The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
A Tale of Two Phrases
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
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Steve Sailer is surprised to find the phrase “Jewish privilege” mentioned in the New York Times, itself a salient manifestation of Jewish privilege (my editorial comment, emphatically not Steve’s).

In a presumed attempt to humiliate gentiles, the rarity is brought up by a Jewish writer who brazenly acts as though it’s a phrase gentiles toss around nonchalantly all the time even though xi (the writer’s first name is “Taffy”) knows full well that if a gentile of any stature ever accidentally uttered the phrase that he would be figuratively crucified as a result.

Over the last ten years, the newspaper has included the phrase “Jewish privilege” twice. Once in the recent article Steve linked to and once back in 2010, in an article entitled “An Israeli Finds New Meanings in a Nazi Film”. Here’s where the phrase appears in that 2010 piece:

Whether cringing at the sight of naked men and women being forced at gunpoint into a ritual bath, or contemptuously dismissing the Nazis’ efforts to highlight Jewish privilege (“My mother wore her beautiful coat, and sometimes a hat. So what?”), the survivors seem to speak for those who cannot.

Nope, no gentiles talking about Jewish privilege there, either. Except for you-know-who, of course. You’re not a nazi, are you? So subtle!

While the disproportionately Jewish New York Times rarely writes about Jewish privilege–and only does so in the context of framing the idea as one-part risible and two-parts evil–it writes about “white privilege” with regularity. Some 206 times over the last decade, to be precise.

Taking a cue from the article excerpted above, here’s a subtle graphic comparing the frequencies of appearance by phrase in the paper over the preceding decade:

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The opening of the article:

    I was raised in an Orthodox household and sent to a Jewish school where I was taught Torah and prayer. I was taught about the Holocaust and the founding of Israel. I was taught about Jewish continuity and the Spanish Inquisition and the Hebrew language and even some Yiddish. But I didn’t really know what it meant to be a Jew — nor did I know exactly how to be Jewish — until I read Philip Roth

    I wonder, do gentiles realize how deranged that is? Because it's pretty f-ing deranged.

  2. Hello, fellow white person! Shall we talk about Jewish privilege?

  3. By the way, did you read the Wikipedia article you linked to?

    Sulzberger, a practicing Reform Jew, who stood against Zionism and a Jewish state of Israel on principle has been accused by Laurel Leff of deliberately burying accounts of Nazi atrocities against Jews in the back pages of the Times. She alleges that Sulzberger went out of his way to play down the special victimhood of Jews and withheld support for specific rescue programs for European Jews.[6]

    Sulzberger was an enthusiastic supporter of the American Council for Judaism, founded in June 1942 to oppose Zionism, giving it prominent coverage in his newspaper. In a 1946 speech, Sulzberger claimed that Zionism was to blame for some of the Jewish deaths in the Holocaust, and that the refugee crisis during the war had been “a manageable, social and economic problem” until “the clamor for statehood introduced an insoluable [sic] political element” into the issue. “It is my judgment that thousands dead might now be alive” if “the Zionists” had put “less emphasis on statehood”

    Kind of undercuts the narrative, no?

  4. Does hasbara actually think Sulz' critical opinion of zionism suggests he is not presiding over a (diaspora) supremacist rag that produces a daily bilge of anti-white dross?

  5. Gabriel,

    Yes, I'm aware that Sulzberger was an anti-Zionist. Hell, I remember Bill O'Reilly referring to him as having been an "anti-semite" way back in the early 2000s, when I first started trying to make sense of the world.

    It's hard to find precise polling, but my best guess is that among non-religious Jews, zionism is a minority position, probably by a sizable margin.

    So what? If the only issue Heritage America had to have with diaspora Jews was their trying to steer US military policy towards benefitting Israel, we'd be a lot better off. I'd love for the modal American Jew to be one who loves Israel and wants the American government to act towards its citizens the same way the Israeli government acts towards its own!



  6. AE –

    Sulzberger wasn't really all that bad compared to his successors. He pursued more of a centrist/elitist editorial line* (i.e. The Economist) as opposed to the hard-leftist/elitist line the Times adopted after his death. They endorsed Republicans for POTUS 4 times while he was publisher, and Democrats 3 times. Under his successors they've only endorsed Democrats.

    His most recent successors, BTW, aren't particularly Jewish. Neither Jewish nor Nazi law would consider them Jews.

    Pinch – Sulzberger's mother was of mostly English and Scottish origin and his father was of Jewish origin (both Ashkenazic and Sephardic).[5] His parents divorced when he was 5 years old. Sulzberger was raised in his mother's Episcopalian faith; however, he no longer observes any religion.[6]

    A.G. – Sulzberger was born in Washington, D.C., the son of Gail Gregg and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the grandson of Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger Sr., the great-grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and the great-great-grandson of Adolph Ochs.[3] His paternal grandfather was Jewish, and the rest of his family is of Christian background (Episcopalian and Congregationalist).

    *With mixed success since many of his reporters were card-carrying CPUSA members, but that was at least as much a WASP phenomenon as a Jewish one.

  7. O/T

    The AT&T Time Warner merger being approved is an ominous sign. With no divestiture being required, it renders a mockery of the laws designed to prevent the predatory concentration of economic power. The effort was also undermined from the inside with the AT&T payoff of Michael Cohen.

    From a longer term view, it is not a surprising decision given the previous regime's approval of the Comcast takeover of NBC. Greased by the DNC donations/bundling of the Roberts family that controls Comcast.

    Even worse for the Right, the Disney-Fox merger is now rubber-stamped. Murdoch flattered Trump's ego by making sure that Disney won't take over Fox News. The rump Fox that isn't going to be merged will be far more vulnerable to leftist triggered advertiser boycotts. Tucker and Hannity need to consider launching their own network, possibly a takeover of Breitbart. Of additional note, the combination of ESPN with the Fox regional sports networks is ominous, but might provide a haircut into the growing broadcast fees earned by the sportsball industry.

  8. Sid says:

    "Even worse for the Right, the Disney-Fox merger is now rubber-stamped. Murdoch flattered Trump's ego by making sure that Disney won't take over Fox News."

    The AT&T Time Warner merger, however, greenlights Comcast buying out Fox instead of Disney. Beats me if that would be better or worse than Disney doing it.

    Needless to say, the mergers mean that the Media will become more and more of an echo chamber, if it hasn't already maxed out there.

  9. @AE First, I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. The claim that Jews support nationalist policies in Israel while opposing them in America is probably the single most frequently claim made on the alt-right. You yourself have repeated it many times, including last week. Then when you cite a course that undermines this claim, it's 'so what'.

    Secondly, however, I don't think that Sulzberger's anti-zionism is the most interesting thing about what I quoted. What is more interesting is that he used his newspaper to try and cover up or minimize Jewish suffering whilst blaming what Jewish suffering there was (in an almost comically counter-factual manner) on Jewish nationalism. Obviously, there is room for different Jews having different conceptions of Jewish interests, but, at a certain point, the Jewish-interests explanation just ceases to make any sense.

    Let's put it another way. Granted, New York Jews are tribal. That's not a surprise since they are human beings after all. Let's also grant they are more tribal than some other groups, Hajnal line and all that. But what's their tribe? Whatever it is, it ain't 'Jews'.

  10. Gabriel,

    For-Me-But-Not-For-Thee wrt Israel is directed at neocons and the minority of other Jews that are generally considered to be on the political right in the US. I direct that at people like Ben Shapiro. Guys like Shapiro are a mixed bag.

    Some on the alt right think they're the enemy. I certainly hope they don't have to be.

    But they are not anywhere close to being on the same level as the nation-wrecking, civilization-destroying threat from a big chunk of the 2%, the threat finding its most salient manifestation in the anti-zionist George Soros. The zionism or lack thereof is itself quite salient and helps expose blatant hypocrisy, but it is not the underlying issue.

    Stephen Miller, Paul Gottfried, Seth Grossman–I'm (perhaps naively) unreservedly supportive of all of them and would like nothing more than their Jewishness to be about as important as my Protestantism when I'm interacting with a white identitiarian who is culturally Catholic.

  11. AE, I agree with you one thousand percent – wouldn’t it be amazing if most of (((us))) could just relegate the Jewish aspect of our national identity to the status of religion among other white Americans. A bit of a white pill – a whole lot of us are de facto that way, but we tend to be the ones who don’t make waves but just get on with our lives, happily intermarry etc. We haven’t been nearly vocal enough in our condemnation of orgs like ADL etc. We have mostly failed in clearly articulating our solidarity with heritage America. Sadly, we don’t spend nearly enough time questioning our long-held assumptions. It doesn’t help that we have terrible genetics in terms of psychiatric problems – I guarantee you at least 20 percent of Ashekanzi Jewry has a cluster B personality disorder if not more.

    We have very little self awareness on the whole. Very little capacity at collective introspection.

    Look, the only argument I can make in our collective defense is that most white gentiles are solid normies and more or less fast asleep on all this stuff. If they don’t stand up for themselves, maybe it’s a bit unfair to expect the MODAL American Jew to be like Stephen Miller. I think Gabriel made that argument? It makes sense to me. But, we can, and we must, do better than we have been. No doubt about it.

    Sorry, this is long and not very articulate, my brain is toddler-friend 🙂 have a good night and keep up the fabulous work! Thank you for providing this forum on your blog!

  12. We have very little self awareness on the whole. Very little capacity at collective introspection.

    This is very true. A big part of the problem is that any sort of criticism gets lumped in with anti-semitism. It doesn't actually help that most of the people who are brave enough to criticize Jews publicly are actual anti-semites, for obvious reasons, creating a sort of vicious cycle. I don't think the ADL actually needs to pay Patrick Little, but the effect is the same.

  13. Winston,

    A bit of a white pill – a whole lot of us are de facto that way, but we tend to be the ones who don’t make waves but just get on with our lives, happily intermarry etc.

    Yeah, there's a salience factor to keep in mind here. We of the non-parenthetical variety notice the Jews who seem to hate us while we don't much notice the ones who don't because, well, because they blend in with us to the extent that we often only incidentally find out they're Jewish if we ever realize it at all.

    You're absolutely right wrt pointing fingers. The WASP elite was pushed aside because it had already rotted from the inside.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS