: smooth, hairless, square, almost idealized faces. Even the odd token black person in this universe has the same bone structure and close-cropped hair.

    What's going on? Well, one idea would be that these beings are produced through genetic engineering on an industrial basis, as in "Brave New World" or more recently "Gattaca." But there's no mention of that in the film. A more insidious possibility relates exactly to Hitler's crazed state: that the size and range of the gene pool has been greatly reduced through some form of purification. So in an unsettling sense, "Starship Troopers" appears to be set in a post-Holocaust world, a world where the body count didn't stop at 6 million but went on and on and on until only Aryan stock remained.

    There are other, deeper issues. One is the movie's obsession that parallels a particularly loathsome Nazi obsession -- cleanliness. In fact the Nazis saw their adversaries as representing some form of filth or infection.

    Their idea of the best world was Judenrein, meaning cleansed of Jews. They murdered, in the millions, under the guise of showering. In their hyperfervid imagination -- visible in all their documents and propaganda -- Jews and Bolsheviks were seen as eastern "hordes" representing not merely the swarm but the swarm of infection and disease. Look at the concept of Lebensraum, living room: Essentially, it is freedom from the filth of crowding.

    And that's exactly the obsession with the spiders of Klendathu. In the movie's best special-effects sequence, our heroic platoon stands off hordes of the monsters (who aren't even armed, as a matter of fact, and would seem to be no big deal for any moderately equipped industrialized power with good Krupp and Mauser firepower). The creatures have been imagined horribly as the worst kind of body filth -- they are not spiders at all, they are lice, huge infestations of crab lice, with ripping mandibles and piercing claws, who slay by rending their victims into parts. How filthy is that?

    At its most visually impressive, the movie seems to recount a Hitlerian fantasy: a platoon of SS men in the far regions of the world standing firm against subhuman hordes, killing them in their millions and themselves dying in the best kind of nobility and sacrifice. The movie has a kind of pornographic relish in its depictions of slaughter. It isn't really set on Klendathu at all, but at Stalingrad.

    You can take this even further with just a little research. The best description of the method of "Starship Troopers" came not from the great critics Anthony Lane or Janet Maslin or my brilliant colleague Rita Kempley. Rather, it came from historian Richard Grunberger, who noted that "brutal descriptions of fighting alternated with bathos-dripping `comradeship.'" That's it perfectly: the utter savagery of the fighting to the last quarter, intercut with the most sentimentalized, infantilized version of human relationships, as reflected in dialogue so bereft of individuality that it could have been written by either a hack or a machine. It's a world where two forms of emotional expression exist: puppy love or death battle.

    What Grunberger is describing, however, isn't "Starship Troopers" but a lost work of utter banality titled "Gruppe Bosemueller," by Werner Beumelburg, a bestseller in Nazi Germany that was representative of a genre called Fronterlebnis, the notion of "war as a spiritual experience."

    And that is exactly what "Starship Troopers" is selling. Unlike films from a civilized society that see war as a debilitating, tragic necessity, such as "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "Platoon" or "A Farewell to Arms," this movie sees it as a profoundly moving experience: war as ultimate self-help course.

    Its most blasphemous stroke is its inversion of one of the greatest war novels ever written, Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front." This film is explicitly conceived as a rebuke to that great humanitarian soliloquy. It plays with Remarque's opening scene, where a schoolteacher lectures the boys sternly on the duties of manhood, the disciplines of the fatherland and the glories of war. Believing him literally, our hero Paul rushes to the front, where he discovers the hideous lie his teacher has told him, as millions of other boys the world over are discovering the same lie.

    "Starship Troopers" takes this conceit and literally perverts it. Not only does the teacher (Michael Ironside) tell them of the glories of war, he turns up as their platoon leader, a legendary figure known as "the Lieutenant." Initially missing an arm, he now has a mechanical one; he has been gloriously completed by war. Here, what Remarque treated ironically, Verhoeven treats literally. The lieutenant stoically guides the platoon through its most savage encounters with the spider hordes, and then -- this is the film's idea of heavy emotion -- is trapped and has his legs ripped off. His stumps spurting blood, he asks our hero Van Dien, who, far from being brutalized by the war, has turned into a butt-kicking NCO, for the ultimate act of intimacy in this world: to kill him. Now Van Dien is man enough to do just that.

    That is love among the Nazis: a blast of withering fire through the heart.

    That’s a pretty silly review. Verhooven and the script writer talk in the DVD commentary track; at one point they say “War makes fascists of us all.” It’s a safe bet that Verhoeven isn’t on the side of the fascists. He likes to do send-ups of the people he disagrees with, as in Robocop.

    Though one has to admit the Nazis were sharp dressers and had a sense of style. They were evil but they had Hugo Boss on their side and they looked fabulous.

  198. @Kyle McKenna
    Why on earth are you still reading Rolling Stone?

    Fair question. I did a search for articles about Grayson Allen and clicked on the link without seeing the url.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Very well then. Absolution granted but don't let it happen again..
  199. @Anonymous
    If anti-semitism didn't exist, it would have to be invented.

    It (“anti-semitism”) was invented for the purpose of making Jews more ethnically segregated, and it continues to be promoted on purpose by a good segment of the Jewish intellectual elite. Jews routinely do stuff to alienate certain segments of the goy populace so they can point to the resentment naturally caused by it as a warning to less racially oriented Jews that horrible things will happen to them unless they keep their distance from those carnivorous cattle.

  200. @Anonymous
    My father is Jewish and my mother is Protestant. I am always amused/angered by Jews who obsess over anti-Semitism among white Christians in the United States. My Protestant grandfather was part of the American army that liberated Jews from the concentration camps. Jews have never known friends like they have in white Protestants and yet they often denigrate them and discriminate against them in business and employment. I am sure Matthew Weiner is yet another Jew who discriminates against people who never harmed him in any way as payback for imagined slights that may have happened 40 years ago.

    The fact of the matter is that the American Left has forced the United States to admit large numbers of Third World immigrants who really do hate Jews. We are about to know real anti-Semitism again.

    “The fact of the matter is that the American Left has forced the United States to admit large numbers of Third World immigrants who really do hate Jews. We are about to know real anti-Semitism again.”

    The problem is that they won’t just be anti-‘semitic’ (although, of course, many are themselves real Semites.) They will also be anti-White, anti-Christian, and brutal to gays, feminists, public atheists, and nonconformists of every stripe, as well. Plus, the general Third World lack of progress, chaos, filth and misery will be ours forever.

    I think the US will probably break up before Canada does (although, qua Covington, BC and Alberta could well go with the Pacific NW “NARedoubt”) and maybe before the EU even. It won’t be pleasant. I doubt one group will get all the nukes, and every group will get enough radioactive material to make an insane mess, to say nothing of chemical plants and biotech labs.

    Probably one piece will get all the Jews, but there’s no guarantee they’ll even get one piece. They will have a more miserable time than anyone else, which many may find a comforting thought.

    The other alternative is that with the left and right in tatters and general economic chaos, the Iron Fist will take over the whole thing, coming up the center. In that case the Jews will be well advised to do what Polanski did when his friend overheard the judge in the toilet. Psalm 137:1 will play out yet again.

  201. @MC
    Fair question. I did a search for articles about Grayson Allen and clicked on the link without seeing the url.

    Very well then. Absolution granted but don’t let it happen again..

  202. @Stan Adams
    Here's the whole article:

    The Washington Post - Tuesday, November 11, 1997

    Goosestepping At the Movies
    Starship Troopers' and the Nazi Aesthetic

    By Stephen Hunter
    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Silly me. I thought the Nazis lost the war.

    But here's the exceedingly strange new movie "Starship Troopers" commandeering 22 million American dollars in its first weekend and certain to make gobs more, while secretly whispering, "Sieg Heil!"

    The movie recounts the adventures of a platoon of Mobile Infantry sometime in the next century as it does battle with a race of arachnid nasties on the far planet of Klendathu. It's an epic of bug blasting, a movie whose script appears to have been the instructions on a can of Raid. And in some profoundly disturbing way, it's Nazi to the core.

    I don't mean to suggest that it's political propaganda in the literal sense or that it advocates Nazism. But it's a film that presupposes it. It's spiritually Nazi, psychologically Nazi. It comes directly out of the Nazi imagination, and is set in the Nazi universe.

    It hails from what would be Year 64 of the Thousand-Year Reich, a sanitized utopia of heroic, sexless young folk grandly aware of their role as defenders of the known reality and descended from the Nazi pioneer generation of the 1930s and '40s. Of course the great Fuehrer has gone to Valhalla, but it's possible that in a home in some mountain fastness, some shiny facsimile of Holy Berchtesgaden, the 97-year-old Heinrich Himmler still dodders about, drooling and filling his Depends with waste, and on the odd clear day when his mind doesn't buzz with Alzheimer's he remembers with pride the greatness he helped create. In this universe, he has already seen "Starship Troopers" 14 times. He has been quoted in the New York Volkischer Beobachter as saying "Thumbs up!"

    Fortunately, back here in grumpy reality, all that was blown to dust, crushed bone and ash back in Year 12, a very bad year for the Thousand-Year Reich and a very good year for the rest of us.

    But you couldn't tell that from "Starship Troopers."

    We'll skip the obvious Nazi fashions and the appearance of Doogie Howser late in the film in a black shirt, overcoat and SS-style cap; we'll skip the stylized swastika that is the Mobile Infantry's symbol; we'll skip the fact that the movie will soon be abbreviated in the vernacular "SS Troopers"; we'll skip the hazy intimation of a world fascist order contained in the film. Begin with the faces.

    At first I thought that the notoriously perverse director, Paul Verhoeven, had a particularly inane imagination when it came to faces. No indeed; he has a very good imagination when it comes to faces. He knows exactly what he wants. So regular are the faces of the "cast" -- the acting is so bad, the quotation marks are required -- that it clearly represents a conscious decision. The stars, Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, Jake Busey and Neil Patrick Harris, share this in common: They all look alike.

    They have oddly square faces and broad cheekbones, unprominent noses. They're blond or at least fair and boast some of the whitest choppers seen this side of a Dentyne commercial. But it's more than shape and form: Their faces are also somehow uncomplicated, almost cartoon versions in flesh of actual humanity. Van Dien and Richards are particularly noteworthy in this regard. There's a simplicity and emotionless beauty that's far too vivid to be coincidental. They are generic. And all through the cast you see other iterations of the same principle: smooth, hairless, square, almost idealized faces. Even the odd token black person in this universe has the same bone structure and close-cropped hair.

    What's going on? Well, one idea would be that these beings are produced through genetic engineering on an industrial basis, as in "Brave New World" or more recently "Gattaca." But there's no mention of that in the film. A more insidious possibility relates exactly to Hitler's crazed state: that the size and range of the gene pool has been greatly reduced through some form of purification. So in an unsettling sense, "Starship Troopers" appears to be set in a post-Holocaust world, a world where the body count didn't stop at 6 million but went on and on and on until only Aryan stock remained.

    There are other, deeper issues. One is the movie's obsession that parallels a particularly loathsome Nazi obsession -- cleanliness. In fact the Nazis saw their adversaries as representing some form of filth or infection.

    Their idea of the best world was Judenrein, meaning cleansed of Jews. They murdered, in the millions, under the guise of showering. In their hyperfervid imagination -- visible in all their documents and propaganda -- Jews and Bolsheviks were seen as eastern "hordes" representing not merely the swarm but the swarm of infection and disease. Look at the concept of Lebensraum, living room: Essentially, it is freedom from the filth of crowding.

    And that's exactly the obsession with the spiders of Klendathu. In the movie's best special-effects sequence, our heroic platoon stands off hordes of the monsters (who aren't even armed, as a matter of fact, and would seem to be no big deal for any moderately equipped industrialized power with good Krupp and Mauser firepower). The creatures have been imagined horribly as the worst kind of body filth -- they are not spiders at all, they are lice, huge infestations of crab lice, with ripping mandibles and piercing claws, who slay by rending their victims into parts. How filthy is that?

    At its most visually impressive, the movie seems to recount a Hitlerian fantasy: a platoon of SS men in the far regions of the world standing firm against subhuman hordes, killing them in their millions and themselves dying in the best kind of nobility and sacrifice. The movie has a kind of pornographic relish in its depictions of slaughter. It isn't really set on Klendathu at all, but at Stalingrad.

    You can take this even further with just a little research. The best description of the method of "Starship Troopers" came not from the great critics Anthony Lane or Janet Maslin or my brilliant colleague Rita Kempley. Rather, it came from historian Richard Grunberger, who noted that "brutal descriptions of fighting alternated with bathos-dripping `comradeship.'" That's it perfectly: the utter savagery of the fighting to the last quarter, intercut with the most sentimentalized, infantilized version of human relationships, as reflected in dialogue so bereft of individuality that it could have been written by either a hack or a machine. It's a world where two forms of emotional expression exist: puppy love or death battle.

    What Grunberger is describing, however, isn't "Starship Troopers" but a lost work of utter banality titled "Gruppe Bosemueller," by Werner Beumelburg, a bestseller in Nazi Germany that was representative of a genre called Fronterlebnis, the notion of "war as a spiritual experience."

    And that is exactly what "Starship Troopers" is selling. Unlike films from a civilized society that see war as a debilitating, tragic necessity, such as "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "Platoon" or "A Farewell to Arms," this movie sees it as a profoundly moving experience: war as ultimate self-help course.

    Its most blasphemous stroke is its inversion of one of the greatest war novels ever written, Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front." This film is explicitly conceived as a rebuke to that great humanitarian soliloquy. It plays with Remarque's opening scene, where a schoolteacher lectures the boys sternly on the duties of manhood, the disciplines of the fatherland and the glories of war. Believing him literally, our hero Paul rushes to the front, where he discovers the hideous lie his teacher has told him, as millions of other boys the world over are discovering the same lie.

    "Starship Troopers" takes this conceit and literally perverts it. Not only does the teacher (Michael Ironside) tell them of the glories of war, he turns up as their platoon leader, a legendary figure known as "the Lieutenant." Initially missing an arm, he now has a mechanical one; he has been gloriously completed by war. Here, what Remarque treated ironically, Verhoeven treats literally. The lieutenant stoically guides the platoon through its most savage encounters with the spider hordes, and then -- this is the film's idea of heavy emotion -- is trapped and has his legs ripped off. His stumps spurting blood, he asks our hero Van Dien, who, far from being brutalized by the war, has turned into a butt-kicking NCO, for the ultimate act of intimacy in this world: to kill him. Now Van Dien is man enough to do just that.

    That is love among the Nazis: a blast of withering fire through the heart.

    Thanks for the post. The guy is pretty much psychotic imho.

  203. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “I am sure Matthew Weiner is yet another Jew who discriminates against people who never harmed him in any way as payback for imagined slights that may have happened 40 years ago.”

    I think many people must love to feel that they are discriminated against. It’s one of the few things that makes the last few decades understandable. It probably is a wonderful way to rationalize treating your fellow citizens badly or otherwise cutting moral corners without threatening your self-image. Vengeance!

    If they didn’t paint a great picture of discrimination, who would they Vengeance?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    If they didn’t paint a great picture of discrimination, who would they Vengeance?
     
    How about people who destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11?
  204. @anonymous
    "I am sure Matthew Weiner is yet another Jew who discriminates against people who never harmed him in any way as payback for imagined slights that may have happened 40 years ago."

    I think many people must love to feel that they are discriminated against. It's one of the few things that makes the last few decades understandable. It probably is a wonderful way to rationalize treating your fellow citizens badly or otherwise cutting moral corners without threatening your self-image. Vengeance!

    If they didn't paint a great picture of discrimination, who would they Vengeance?

    If they didn’t paint a great picture of discrimination, who would they Vengeance?

    How about people who destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11?

  205. By the way, I understand that Mad Men is critically acclaimed, but does it have the ratings?

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    It does well enough. The "midseason premiere" episode shown on Easter Sunday was watched live by 2.3 million people:
    http://deadline.com/2015/04/mad-men-premiere-ratings-mid-season-7-amc-1201405808

    But a hit on cable is not the same as a hit on broadcast. And a hit in 2015 is not the same as a hit sixty, thirty, or even twenty years ago.

    The most-watched show on American TV last week was an all-new episode of NCIS that aired on CBS. It drew an audience of 16.6 million. Mark Harmon is good for about as eight times as many eyeballs as Jon Hamm.

    As of April 2015, there are roughly 315 million people living in the United States. (At any rate, that is what the government says. God knows how many illegals aren't being counted.)

    On Easter Sunday night, more than 312 million Americans watched something other than Mad Men, or did something other than watching television. This means that fewer than one percent of the folks in our fair land watched a much-hyped episode of one of the most-talked-about shows on TV.

    In 1955, about sixty million Americans watched I Love Lucy every Monday night. This was well over one-third of the U.S. population.

    In 1985, about sixty million Americans watched The Cosby Show every Thursday night. This was roughly one-fourth of the U.S. population.

    In 1995, about forty million Americans watched ER every Thursday night. This was fewer than one-sixth of the U.S. population.

    TV stopped being a truly mass medium a long time ago.
  206. @Hibernian
    We're not all characters from The Departed. Think Buckley, Haig, and Moynihan as well as Daley and Kennedy. (I write this from lakefront Chicago, an island of the northeast in the Midwest.)

    Those being the Talented Tenth, vastly outnumbered by the idiot boyos.

  207. @Boomstick
    From the great "Metropolitan":

    Audrey Rouget: What Jane Austen novels have you read?

    Tom Townsend: None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.
     

    Metropolitan was a great film. Too bad Stillman’s oeuvre is so small and the media/general interest in it so limited.

    The most revealing part of the exchange from which you quote is when Tom reveals that he, a WASP, actually has all his ideas on English literature filtered through the thinking of Lionel Trilling and other Jewish literary critics. The WASP doesn’t actually consume even “his own” literature directly but only through Jewish criticism of it.

    The cultural metaphor is pitch perfect.

  208. @Whiskey
    Steve, Weiner is a BS artist. There is a big interview with him (Lunch with the Financial Times) in the FT this weekend. He says none of that, in the interview, and I've seen other interviews with him on Deadline Hollywood (Nikki Finke's old site, not the new one) where he basically copped to setting Mad Men in the 1960s so that he could get women viewers to swoon over bad boy Don Draper. That in his words the sexism made bedroom scenes great.

    Nor is ethnic resentment a path to success. Think about it -- screenwriters must collaborate with actors and producers and directors, and even TV which is a show-runners/writers medium, needs collaboration with talented actors (dull ones don't generate viewers or excitement and cause cancellation). You can't run an enterprise costing about $66 million a year (production cost of $3 million times 22 episodes) minimum seething with ethnic resentment. Nor would Mad Men generate such a loyal viewership out of Jewish resentment because there are not that many Jews period. [And the show is not very Jewish either -- no matzoh balls or gefilte fish AFAIK, I've never watched it sounds dull to me, but then the Flash and Person of Interest and the Blacklist are my kind of shows.]

    Weiner is just another Show Business BS artist, telling a reporter what he wants to hear.

    Jews are in the US anyway, just another group of White people, like Italians or Irish. Israel is like Switzerland and Ireland, one of the Whitest nations on earth, just different in the way that Ireland and Switzerland are different in people and environment.

    More evidence of Weiner's BS: you'll note he did not blast the Murdoch Oligarchy. He'd no doubt like to work for Fox.

    Mad Men grew out of (according to the FT interview) Weiner sending in a script to David Chase, and the desire to appeal to women by showing bad old sexist days, but with sexy bad boys.

    I’m a little late to this party, but….

    Whiskey:

    Can you not believe it even after you hear it from the man himself?

  209. @Twinkie
    By the way, I understand that Mad Men is critically acclaimed, but does it have the ratings?

    It does well enough. The “midseason premiere” episode shown on Easter Sunday was watched live by 2.3 million people:
    http://deadline.com/2015/04/mad-men-premiere-ratings-mid-season-7-amc-1201405808

    But a hit on cable is not the same as a hit on broadcast. And a hit in 2015 is not the same as a hit sixty, thirty, or even twenty years ago.

    The most-watched show on American TV last week was an all-new episode of NCIS that aired on CBS. It drew an audience of 16.6 million. Mark Harmon is good for about as eight times as many eyeballs as Jon Hamm.

    As of April 2015, there are roughly 315 million people living in the United States. (At any rate, that is what the government says. God knows how many illegals aren’t being counted.)

    On Easter Sunday night, more than 312 million Americans watched something other than Mad Men, or did something other than watching television. This means that fewer than one percent of the folks in our fair land watched a much-hyped episode of one of the most-talked-about shows on TV.

    In 1955, about sixty million Americans watched I Love Lucy every Monday night. This was well over one-third of the U.S. population.

    In 1985, about sixty million Americans watched The Cosby Show every Thursday night. This was roughly one-fourth of the U.S. population.

    In 1995, about forty million Americans watched ER every Thursday night. This was fewer than one-sixth of the U.S. population.

    TV stopped being a truly mass medium a long time ago.

  210. W*SP is used as a term of resentment. It is a nasty, ugly, bigoted word. The fact that there are no White Protestants on the Supreme Court and that it’s okay to say W*sp but not the n-word or the Jewish world for circle is further proof that White Protestants (and fat people) are the only ones it’s okay to be bigoted towards. Why can’t you think of a better word to use?

  211. W*SP is used as a term of resentment. It is a nasty, ugly, bigoted word.

    Hence reclaiming it.

  212. […] Steve Sailer says in his recent piece on Mad Men producer Matthew Weiner, “racial resentment can be a great goad for your career. […]

  213. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will031415.php3

    Hey Steve, I’m pretty sure you’ve probably seen this already. (JD linked to it at Taki’s) Brilliantly written (if a little late to the party) piece arguing that culture is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Specifically the cultural norm towards breakdown of traditional family.
    He then falls short of attesting causality. Hmmm the Breakdown of traditional families eh?. I thought WHO could be responsible for that? The F-word is never mentioned, but the piece is well worth a read as it offers quite a bit of insight into Moynihan’s opinions on the social sciences:

    “”The role of social science,” [Moynihan] would write, “lies not in the formulation of social policy, but in the measurement of its results.” Not in postulating what will work but in demonstrating what does work. And, increasingly, what does not work.”

    Amen to that.

  214. […] STEVE SAILER: Matthew Weiner on How “Mad Men” Is Driven by His Resentment of WASP Country Clubs. […]

  215. […] 1. “Matthew Weiner on How Mad Men Is Driven by His Resentment of WASP Country Clubs” by Steve Sailer, April 6, 2015, here. […]

  216. […] Mad Men finally going away, it’s worth noting again how much the engine behind showrunner Matthew Weiner’s fabulous career has been the racial-ethnic […]

  217. […] le disait Steve Sailer dans son article récent à propos de Matthew Weiner, le producteur de la série Mad Men, “le ressentiment racial peut […]

  218. […] Steve Sailer says in his recent piece on Mad Men producer Matthew Weiner, “racial resentment can be a great goad for your career. […]

  219. […] against jews by wasps when he was growing up in los angeles in the 1970s and 1980s. (see here and here here, for examples.) here’s weiner […]

  220. […] To me, Weiner’s whole schtick, repeated in this and in many other interviews, about how “boo-fucking-hoo, it was so hard to be a rich Jewish kid growing […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS