RSS
The New York Times’ “public editor” (ombudswoman) writes:
Times Was Right to Change Insensitive Graphic
By MARGARET SULLIVAN SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 3:24 PM September 11, 2015 3:24 pm 215 Comments
Many Times readers wrote to me Thursday about a graphic that appeared online and in print accompanying a story about the Iran nuclear deal. They protested a column in the graphic that identified whether lawmakers were Jewish, with a one-word heading: “Jewish?”
Typical of the objections was this one, from Jean Stevens of Los Angeles, who wrote to me: “Singling out Jews is reminiscent of horrific times in history.” And Jeffrey A. Carmel of Portola Valley, Calif., called the graphic “odious,” writing: “It certainly implies that these senators are somehow different from other lawmakers because of their religion. And, of course, the statistics on the percentage of Jews in their constituency further embellishes the suggestion that Jews are somehow different from other Americans.”
In addition, the graphic drew a great deal of negative reaction on Twitter:
Oren Kessler, by the way, is a deputy director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neoconservative think tank dedicated to denouncing Israel’s enemies. Its biggest donor in 2001-2004 was subprime grifter Roland Arnall, one of the main architects of the Housing Bubble.
And Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, was another reader who complained in a published letter to the editor.
By early evening, The Times had altered the graphic online to remove that column, but did so without any explanation to readers. …
Here’s my take: The graphic, as almost everyone now seems to agree, was insensitive and inappropriate. I would add that it was regrettably tone-deaf. It shouldn’t have appeared in that form to begin with. Given that it did, Times editors took the right action in listening to the objections and changing it. But that change should have been accompanied sooner by an explanatory editor’s note. It’s appropriate that a note has been added now and while — given the fraught topic — it surely won’t satisfy everyone, I think it addresses the matter in a responsible and reasonable way.
Personally, I lost interest in the Iran thing a long time ago. Not because it isn’t important, but because in a world where many massively important issues are hushed up, I have much more useful things to devote my attention to than one that is, no doubt, getting its full measure of scrutiny.
If I were interested in having an opinion on the Iran deal, I’d probably want to know what Jewish Democrats in Congress think about it — presumably, bright guys like Chuck Schumer have heard a fair amount of argument about it — just as this handy table in the New York Times provides.
Obviously, nobody in our society except a few idealists is, in general, against counting by ethnicity and other identity politics categories. The New York Times, for example, constantly prints detailed statistics about how white males have too much power in Hollywood. In the press today, “white male,” for example, is an uncontroversial term of derision.
The federal government just sent me a letter demanding I participate in a trial run of the 2020 Census. And, of course, just like in past Censuses, a large fraction of the preliminary Census questions were about things like race and ethnicity.
But the federal government does not count Jews in any fashion. Jewish organizations protested Census plans to have “Jewish” as an answer on the 1960 Census.
The thesis is that Jews hate “Jew-counting.”
But the antithesis is that, of course, Jewish organizations and Jewish media put a lot of effort into counting Jews for the benefit of other Jews. For instance, here’s a headline in the Jewish paper The Forward from last spring:
Who the Jewish Billionaires Are Backing for 2016
Nathan GuttmanMay 21, 2015 Image: Anya Ulinich
The synthesis appears to be that Jewish special interest groups don’t want gentiles to possess any systematic information about Jewish numbers.
Thus, when activists like Oren Kessler see “Jewish?” as a column heading in a table … in the New York Times … they throw a massive hissy fit about its “creepiness” and get it deleted.
They can’t explain by any appeal to principle why it’s so horrible to use modern techniques of quantitative summary like … a table, but they can demonize tables as creepy like crazy to activate the Crimestop mechanisms in gentile heads.
Hey, you know who used tables? Nazis. Just sayin’ … It’s like those Hungarians putting refugees on trains or, you know, taking them off trains. Trains, man … Hitler used trains. And tables.
Speaking of Seth Rogen, here’s Adam Sandler in Judd Apatow’s Funny People explaining that it’s not just tables, it’s lists: “Because of the Holocaust.”
Systematic data on Jewish numbers aren’t supposed to be readily available to dumb outsiders. They’re not supposed to be able to easily find out that the reason so many Republican candidates at the debate practically sang choruses of “Israel Uber Alles” is because, even though there aren’t many Jewish Republican primary voters, about a third of all billionaires in America are Jewish and some of them are Republican donors.
Putting data in tables works against the natural, human desire of Jewish lobbies to have it both ways at all times: Jews are a tiny minority and thus should be pitied or, as the case may be, ignored; while at the same time, Jews are strong and should be feared and obeyed.
Most groups want to do this: Hispanic spokespersons want Americans to assume that they are a minority so insignificant that affirmative action requires only an immaterial sacrifice by white people; while also wanting Americans to assume that Hispanics are a vastly powerful voting bloc that must be placated or they will crush you at the polls.
In response, for years, I’ve been posting Census Bureau data showing that Hispanics are big when it comes to qualifying for affirmative action (17.4% in 2014):
But not as big when it comes to voting: 7.3% in 2014:
Granted, the tables of Census Bureau data I dig up about Hispanics numbers don’t get as much publicity as the contradictory claims of professional Hispanic activists. But the fact that I’m able to post tables and graphs of official government data on Hispanics showing that some of their claims to power are overblown and some of their rationalizations for privilege are underblown is gratifyingly irritating to the handful of Hispanic activists who play in my league.
In summary, my opinions are:
– Tables and graphs are good.
– Raising awareness? I’m for it.
– Systematic knowledge is better than unsystematic knowledge, which is better than ignorance, which is better than lies.
But then I’m a wacko extremist, so I would be in favor of knowledge.
The New York Times, for example, constantly prints detailed statistics about how white males have too much power in Hollywood. In the press today, “white male,” for example, is an uncontroversial term of derision.
Great. If NYT had a graphic with “White Males with real influence over culture and politics?”, Kessler would say that was an antisemitic dog whistle.
That ‘Defense of Democracies’ foundation is obviously a front group posing itself as being conservative in order to fool people with it’s true-blue name. I wonder how many such groups there are out there. There’s a lot of smoke and noise surrounding the Iran deal but how many people have actually read it? Anybody know what’s in it? Is it as bad or as good as the various proponents say it is?
Would have gone over better if there were two separate tables for Jews and non-Jews.
It’s the column going “Jewish? Y/N” that strikes people as creepy.
Chomsky always says that Israel is the US’s strategic cop on the Middle East beat. So it seems to me there should be some non-Jewish billionaires who in order to boost the global dominance of the US, fund pro-Israel think tanks. Are there?
The sixth or seventh biggest donor to FDD in the early 2000s was Louis Ranieri, the Outer Boroughs Italian who invented some financial gimcrackery central to Michael Lewis’s first book.
“but how many people have actually read it?”
Not me!
lol. Steve is funny. BUT, what Steve doesn’t exactly spell out is just what the Jewish black-out bosses exactly don’t want spelled out—regarding tables. Which is that present-day America is a statistical replica of Weimar Germany where Jewish power is concerned. Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany would make for an incredible ISteve post. But I have to think that’s a bridge too far for Steve, and I don’t blame him. The Nazis were humorless, not to mention unhinged; who would want to suggest, even indirectly, maybe they were right? What I, personally, would like to see are divisions arise about this stuff, so that some Jewish Thomas Sowell comes along and says in a syndicated column that Norman Podhoretz and Abe Foxman are hustlers, are frankly bad people who should be ostracized, as well as a Jewish Dave Chappelle who caricatures that which is egregious about self-proclaimed chosen people prone to paranoia. Let them have their money and their enterprises, but allow the public to criticize shameless bullying and laugh at obvious comedy. That’s all.
On the other hand - given how many a Mordecai has emerged from the Bureau of Vital Records as "Mike" or "Mitchell" or "Martin" over the years - perhaps it's time we begin returning the favor. As even small children know by now, the calling out of nefarious Jews by name is a task that may only be shouldered by a Mordecai: and even then, begrudingly and with extreme vindictiveness.
So let's screw on our skullcaps, Mike, Mitch and Marty! You've got work to do.
According to a writer at Slate, the Jew counting by the NYT in this instance was okay because American Jews are divided on whether to support the Iran deal or not. However, the writer took care to point out that if such counting was intended to raise questions of dual loyalty, then that would be “dangerous and ugly.”
Wait, isn’t New York Times itself controlled by Jews? In this case the title of this post should read, “Jews cave to Jewish pressure, etc.”
Minor point but if yer saying Durbin is one of THEM,he’s not. But they own his worthless ass
Thanks.
Steve, why are you Jew-baiting when you subsequently censor many of the comments about Jews? You’ve done it to me twice. This has never happened to me regarding any other subject here on your blog.
People can say incendiary things about blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, gays, transgender, women, etc., but never Jews. Certain groups are apparently exempt from critique on your blog; well, just one, really. Be equitable in your censorship and criticisms. Do not exempt the most powerful out of fear. Rather, allow them to be placed on the same level as everyone else out of decency.
1) Steve goes out of his way to emphasize that when Jewish people want to make things be "good for the Jews," that is a normal human desire and there is nothing wrong with it.
2) He goes out of his way to compliment Israel on doing what a democracy should -- namely, looking out for the interests of its own people, before those of the rest of the planet.
3) His gripe isn't with Jewish people trying to make things "good for the Jews," as such, but rather with the system of taboos, retribution, etc., that makes it impossible to air reasonable criticism in a measured way, and the resulting harmful distortions of intellectual life.
Now, we all know here that words like "hate" and "racism" have been devalued by the Left to the point of being meaningless. And when someone is accused of "hate" and "racism" in the USA in 2015, most of the time it is total BS.
However... when I go to some of those unfiltered content sections, I find things that to me are truly horrible.
Now, I totally support the Pat Buchanan line on foreign policy, and totally agree with all of Steve's gripes about Jewish taboos in the media ... which of course would be enough to get me called "anti-Semitic" by the MSM... but that doesn't mean that there's not genuine hate out there, and genuine anti-Semitism, and I find it revolting. I'm glad Steve keeps it out of here.
My rule of thumb is that whenever dehumanizing metaphors come into play, that's bad news. Our opponents may (some of them) be awful, duplicitous, malicious, hateful people... but they are still human beings. When commenters start using non-human terms, that's out of bounds in my view.
This is a tough problem. How can Jews single themselves out (as they must for racial purity and ethnic solidarity reasons) while preventing goyim from “singling” them (or even noticing, for that matter)? How can Jews remain “a people apart” from “the nations” as the Torah requires, and not have the nations notice?
They could truly be “a people apart” as the Amish are and have no problems, but where’s the money and power in that? The only real answer, as Ted Herzl and countless other Jews have concluded, is to have their own land and make Aliyah. But again, where’s the money and power in being just one more Jew in an entire country full of regular workaday Jews? How satisfying is it to kvell “my son, the [Israeli Jewish] plumber” or ” my son, the janitor.” It isn’t a problem for the Amish, because no work is beneath them, so Amish separation is not fraught with Amish anxiety or conflict with the larger culture.
So how can Diasporic Jews be both “separated” and “integrated” at the exact same time? They still haven’t figured out how to make it work.
Great analysis Steve. You rock.
How could they be both “unhinged” and “right”? Seems like a contradiction.
People can say incendiary things about blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, gays, transgender, women, etc., but never Jews. Certain groups are apparently exempt from critique on your blog; well, just one, really. Be equitable in your censorship and criticisms. Do not exempt the most powerful out of fear. Rather, allow them to be placed on the same level as everyone else out of decency.Replies: @Stubborn in Germany, @Benjaminl, @International Jew
Because he wants the traffic and the Paypal $$ from the Eustace Mullins fans and Mondoweiss readers.
Because he wants to maintain plausible deniability. Steve has framed the recent plug Mark Steyn gave him above his desk and harbors hopes of a return to mainstream respectability.
If you want free rein for your fingers to type up a Storm(front), try the Disqus comment section below his Taki’s articles… or any of the half dozen or so Unz.com writers who have made it their main business to write about child-murdering Israel and the iron Jewish grip on Congress.
Actually the comments have improved. There was a time when literally every comment thread in this blog devolved to Jew-bashing, even when the subject was not remotely about Jews. It was tiresome and sickening. That seems to have slackened off.
Surprise, surprise.
And a good number of Congress.
That is one of the most refreshing, intelligent statements I have seen from anyone lately.
Historically, the Sulzberger family was a rare case of both powerful and anti-Zionist Jews, but this may have changed recently.
If you can’t get your message posted, try saying it a different way. Yes, the zeitgeist is infused with unprincipled favoritism toward Jews (because Jewish power). Yes, Steve probably has a higher bar for criticism of Jews than for other groups. But I find I can express any idea here if I put a bit of thought into it.
Most comments I can imagine that would be considered pejorative to Jews tend to be less well-supported by hard facts, which is not the same as their being invalid.
Might that be a reasonable cause?
Impressions of the Iran deal:
* If Iran’s leadership wants to build a uranium bomb arsenal, they can, with or without US or UN blessing. Much-less-imposing Pakistan did so, decades ago. American pols’ chatter about how “we” can and must prevent it is empty.
* Sanctions slowed down the progress of Iranian R&D. They also hurt their economy in general, and evasion provided opportunities for easy enrichment for “corrupt” elites (e.g. mullahs, IRGC generals).
* Ending sanctions will improve the Iranian economy. But European sanctioners had already made clear that they wouldn’t continue for much longer, anyway.
* Iran will continue to be deeply anti-American and anti-Sunni, for strategic, economic, and religious/philosophical reasons. Whether or not they abide by the nuclear deal, they won’t “behave.”
* A Third World diplomacy pattern under Obama and Clinton/Kerry may be that anti-US Bad Countries (Cuba, Iran) get better treatment than pro-US Bad Countries (Mubarak’s Egypt, Honduras).
STUDY: Humans making dogs stupid
News flash, humans are making humans stupid, too. The amazing thing is that the former is talked about, and the latter is ignored (at best).
Hey, it could have been worse. The NYTwits could have put a star next to the name of each Jew, or highlighted it in yellow…
This is where someone says “these crazy leftist Jews don’t represent all Jews.”
Yeah, they kinda do. There’s no one stopping Jews from condemning these guys. There’s no reason prominent Jews can’t publicly distance themselves from this.
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is one of the more infamous neocon outfits out there. They’ve been at the front and center of just about all agitating for foreign wars for the last 15 years.
Steve, you put a pic of Seth Rogen’s mug in your column. Quite on-topic I have to mention that the preview for his new movie (I don’t care about the name and I will never see it) shows him, a Jew, vomiting in a Christian (specifically, Roman Catholic) church during services. Pure, unfiltered hatred of us dumb goyim on full display.
I hope you’re not holding your breath on that one.
On the other hand – given how many a Mordecai has emerged from the Bureau of Vital Records as “Mike” or “Mitchell” or “Martin” over the years – perhaps it’s time we begin returning the favor. As even small children know by now, the calling out of nefarious Jews by name is a task that may only be shouldered by a Mordecai: and even then, begrudingly and with extreme vindictiveness.
So let’s screw on our skullcaps, Mike, Mitch and Marty! You’ve got work to do.
Norman Finkelstein?
Yes, but not really. Consider another big thing you’ve declined to devote your attention to, Obamacare. The Iran Deal is its geopolitical analogue. Obamacare was not the one and only thing that both of the seemingly never-the-twain-shall-meet sides agreed on, a momentous break, either in the form of an ominous turn toward socialized medicine, or historic, sanguine — Social Security-like reform. It was no New Day, for good or ill. Just the same vested interests adjusting the bargain.
And, like Obamacare, the Iran Deal refracts through the political/partisan prism as something Manichaen. Either Nixon/China or Munich . . . so everyone agrees it’s big, Big, BIG! They are wrong.
That said, let’s consider the Overton Window here concerning Israel and the Jews– even though I dislike the term for reasons unimportant at the moment. It ranges from the soft to hard versions of the same thing: Israel and American Jews are The Tail That Wags The U.S. Dog. Its adherents haven’t Noticed that the Iran Deal, even just its negotiation, should have been inconceivable.
The Iran Deal is not a break from the past. With the past being U.S. — Iran relations since Iran’s revolution in 1979. It is not a rapprochement so much as removing the formal roadblocks both states have labored under to their (now) mutual disadvantage when it comes to other relevant states –allies and rivals alike.
Of course Obama’s Iran deal was going to be approved, because of the Corker bill inverting the treaty process. All he needed was 34 Senate votes, and if Obama officially proposed changing the name of the color of a lemon to blue, he could easily find 34 Senate Democrats to sign on, and on top of that, almost 100% of blacks would approve of calling lemons blue.
Schumer only probably voted no because he knew it had its 34 votes. Politicians do this all the time, they change their votes for outward consumption on a bill that they know will pass, they want it to pass, but voters don’t want it. So they can brag to their constituents about voting against the bill, and their voting indeces will be scored based on their apparent no vote, when, like I said, their no vote was a deceptive ploy.
The Republican establishment, in spite of all the bluster about Israel and AIPAC, want the Iran deal to go through, because Iran will get its $150 billion of frozen assets since 1979 unfrozen. That $150bn is going to burn a big hole in their pocket, and they’re going to send it directly to New York and London.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3235320/PASSPORT-TERROR-MailOnline-reporter-buys-Syrian-papers-sold-ISIS-fighters-sneaking-Europe-hidden-refugees.html
While there are statistically zero Jewish Republican primary voters, there are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of evangelical Christian voters who are pro-Israel.
Is “Geld” in the headline a Yiddish code-word?
The subheadings in this NYT table are not very well worded.
Democrats against Jewish? State and estimated
the deal 10% of all Sens. Jewish population
Above 2.2% U.S. average
Charles E. Schumer Yes New York 9.1%
…
Why is “Sens.” abbreviated? A better way to convey the information
in the subheadings of the table would be full sentences, not necessarily
in the table: “10% of all Senators are Jewish.”, “2.2% of all Americans
are Jewish.”
And what does it mean to say that New York State’s estimated
Jewish population is 9.1% above the U.S. average of 2.2% Jewish
population? Is this 9.1% a true percentage, or does it mean
percentage points? That is, is the proportion of New Yorkers who are Jews
2.2% + 9.1% of 2.2% = 2.4%, or is it 2.2% + 9.1% = 11.3%?
Geld by association for one, Gelt by association for the other.
Where is this “geld table”? In the room next to the bris board?
And how much pressure does it take? The gelding, that is.
Jewish Power Blues.
When the New Boys Network goes too far.
http://pagesix.com/2015/09/16/anthony-weiner-out-of-his-job-at-powerhouse-p-r-firm/?_ga=1.65761831.889562220.1417425362
Couldn't happen to a a worse bunch of slime.
Steve, you’re missing the big point. The NYT, run by the Suzlbergers, is now well run by Carlos Slim and Obama.
Obama and company have out and out accused Jews of disloyalty — to Obama. And thus being unAmerican. Because the Lightworker is God.
This is the Obama Coalition feeling frisky enough to begin the purges. First, Jews. Jews are going to be purged, and are being purged, out of public life to make room for the Diverse, including Muslims, Blacks, etc. Jewish Opposition to Obama’s idiot Iran Deal is being painted in very nasty terms, approaching but not reaching NSDAP rhetoric in 1925.
The NYT ten years ago would NEVER have run a Jew-baiting table, but now under Slim/Obama they do. The Sulzbergers lost control just as Matt Damon does not run his own show, “Project Greenlight.” He had to cave and grovel to some Black woman over the argument for “diversity” in directing, instead of casting.
Objectively, a big name movie star like Damon has less power than a no name director with no resume because he is a White Male and she is Black. Power is shown by who grovels.
The Iran deal matters because its awful:
*The US is OBLIGED TO DEFEND IRAN against any and all attacks, including Israel’s.
*The US is OBLIGED TO HELP IRAN’s Nuke program.
*The US is bound by SECRET SIDE DEALS involving the UN and Iran that THE US IS NOT ALLOWED TO READ OR SEE.
Needless to say, Iran and the US are hostile to each other because of fundamental interests. Iran wants oil at $250 a barrel and needs it to pay off all its debts and internal promised stuff to men with guns that keep the regime in power. That means, with reduced Chinese demand, the US being forced to keep oil production offline EVEN WITH HIGH PRICES.
American manufacturing jobs depend on domestic energy. Iran cannot afford the US to have oil production even if it stays inside the US because reduced US demand for foreign oil won’t allow oil to reach its target level of $250 a barrel.
Want to live in Peachtree Towers in “Dredd?” Support the Iran Deal. You’ll get it soon enough.
That was my point. If Steve cited the uncanny parallels between America and Weimar Germany, that might be taken as implying the Nazis will be arriving any minute now, which might be taken as implying they should arrive. That’s bad business, indirectly suggesting maybe the Nazis were right, even if it was really only interesting history innocently mentioned, because the Nazis were unhinged.
Adam Sandler on counting Jews (dubbed for Columba’s consumption):
The subheadings in this NYT table are not very well worded.
Democrats against Jewish? State and estimated
the deal 10% of all Sens. Jewish population
Above 2.2% U.S. average
Charles E. Schumer Yes New York 9.1%
…
Why is “Sens.” abbreviated? A better way to convey the information
in the subheadings of the table would be full sentences, not necessarily
in the table: “10% of all Senators are Jewish.”, “2.2% of all Americans
are Jewish.”
And what does it mean to say that New York State’s estimated
Jewish population is 9.1% above the U.S. average of 2.2% Jewish
population? Is this 9.1% a true percentage, or does it mean
percentage points? That is, is the proportion of New Yorkers who are Jews
2.2% + 9.1% of 2.2% = 2.4%, or is it 2.2% + 9.1% = 11.3%?Replies: @Ivy
Who, whom.
Geld by association for one, Gelt by association for the other.
Yeah, they kinda do. There's no one stopping Jews from condemning these guys. There's no reason prominent Jews can't publicly distance themselves from this.Replies: @BigGaySteve
Actually Ben Shapiro explained the difference between religious jews and godless bacon eating cuck suckers http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/12/ben-shapiro-why-jews-vote-leftist/
Yeah, but there’s a big difference between having a nationally syndicated column and having what Finkelstein’s got. Plus I don’t think he would countenance a Jewish Dave Chappelle. The Israel Lobby was probably the poli sci publishing event of the century. And yet it was that, though none of its facts were up for dispute, or anything particularly obscure. (I keep up with Stephen Walt’s articles over at Foreign Policy and he has to contradict himself in the same breath to keep his job, mentioning the lobby then acknowledging the “canard of dual-loyalty.”) Plenty of people criticize Israel. The issue is really everything other than Israel, or rather what’s behind Israel, Jewish power in America—specifically the character of people who assassinate reputations with impunity. I want to see a Jew with establishment credentials bluntly state that groups of Jews who monitor critics of Israel, threaten their would-be employers, and alienate their family members too—like they did to Joe Sobran—I want to see a Jew say such Jews are borderline sociopaths who deserve to be disrespected and shunned by every Jew with a conscious. That I have yet to see. Though there is that Bobby Fischer movie coming out.
Since the leftist media was so eager to announce David Duke favoring Trump I decided to do a little survey in NYC this weekend. Interestingly enough none of the Jewish power fisting bottoms supported Trump but they are 578/579 behind Jeb.
People can say incendiary things about blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, gays, transgender, women, etc., but never Jews. Certain groups are apparently exempt from critique on your blog; well, just one, really. Be equitable in your censorship and criticisms. Do not exempt the most powerful out of fear. Rather, allow them to be placed on the same level as everyone else out of decency.Replies: @Stubborn in Germany, @Benjaminl, @International Jew
I’m 100% with Steve here. As I see it, and correct me if I’m wrong:
1) Steve goes out of his way to emphasize that when Jewish people want to make things be “good for the Jews,” that is a normal human desire and there is nothing wrong with it.
2) He goes out of his way to compliment Israel on doing what a democracy should — namely, looking out for the interests of its own people, before those of the rest of the planet.
3) His gripe isn’t with Jewish people trying to make things “good for the Jews,” as such, but rather with the system of taboos, retribution, etc., that makes it impossible to air reasonable criticism in a measured way, and the resulting harmful distortions of intellectual life.
Now, we all know here that words like “hate” and “racism” have been devalued by the Left to the point of being meaningless. And when someone is accused of “hate” and “racism” in the USA in 2015, most of the time it is total BS.
However… when I go to some of those unfiltered content sections, I find things that to me are truly horrible.
Now, I totally support the Pat Buchanan line on foreign policy, and totally agree with all of Steve’s gripes about Jewish taboos in the media … which of course would be enough to get me called “anti-Semitic” by the MSM… but that doesn’t mean that there’s not genuine hate out there, and genuine anti-Semitism, and I find it revolting. I’m glad Steve keeps it out of here.
My rule of thumb is that whenever dehumanizing metaphors come into play, that’s bad news. Our opponents may (some of them) be awful, duplicitous, malicious, hateful people… but they are still human beings. When commenters start using non-human terms, that’s out of bounds in my view.
More information is always good. I just wish the Times had done a more complete job, and listed the same information — Jewish/Nonjewish, Jewish % in district, and yay/nay on the Iran deal — for all 100 senators and 435 congressmen, rather than restricting itself to Democrats who opposed the deal.
What, really, were the correlations between those variables? I’ll bet they’re actually the opposite of what the Times was pushing. After all, every last Republican senator and representative opposed the deal, when there are zero Jewish Republican senators and just one Jewish Republican representative, vs 9 and 18 respectively among the Dems. And meanwhile, the majority of Jewish senators and representatives supported the deal. (See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewcong114.html .)
Why would the Times, for that piece, forget all about the Republican Party? My guess: to the Times, Republican opposition to the Iran deal is neither newsworthy nor mysterious: Republicans oppose the deal because they hate Obama (because they “want him to fail”, because they’re racist, etc — we’ve heard it all before). But Shumer and Menendez, they’re good Dems so in their case the Times needs some other theory. And that theory — with support from their well-chosen selective sample — is that it’s Jewish dual loyalty (Shumer and a few Jewish Dem representatives), or Jewish money (Menendez and a few non-Jewish Dem representativesl).
If more information is good, then less information is bad. But what’s doubly bad — what the Times did — is providing (selectively) less information *and* using it to argue what is not even true.
How about the NY Times itself? (Talk about 800 lb gorillas…)
People can say incendiary things about blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, gays, transgender, women, etc., but never Jews. Certain groups are apparently exempt from critique on your blog; well, just one, really. Be equitable in your censorship and criticisms. Do not exempt the most powerful out of fear. Rather, allow them to be placed on the same level as everyone else out of decency.Replies: @Stubborn in Germany, @Benjaminl, @International Jew
As someone who’s never had any of his posts censored here (even my jabs at Ron Unz, to which Unz replied angrily while Steve kept out of it), I’ve long been curious about where Steve draws the line. So, Steve, how about just once and just for my edification you post a sampler of the stuff you’ve censored? Or if you’re determined to keep this blog 100% classy, maybe you could just give us a tally according to subject. Like “f-bombs: 125, USS Liberty conspiracy: 82, Talmud exegeses: 41, Holocaust humor: 65, Israeli soldiers using Arab children for bayonet practice: 22”
>Typical of the objections was this one, from Jean Stevens of Los Angeles,
> who wrote to me: “Singling out Jews is reminiscent of horrific times in history.”
We’ll remember that the next time the Ashkenazim are bragging about the size of their IQ mean, and their Fields Medals and Nobel Prizes list.
I can’t say that I’ve ever heard Steven Pinker single out any other race in his discussions of that topic. Steven! You reminiscer of horror!
>”the statistics on the percentage of Jews in their constituency
>further embellishes the suggestion that Jews are somehow different from other Americans.”
Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either you’re the specialist most chosen people of all time, with special claims to special victimhood status that will endure forever, and also super bright and special…or you’re just like other Americans, no different, nothing to see here, move along.
Or could it be that Jews get to be what they say they are when they feel like saying and being it, and everybody else has to toe the line, even, nay, especially when it’s constantly shape-shifting?
That gets it right exactly. Every single word is necessary.
The problem is not that Jews are pursuing their natural, human interests, the problem is that other whites are not making their own pursuit.
After all – everyone else is – blacks, Latinos, Muslims, all.
The only thing that makes the Jews look special, in this regard, is that they are doing this despite being white, which then makes them look like hypocrites if they ever engage in mainstream discourse, which of course you have to do to be well known, so then all Jews look like hypocrites (for thee and not for me.)
But all other groups do the same thing, except, of course, dumb, naive Western Europeans.
We need to learn that hypocrisy is not always the worst option and that life throws up complex moral challenges to which hypocrisy is sometimes the best response.
An officer inspecting a parade of soldiers may not be in as good order as they are, but he still needs to pick up their faults.
NW Euros need to get over ourselves and realise this. Life is not a fairytale and sometimes being a hypocrite is actually the noble choice.
We can believe in fundemental human equality and still favour our own because we believe in many things and sometimes they contradict.
Actually Steve you are a nerd with a love of numbering, charting, graphing, listing and quantifying EVERYTHING!
You have aspergers obviously so your mental processes are biased in certain ways.
By the way your obsession with Occam’s Razor is also garbage. It’s one of the dumbest ideas in philosophy.
But ultimately for the people who run the media it’s not about quantifying data its just about that who?whom? stuff you talk about.
Anyone know how to find out how many dual American/Israeli citizens there are in Congress?
All jews are dual citizens in effect if not in name because they hold a "birthright" to Israel.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bfCq0cPXrcReplies: @Steve Sailer
Thanks, I’ll add to the post.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/adam-sandler-sings-the-hanukkah-song/n10627
But like Netanyahu wrote about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, Jews worry that success and recognition of it can lead to envy, suspicion, and possibly reprisal. They weren't chased out of Spain for merely being Jewish, the Spanish were envious of the success they attained. So no they don't like lists. Ideally, according to Netanyahu, they should be living in Israel, but there's just so many people out there in the world that are stupid enough to pay "retail", so they tend to be scattered.
Once for an iSteve comment I researched dollar figures of movie production companies. Sandler was number 3 in worth as an individual at $250 million dollars. I imagine since SNL he realizes that lists are something the smart Jew wants to stay off. At least outside of Jewish social parlors.Replies: @anon
No, it is because actual Republican primary voters are extremely supportive of Israel. It is basically the single most important foreign policy issue for the GOP base.
And on top of this, it is not just actual Jews who identify with Israel and Judaism personally. What do you think the percentage of white Americans are that (1) are at least 25% Jewish (2) have a Jewish spouse and/or partly Jewish children (3) are close, long-term friends or business partners of Jews, or happy long-term employees of a small Jewish-owned businesses (e.g., worked for 20 years as a dentist’s receptionist) (4) have a sibling or child who married or had children with a Jew? I’d guess the majority of Northeastern whites, as well as the Chicago area and coastal California, fall into one of these categories.
And on top of this, it is not just actual Jews who identify with Israel and Judaism personally. What do you think the percentage of white Americans are that (1) are at least 25% Jewish (2) have a Jewish spouse and/or partly Jewish children (3) are close, long-term friends or business partners of Jews, or happy long-term employees of a small Jewish-owned businesses (e.g., worked for 20 years as a dentist's receptionist) (4) have a sibling or child who married or had children with a Jew? I'd guess the majority of Northeastern whites, as well as the Chicago area and coastal California, fall into one of these categories.Replies: @Bert, @Mr. Anon
It’s mind-blowing how laughably wrong you are.
Anyone know how to find out how many dual American/Israeli citizens there are in Congress?
All jews are dual citizens in effect if not in name because they hold a “birthright” to Israel.
John Kerry probably can't make aliyah to Israel, but I wouldn't be surprised if Austria would take him.
When the New Boys Network goes too far.
http://pagesix.com/2015/09/16/anthony-weiner-out-of-his-job-at-powerhouse-p-r-firm/?_ga=1.65761831.889562220.1417425362Replies: @Lugash
I view this a sign that Hillary is losing power. No President Clinton, no Chief of Staff Huma, no perks for Carlos Danger.
Couldn’t happen to a a worse bunch of slime.
Frankly, I am surprised that the NYT actually published that information, formatted and labeled in the way they did. It certainly makes sense to do so however. An interesting contrast is this: Six weeks before the “Jew Tracking Poll,” the LA Jewish Journal commissioned a poll of Jewish and non-Jewish opinion on the Iran deal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/jewish-americans-support-the-iran-nuclear-deal/
The poll purported to show that Jews supported the deal at considerably higher rates than non-Jews did, which has since been used to show how “diverse” Jewish opinion is and how allegedly absurd the notion of a unified Jewish attempt to undermine the deal is,
The results of the poll and this interpretation were liberally displayed throughout the media making it obvious that organized Jewry was fully supportive of said interpretation. Of course, the methodology of the poll was questionable since Jews were pre-screened (in order to identify enough Jews in total) and therefore already knew that they would be answering the questions as Jews. Moreover, given the political hyperconsciousness of Jews and their finely tuned sense of what is “good for the Jews,” one has to ask whether some or many of the respondents might not have lied and said they supported the deal when in fact they did not. Had the opposition been successful in upending the deal, there would have been many recriminations, and it’s easy to see that documented mass Jewish support for the humiliation of the president in stark opposition to the rest of the Democratic grass roots would not have been “good for the Jews.”
The bottom line is that there was no uproar about a poll whose results were likely to provide political cover to Jews even though it supposedly sought to shine a light on Jewish positions with respect to the Iran deal. Yet, when the NYT documented the relationship between the percent of Jews in electoral districts and representative voting plans and between those plans and past voting loyalty, the outrage was immediate and unrelenting.
The bottom line here: Coverage of the Jewish dimension of controversial issues may be OK if it promotes a narrative that is perceived by organized Jewry as “good for the Jews.” Otherwise, it will face the usual aggressive whining.
Jews often talk about irrational anti-Semitism and I think they have half a point which I think is explained in this – if you think about it long enough.
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/why-re-colonization-commonweal.html
By some quirk of evolution a certain percentage of Euro descended people* cannot stand openly stated public hypocrisy and double standards – makes them crazy. Private hypocrisy is another thing and may even be higher among those groups as a result of the same wiring but public hypocrisy makes them mad.
So things like Jews in the media attacking other groups over disparate impact makes them nuts – if they notice. I didn’t notice till my 40s but it made me crazy mad for a while and still does occasionally.
I actually don’t think it’s Jews that are different, globally speaking; it’s Euros who are unusual due to that quirk.
Anyway going back to the first point a criticism of Jews may be rational but a lot of the time it gets rage-fueled by that quirk. I know I get like that sometimes – so a certain amount of toning down may be necessary from time to time.
It’s like if someone had ever tried to bribe me back when I was in a position to be bribed I would have tried to kill them – the reaction is rational (in the context of the kind of society it creates) but the extremity of the reaction is maybe a little too much.
(*or maybe it’s universal but needs a minimum percentage to influence a society)
If 10% of US Senators were Persians, would it be widely considered acceptable to have a table that read “Persian Y/N?”. I think the answer, as far as the NYT is concerned, would be “Yes”.
And on top of this, it is not just actual Jews who identify with Israel and Judaism personally. What do you think the percentage of white Americans are that (1) are at least 25% Jewish (2) have a Jewish spouse and/or partly Jewish children (3) are close, long-term friends or business partners of Jews, or happy long-term employees of a small Jewish-owned businesses (e.g., worked for 20 years as a dentist's receptionist) (4) have a sibling or child who married or had children with a Jew? I'd guess the majority of Northeastern whites, as well as the Chicago area and coastal California, fall into one of these categories.Replies: @Bert, @Mr. Anon
“No, it is because actual Republican primary voters are extremely supportive of Israel. It is basically the single most important foreign policy issue for the GOP base..”
So we are told by media outlets like FOX News, which manufacture those very opinions.
Why should it be the “single most important foreign policy issue for the GOP base”? It certainly didn’t used to be. I don’t actually think it is now. For a significant number of GOP voters, sure, but not for a majority. The notion that it is, is a lie which we are invited to believe.
“What do you think the percentage of white Americans are that (1) are at least 25% Jewish (2) have a Jewish spouse and/or partly Jewish children (3) are close, long-term friends or business partners of Jews, or happy long-term employees of a small Jewish-owned businesses (e.g., worked for 20 years as a dentist’s receptionist) (4) have a sibling or child who married or had children with a Jew? ”
Significantly less than the number of Americans who are so related to someone of Italian, Irish, Polish, or German ancestry. So why isn’t the welfare of Italy, Ireland, Poland, or Germany, the “single most important foreign policy issue for the GOP base”?
Though if you go by William Blake, He made His way to Glastonbury, and others say He lived out His years in Aomori Prefecture at the top of Honshu.
As for why there's less interest in Poland, Germany etc, maybe because those countries' right to exist isn't routinely challenged. When there was a realistic threat to western Europe, ie when the USSR was still around, the "GOP base" was alot more concerned!
Of course, now with the "Camp of the Saints" on the march, maybe we are starting to see more concern for western Europe.
All jews are dual citizens in effect if not in name because they hold a "birthright" to Israel.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Uh, that would apply to a whole lot more Americans than you think. Michele Bachmann’s children are eligible to be birthright citizens of Switzerland through their father, whose parents came from there. A lot of European countries have such laws.
John Kerry probably can’t make aliyah to Israel, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Austria would take him.
Sandler counted Jews way back. One of his most enduring pieces of his from SNL was The Hanukka Song. I was married to the Jews for 20 years and so I was around quite a lot of Jewish social situations. One game constantly played is “Who’s a Jew”, where they list people they know in whatever social, art, or professional situation that are Jewish. There is quite a bit of arrogance and smug superiority in it. This Sandler song is a musical verion:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/adam-sandler-sings-the-hanukkah-song/n10627
But like Netanyahu wrote about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, Jews worry that success and recognition of it can lead to envy, suspicion, and possibly reprisal. They weren’t chased out of Spain for merely being Jewish, the Spanish were envious of the success they attained. So no they don’t like lists. Ideally, according to Netanyahu, they should be living in Israel, but there’s just so many people out there in the world that are stupid enough to pay “retail”, so they tend to be scattered.
Once for an iSteve comment I researched dollar figures of movie production companies. Sandler was number 3 in worth as an individual at $250 million dollars. I imagine since SNL he realizes that lists are something the smart Jew wants to stay off. At least outside of Jewish social parlors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista
Perhaps because Jesus never walked in those lands?
Though if you go by William Blake, He made His way to Glastonbury, and others say He lived out His years in Aomori Prefecture at the top of Honshu.
I have of course got no idea what was in the censored post. That said, with the caveat that the “on” switch for my racial/ethnic outrage meter has been broken for years, I don’t recall having seen any such comments here that weren’t at a minimum backed by facts (e.g. crime) debatable as those facts might be in some eyes.
Most comments I can imagine that would be considered pejorative to Jews tend to be less well-supported by hard facts, which is not the same as their being invalid.
Might that be a reasonable cause?
Boycotts, divestment and sanctions.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/adam-sandler-sings-the-hanukkah-song/n10627
But like Netanyahu wrote about the expulsion of the Jews from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, Jews worry that success and recognition of it can lead to envy, suspicion, and possibly reprisal. They weren't chased out of Spain for merely being Jewish, the Spanish were envious of the success they attained. So no they don't like lists. Ideally, according to Netanyahu, they should be living in Israel, but there's just so many people out there in the world that are stupid enough to pay "retail", so they tend to be scattered.
Once for an iSteve comment I researched dollar figures of movie production companies. Sandler was number 3 in worth as an individual at $250 million dollars. I imagine since SNL he realizes that lists are something the smart Jew wants to stay off. At least outside of Jewish social parlors.Replies: @anon
There was a bit more to it than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista
I come to this blog because of the chance of finding commenters like you, who are insightful, intelligent, and on the ground. I learn things that I can’t possibly learn from the mainstream media (MSM). I ignore Sailer’s obvious Jew-baiting posts, such as the one about Turnbull.
Actually the comments have improved. There was a time when literally every comment thread in this blog devolved to Jew-bashing, even when the subject was not remotely about Jews. It was tiresome and sickening. That seems to have slackened off.
It’s easy to recognize the dynamic here by corporate research dept. analogy: In almost any modern business it’s *really helpful* to have organized, solid information about what other bids are out there; the track records of representative firms in that sector; inventory levels; the price trend on silicon or whatever — but on the point of your competitors getting access to that same info, that’s not, well, necessarily as much of of a priority. You might even say, it’s actually… unhelpful… As a result most enterprises, whether they’re a real estate agency or Obama’s data geeks, are somewhat reluctant to share the PECOTA spreadsheet for free. It’s a mystery of economics.
Obvious example would be the pollster scene, which has its own carefully weighted polls to be used internally by the candidates’ campaigns. And then, there’s the crap they toss out for the media to have something to write about. Maybe Gordon Gekko was onto something with that insider-information mission he gave to Bud Fox.
To put things in perspective, the GOP base isn’t all that passionate about foreign policy to begin with (it might be around #6, after things like immigration, crime, abortion, schools, jobs, etc).
As for why there’s less interest in Poland, Germany etc, maybe because those countries’ right to exist isn’t routinely challenged. When there was a realistic threat to western Europe, ie when the USSR was still around, the “GOP base” was alot more concerned!
Of course, now with the “Camp of the Saints” on the march, maybe we are starting to see more concern for western Europe.