The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Way We Think Now
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

Screenshot 2015-10-10 15.21.13 As you may have noticed, the New York Times strongly objects to American citizens financing political campaigns. (If the rich are to have influence over the American political process, the respectable way is for a Mexican monopolist who has made billions off encouraging and exploiting illegal immigrants to hand a few hundred million dollars over to the New York Times.) Thus, the top story on NYTimes.com at the moment.

What’s interesting is how flagrant the Identity War hate speech is getting. Especially when you realize that the prime dynamic in American politics today is the top using totems from the bottom to war on the middle.

And you can see the value of belonging to a Designated Victim class. The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.

 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Isn’t this the sort of thing Maoist China did?

    “Look at the these rich folk, they are the enemy!”

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @rod1963
    @H2

    In fact a lot of them are the enemy of the working and middle-class by virtue of the policies they support from globalization to open borders. Good for them, bad for everyone else.

    And true to form the donor list reads like a Yeshiva. The tribe can really network.

    All in all the NYT did us a favor by peeling back the curtain that normally hides the oligarch class that runs Washington from view.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

    , @Chiron
    @H2

    A Jew in Mao's China

    July 9, 2012 By Laura GoldmanFilm

    Even when I have been disenfranchised from God and synagogue, I have always been culturally proud to be a Jew. A source of that pride is the Jewish tradition of helping the oppressed, and our involvement in social movements such as labor and civil rights.


    Until I saw the documentary “The Revolutionary” at the Philadelphia Independent Film Festival, I mistakenly thought that China during the revolutionary period was one country that had not felt the Jewish embrace. In fact, 85 to 90% of the foreigners helping the Chinese at the time of the Communist takeover were Jewish. This included the daughter of the founder of the brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, who left the comfort of her Park Avenue home to assist the Chinese.



    Read more: http://forward.com/the-assimilator/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/#ixzz3oDSjZLkh

  2. The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.

    Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish?:

    Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams and Jeffrey Katzenberg

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    @Dave Pinsen

    You would be shocked at how many people don't know that jewish donors dominate both parties. The media certainly aren't going to tell them...

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    , @Tracy
    @Dave Pinsen


    Dave Pinsen wrote: "Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish"
     
    If anyone is, they wouldn't get educated by that article, of course. You'd have to go to Israeli newspapers to figure it out, such as Haaretz, that has this article: Meet the Jewish Billionaires Shaping the 2016 Presidential Election: A quick look at the list of top political donors for 2014 reveals a striking fact: At least a third of the most generous 50 mega-givers were Jewish.

    Of course, mentioning hate facts like that will get a body slandered as as antisemite, but the truth is pretty hateful these days. And has been since the "Reformation." It kills me how Jewish power and Jewish history are used to hate on European and European-derived people. The Atlantic slave trade comes to mind, for ex., as do things that go from the stuff that led to the Spanish Inquisition to the usurious- fractional-reserve-banking-ugly-side of Capitalism to the attack on Iraq which royally screwed-up the ME and has resulted in the immigration crisis that will destroy Europe (the Israelis got a twofer there: Iraq gets attacked as they wanted, *and* Europe gets further de-Christianized, and the Israeli's didn't lose a drop of blood or even break a sweat. Yay!).

    -- and when the going gets hot, they do their best to no longer be seen as white.
    , @tbraton
    @Dave Pinsen

    "Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish?:"

    Well, I wasn't there, but I am sure that all the spectators were fully aware that the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. If that little brat hadn't said anything, all would have been fine. After all what's a little nudity among friends?

  3. While I don’t think that these kinds of things can be blown off, I think the power of the media is more important than the power of people that write checks every four years.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @rod1963
    @countenance

    The media is run by the same class of billionaires. As George Carlin said "it's a big club and you and me aren't in it".

    Their job is to convince us - the masses, that the kabuki theater we call politics is really decided by us and not a bunch of nasty rich people who own the political and intelligentsia class lock, stock and barrel. They also keep a lot of stories out of the news that can impact the narrative they feed us on a daily basis as well.

  4. @H2
    Isn't this the sort of thing Maoist China did?

    "Look at the these rich folk, they are the enemy!"

    Replies: @rod1963, @Chiron

    In fact a lot of them are the enemy of the working and middle-class by virtue of the policies they support from globalization to open borders. Good for them, bad for everyone else.

    And true to form the donor list reads like a Yeshiva. The tribe can really network.

    All in all the NYT did us a favor by peeling back the curtain that normally hides the oligarch class that runs Washington from view.

    • Agree: NOTA
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    @rod1963


    In fact a lot of them are the enemy of the working and middle-class by virtue of the policies they support from globalization to open borders.
     
    Don't forget sodomitic pseudogamy. The absolutely fringe notion of a few law professors, journalists, and lefty pols--eventually bankrolled by big corporations and the 1%--has now become the law of the land and the framing idea of our whole society.

    My all-time favorite comment on iSteve sums up the process of its imposition this way: the "manipulat[ion] by elites":

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-things-that-exist-do-you-have-a-hard-time-believing-in/#comment-750291

    The primary purposes of SSM's backers was the removal of any legal stigma against homosexuality. It was also an incredibly convenient weapon to attack traditional religious belief and morality--the best stigma to beat the dogma. Finally, it's a perfect 1%er issue, both because it allows easy virtue whoring and its practical benefits are for the convenience or pleasure of an infinitesimally small minority at the expense of the middle and under classes for whom robust traditional marriage and family are perhaps their only lifeline from drowning in destitution.

  5. @countenance
    While I don't think that these kinds of things can be blown off, I think the power of the media is more important than the power of people that write checks every four years.

    Replies: @rod1963

    The media is run by the same class of billionaires. As George Carlin said “it’s a big club and you and me aren’t in it”.

    Their job is to convince us – the masses, that the kabuki theater we call politics is really decided by us and not a bunch of nasty rich people who own the political and intelligentsia class lock, stock and barrel. They also keep a lot of stories out of the news that can impact the narrative they feed us on a daily basis as well.

  6. how flagrant the Identity War hate speech is getting

    I recall Charles Murray’s narration in his great sociological study, “Coming Apart”. In Part II (on the White Working Class), Murray seemed baffled about why all the social indicators showed pretty serious social decline among lower status Whites, men especially. Lower status White men had been steadily socially/civically/economically disengaging between the 1970s and 2010s.

    It is easily explainable. Young White U.S. men see and hear this sort of this thing daily or semi-daily (as in NY Times article — White Man, undesirable, White Man, evil, Whtie Man, the world’s forsemost problem, etc.). They hear no one pushing back. A part of them realizes, “I’m not wanted,” so they stop trying as hard. They disengage.

    Maybe Murray knows this and was being coy. His narration came off at times almost as if he viewed the phenomenon as unexplainable.

    It is explainable. All people respond to incentives.

  7. “In a nation that is being remade by the young, by women and by black and brown voters.”

    I’m not sure that “remade” is the word I would choose. It implies an element of construction & creation that I don’t see.

    “Re-purposed,” perhaps.

    • Replies: @helena
    @Hosswire

    Agree. The new world is about doing 'deals'. Plenty of fit Euro-men around - building houses, mending streets, cleaning windows, fixing, maintaining, constructing, engineering.

  8. The rich rentiers are too rich, and we are well past the time when a Pearl Buckian “Good Earth” type solution to that is due. Be interesting to see how that jubilee will come about this time. Oligarchy rape! I’m so triggered by the failure to mention the ethno-religiosity of the bunch. Keep up the good work pointing out the obvious.

  9. LOL. I was just coming here to post a link to this article.

    Only counting the obvious Jewish names, plus a few others I’m pretty sure are Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%, which is much higher than the 2-3% of the population that is Jewish, but much lower than the ~35% or so of the Forbes 400 who are Jewish.

    Jews might be even more heavily represented than that if the Democratic primary were more competitive. Indeed, one could argue that the fact that the Democratic primary is so uncompetitive is the fact the the Jewish lobby’s preferred candidate pretty much has the nomination already sewn up, despite her huge and obvious weaknesses.

    Bill Clinton was probably closer to the Jewish lobby than any president in history. Both of his Supreme Court nominees were Jewish, 25% of his cabinet (in terms of man years) was Jewish, and four of his six nominees to the Federal Reserve Board were Jewish, while only one was (possibly) a white gentile and the other was black. And, of course, his only child married into a Jewish family.

    * The list includes four of the candidates themselves – Trump, Clinton, Chafee – whom I exclude from the tally.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Wilkey

    "* The list includes four of the candidates themselves – Trump, Clinton, Chafee – whom I exclude from the tally."

    And, I meant to add, the Bush family.

    , @Whiskey
    @Wilkey

    Hillary! is in free-fall. Sanders has raised IIRC, MORE than her this quarter. Joe Biden is running, all but declared. Even ManBearPig himself, the Al Gore-bot, has flirted with running. That's not the sign of a strong front-runner.

    Somewhat related, VDARE has an excellent article about how candidates like Ben Carson are just a scam. To raise money which goes to campaign consultants, nothing ever serious. Mostly targeting old, pious, conservative White voters, desperate to be accepted by the media and elite and thus easy pickings for a Black candidate who sounds plausible.
    -------------
    Re White Male disengagement, well its what White Women and non-Whites wanted. The next step, White Male identity politics, they won't like so much I'm thinking.

    , @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently - the next generation won't do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all "g loaded" activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude - instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting 'bergs and 'steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Dutch Boy, @tbraton, @tbraton

  10. You’ll notice they say ‘mostly finance and energy’, when finance way outpaces energy and the other fields; energy’s a distant 2nd and close to #3. Trying to create a false equivalence–if there’s a story here it’s the dominant role of finance.

    I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don’t really have the time to Google 150 names. (If they match the Forbes billionaire list, there should be more than that, especially as Jews tend to prefer throwing money at politics rather than sports.) If Steve wants to make this his project…

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @SFG

    "You’ll notice they say ‘mostly finance and energy’, when finance way outpaces energy and the other fields; energy’s a distant 2nd and close to #3. Trying to create a false equivalence–if there’s a story here it’s the dominant role of finance."

    Wow - yep. 64 of the top 158 donors made their money in finance. That's almost as many as the number of donors (66) from the next five categories combined - energy & resources, real estate, media, health, and technology. That's pretty damn impressive when you consider the massive share of the average family's income that gets sucked up by housing, fuel, and healthcare.

    Another interesting factoid is that Hillary Clinton who, along with her husband, has earned nearly $200 million over the last 14+ years just from speeches, has apparently only contributed $300,000 of her money towards her own campaign. She gets more than $300,000 for a single speech. If you're looking for yet another indication of her greed, there it is.

    , @ben tillman
    @SFG


    I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don’t really have the time to Google 150 names.
     
    I got 32 (plus or minus 3) of the first 57 as Jewish.
    , @tbraton
    @SFG

    "I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names,"

    Would you consider "Jordan Belfort" a Jewish name? In case you aren't familiar with that name, he was the "Wolf of Wall Street." BTW the name of his company was "Stratton Oakmont." What about Steve Roberts? What about Brian Roberts?

    Replies: @helena

  11. “Their job is to convince us – the masses, that the kabuki theater we call politics is really decided by us and not a bunch of nasty rich people who own the political and intelligentsia class lock, stock and barrel. They also keep a lot of stories out of the news that can impact the narrative they feed us on a daily basis as well.”

    Indeed. We’re basically back to feudalism, and it’s not just about campaign contributions. It’s about all the ex post facto bribery that goes on, as well – all those $500,000 speeches by Bill and Hillary, the directorships for Al Gore, or the 7-figure jobs for Eric Cantor, or the $500,000 lobbying gigs for somewhat less auspicious ex-congressmen.

    There is no way to keep them honest when the job of congressman is just a rung on the ladder and when failure is not defined by losing an election.

  12. @Wilkey
    LOL. I was just coming here to post a link to this article.

    Only counting the obvious Jewish names, plus a few others I'm pretty sure are Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%, which is much higher than the 2-3% of the population that is Jewish, but much lower than the ~35% or so of the Forbes 400 who are Jewish.

    Jews might be even more heavily represented than that if the Democratic primary were more competitive. Indeed, one could argue that the fact that the Democratic primary is so uncompetitive is the fact the the Jewish lobby's preferred candidate pretty much has the nomination already sewn up, despite her huge and obvious weaknesses.

    Bill Clinton was probably closer to the Jewish lobby than any president in history. Both of his Supreme Court nominees were Jewish, 25% of his cabinet (in terms of man years) was Jewish, and four of his six nominees to the Federal Reserve Board were Jewish, while only one was (possibly) a white gentile and the other was black. And, of course, his only child married into a Jewish family.

    * The list includes four of the candidates themselves - Trump, Clinton, Chafee - whom I exclude from the tally.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Whiskey, @Jack D

    “* The list includes four of the candidates themselves – Trump, Clinton, Chafee – whom I exclude from the tally.”

    And, I meant to add, the Bush family.

  13. With all the billionaires these days I’m surprised the total contributions are as low as they are.

  14. anon • Disclaimer says:

    One of the “NYT Picks” comments:

    Bruce Watson Leverett, MA 4 hours ago

    These 158 families are lucky to live on islands of wealth that isolate them from a country whose shifting demographics they cannot possibly understand.

    Okay, this guy seems to get it…

    Luckier still are the rest of us who get to live without them here in an increasingly diverse, tolerant, and interesting America.

    Okay, this guy doesn’t seem to get it.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @anon

    "This guy" lives in a Western Massachusetts town that's 95.3% white. Diversity to him is an Italian.

    Leverett is close enough to the Seven Sisters area that he probably does know some lesbians.

  15. @H2
    Isn't this the sort of thing Maoist China did?

    "Look at the these rich folk, they are the enemy!"

    Replies: @rod1963, @Chiron

    A Jew in Mao’s China

    July 9, 2012 By Laura GoldmanFilm

    Even when I have been disenfranchised from God and synagogue, I have always been culturally proud to be a Jew. A source of that pride is the Jewish tradition of helping the oppressed, and our involvement in social movements such as labor and civil rights.

    Until I saw the documentary “The Revolutionary” at the Philadelphia Independent Film Festival, I mistakenly thought that China during the revolutionary period was one country that had not felt the Jewish embrace. In fact, 85 to 90% of the foreigners helping the Chinese at the time of the Communist takeover were Jewish. This included the daughter of the founder of the brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, who left the comfort of her Park Avenue home to assist the Chinese.

    Read more: http://forward.com/the-assimilator/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/#ixzz3oDSjZLkh

  16. @Dave Pinsen

    The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.
     
    Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish?:

    Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams and Jeffrey Katzenberg
     

    Replies: @pyrrhus, @Tracy, @tbraton

    You would be shocked at how many people don’t know that jewish donors dominate both parties. The media certainly aren’t going to tell them…

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @pyrrhus

    I've read Jewish donors are responsible for most Dem donations, and that sounds likely, but for the GOP too? It would be interesting to see a breakdown.

    Incidentally, per Yahoo!, Bernie Sanders has raised more money than any GOP candidate so far: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-is-raising-more-money-than-every-republican-candidate-155430566.html

  17. I imagine it’s very hard to keep your campaign going if you say things that those 158 families (or the subset that might support you given your party and ideology) don’t like to hear. My guess is that this explains a fair bit of the deference to Israel of pretty-much all serious candidates, and probably the lack of desire to restrict immigration.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @NOTA

    The exceptions to that appear to be Trump (self-financed) and Sanders (lots of small donors + unions).

  18. “I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don’t really have the time to Google 150 names.”

    I got a very conservative tally of about 35, but it’s definitely higher than that, and perhaps more than 40.

    What should be more worrying: that the list is overwhelmingly white, in a country that is, historically and currently, predominantly white; or that the list is at least 25% Jewish, despite Jews only being 2-3% of the population?

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Wilkey

    Mathematically, it's probably similar to the Forbes list.

    But let me extend that: isn't the problem that billionaires have too much influence over elections anyway?

  19. @Dave Pinsen

    The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.
     
    Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish?:

    Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams and Jeffrey Katzenberg
     

    Replies: @pyrrhus, @Tracy, @tbraton

    Dave Pinsen wrote: “Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish”

    If anyone is, they wouldn’t get educated by that article, of course. You’d have to go to Israeli newspapers to figure it out, such as Haaretz, that has this article: Meet the Jewish Billionaires Shaping the 2016 Presidential Election: A quick look at the list of top political donors for 2014 reveals a striking fact: At least a third of the most generous 50 mega-givers were Jewish.

    Of course, mentioning hate facts like that will get a body slandered as as antisemite, but the truth is pretty hateful these days. And has been since the “Reformation.” It kills me how Jewish power and Jewish history are used to hate on European and European-derived people. The Atlantic slave trade comes to mind, for ex., as do things that go from the stuff that led to the Spanish Inquisition to the usurious- fractional-reserve-banking-ugly-side of Capitalism to the attack on Iraq which royally screwed-up the ME and has resulted in the immigration crisis that will destroy Europe (the Israelis got a twofer there: Iraq gets attacked as they wanted, *and* Europe gets further de-Christianized, and the Israeli’s didn’t lose a drop of blood or even break a sweat. Yay!).

    — and when the going gets hot, they do their best to no longer be seen as white.

  20. @Wilkey
    LOL. I was just coming here to post a link to this article.

    Only counting the obvious Jewish names, plus a few others I'm pretty sure are Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%, which is much higher than the 2-3% of the population that is Jewish, but much lower than the ~35% or so of the Forbes 400 who are Jewish.

    Jews might be even more heavily represented than that if the Democratic primary were more competitive. Indeed, one could argue that the fact that the Democratic primary is so uncompetitive is the fact the the Jewish lobby's preferred candidate pretty much has the nomination already sewn up, despite her huge and obvious weaknesses.

    Bill Clinton was probably closer to the Jewish lobby than any president in history. Both of his Supreme Court nominees were Jewish, 25% of his cabinet (in terms of man years) was Jewish, and four of his six nominees to the Federal Reserve Board were Jewish, while only one was (possibly) a white gentile and the other was black. And, of course, his only child married into a Jewish family.

    * The list includes four of the candidates themselves - Trump, Clinton, Chafee - whom I exclude from the tally.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Whiskey, @Jack D

    Hillary! is in free-fall. Sanders has raised IIRC, MORE than her this quarter. Joe Biden is running, all but declared. Even ManBearPig himself, the Al Gore-bot, has flirted with running. That’s not the sign of a strong front-runner.

    Somewhat related, VDARE has an excellent article about how candidates like Ben Carson are just a scam. To raise money which goes to campaign consultants, nothing ever serious. Mostly targeting old, pious, conservative White voters, desperate to be accepted by the media and elite and thus easy pickings for a Black candidate who sounds plausible.
    ————-
    Re White Male disengagement, well its what White Women and non-Whites wanted. The next step, White Male identity politics, they won’t like so much I’m thinking.

  21. In my first job I worked with the scion of one of these families. Smart, preppy, laid-back dude who liked to party, was a former Division I athlete at an elite school.

    We chatted mainly about college basketball when we talked. He was completely unpretentious, unlike most highly accomplished middle-class people. Also discreet, I never would have known about his family connections if not for social media.

  22. And you can see the value of belonging to a Designated Victim class. The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.

    Interestingly, the only (possible) goy among the three is able to use the word elsewhere:

    Two more influential Jewish donors putting money into J Street fight, @ThePlumLineGS reports: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/29/which-side-is-really-pro-israel-backers-of-the-iran-deal-ramp-up/

  23. @SFG
    You'll notice they say 'mostly finance and energy', when finance way outpaces energy and the other fields; energy's a distant 2nd and close to #3. Trying to create a false equivalence--if there's a story here it's the dominant role of finance.

    I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don't really have the time to Google 150 names. (If they match the Forbes billionaire list, there should be more than that, especially as Jews tend to prefer throwing money at politics rather than sports.) If Steve wants to make this his project...

    Replies: @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @tbraton

    “You’ll notice they say ‘mostly finance and energy’, when finance way outpaces energy and the other fields; energy’s a distant 2nd and close to #3. Trying to create a false equivalence–if there’s a story here it’s the dominant role of finance.”

    Wow – yep. 64 of the top 158 donors made their money in finance. That’s almost as many as the number of donors (66) from the next five categories combined – energy & resources, real estate, media, health, and technology. That’s pretty damn impressive when you consider the massive share of the average family’s income that gets sucked up by housing, fuel, and healthcare.

    Another interesting factoid is that Hillary Clinton who, along with her husband, has earned nearly $200 million over the last 14+ years just from speeches, has apparently only contributed $300,000 of her money towards her own campaign. She gets more than $300,000 for a single speech. If you’re looking for yet another indication of her greed, there it is.

  24. @SFG
    You'll notice they say 'mostly finance and energy', when finance way outpaces energy and the other fields; energy's a distant 2nd and close to #3. Trying to create a false equivalence--if there's a story here it's the dominant role of finance.

    I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don't really have the time to Google 150 names. (If they match the Forbes billionaire list, there should be more than that, especially as Jews tend to prefer throwing money at politics rather than sports.) If Steve wants to make this his project...

    Replies: @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @tbraton

    I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don’t really have the time to Google 150 names.

    I got 32 (plus or minus 3) of the first 57 as Jewish.

  25. @Dave Pinsen

    The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.
     
    Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish?:

    Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams and Jeffrey Katzenberg
     

    Replies: @pyrrhus, @Tracy, @tbraton

    “Is anyone unaware that these donors cited in the article are Jewish?:”

    Well, I wasn’t there, but I am sure that all the spectators were fully aware that the Emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes. If that little brat hadn’t said anything, all would have been fine. After all what’s a little nudity among friends?

  26. @Wilkey
    "I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don’t really have the time to Google 150 names."

    I got a very conservative tally of about 35, but it's definitely higher than that, and perhaps more than 40.

    What should be more worrying: that the list is overwhelmingly white, in a country that is, historically and currently, predominantly white; or that the list is at least 25% Jewish, despite Jews only being 2-3% of the population?

    Replies: @SFG

    Mathematically, it’s probably similar to the Forbes list.

    But let me extend that: isn’t the problem that billionaires have too much influence over elections anyway?

  27. @rod1963
    @H2

    In fact a lot of them are the enemy of the working and middle-class by virtue of the policies they support from globalization to open borders. Good for them, bad for everyone else.

    And true to form the donor list reads like a Yeshiva. The tribe can really network.

    All in all the NYT did us a favor by peeling back the curtain that normally hides the oligarch class that runs Washington from view.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

    In fact a lot of them are the enemy of the working and middle-class by virtue of the policies they support from globalization to open borders.

    Don’t forget sodomitic pseudogamy. The absolutely fringe notion of a few law professors, journalists, and lefty pols–eventually bankrolled by big corporations and the 1%–has now become the law of the land and the framing idea of our whole society.

    My all-time favorite comment on iSteve sums up the process of its imposition this way: the “manipulat[ion] by elites”:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-things-that-exist-do-you-have-a-hard-time-believing-in/#comment-750291

    The primary purposes of SSM’s backers was the removal of any legal stigma against homosexuality. It was also an incredibly convenient weapon to attack traditional religious belief and morality–the best stigma to beat the dogma. Finally, it’s a perfect 1%er issue, both because it allows easy virtue whoring and its practical benefits are for the convenience or pleasure of an infinitesimally small minority at the expense of the middle and under classes for whom robust traditional marriage and family are perhaps their only lifeline from drowning in destitution.

  28. seems strange the NY times focused on the top 158 donors

    the the top 158 donors matched their narrative better than the top 200 donors.
    I assume a lot of the donors from 159-250 were democrats, can’t trust the NY Times.

    according to the article these 158 donors gave nearly half of the money …why stop at nearly half ?
    probably done to keep some friends off the list.

    The main reason the wealthy liberals are giving less this year, there is no mainstream challenger to Hillary. during the 2014 mid-term elections the Democrats raised much more money from billionaire than the Republicans.

    The Sunlight Foundation reported that three of the top five donors to super PACs were liberal billionaires who have supported Democrats in the midterm elections last year.

    The group is led by Tom Steyer, the hedge fund manager who alone spent $70 million supporting Democratic candidates in the 2014 cycle, more than three times the amount spent by the next biggest spender, Michael Bloomberg. He’s donated more than $20 million. Together, Bloomberg and Steyer gave more than the rest of our top donors combined.

    in 2014 Democratic super PAC outstripped Republican contributions by roughly $65 million, according to the figures compiled by the Sunlight Foundation’s Real-Time Federal Campaign Finance tracker.
    http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/10/24/revenge-of-the-democrats/

    • Agree: Mike Sylwester
  29. “But let me extend that: isn’t the problem that billionaires have too much influence over elections anyway?”

    Part of the reason billionaires have too much influence over elections is because the middle class doesn’t contribute or otherwise pay much attention. If 10 million people gave an average of $500 apiece each election cycle (i.e., every other year) that would be $5 billion to various campaigns, and it could swamp, or at least make less crucial what the billionaires are giving. It’s not unrealistic to think that many people could afford such contributions.

    But the billionaires seem to have every bit as much influence in countries with entirely different campaign finance rules. The immigration laws are certainly as bad. It’s not just about campaign contributions. It’s about the control of the culture wielded by billionaires and the corporations and other institutions they control, working in concert with the usual far left suspects, who seem to be entirely oblivious to the fact that most of their political causes are exactly what the billionaires want.

    Personally I think we should have a non-refundable tax credit that would give a 50% refund for up to $500 in contributions to a federal campaign. You contribute $500, and the government lops $250 off your tax bill – provided you owe that much. It will never happen, of course, and there would be complications (and probably fraud) but it’s a crackpot idea that could actually make a bit of difference.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Wilkey

    That's because the middle-class has better things to do with their money that give it to a bunch of blasted politicians. Politicians are people who take money from the middle-class in the form of an excessive tax burden. No way should the middle-class be giving even more to the thieves voluntarily. Besides, everyone who's not donating can still trump (pardon the pun) all that spending. It's called the vote.

  30. NYT: “In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for the Democratic Party and its economic policies.”

    LOL. Yeah, that’s it. More like a financial check on the power of the Tea Party and other paleoconservatives trying to wrest control of the GOP from the cheap labor, neofeudalist establishment.

    Note that this money has been given to candidates for their primary fights. The goal is to determine who wins the primary. The general election comes later. That’s why most of the money’s been going to the GOP, where the race is more up for grabs.

    • Agree: Travis
  31. It’s funny that “white privilege” is a phrase that can be uttered anywhere but “Jewish privilege” – which is much more ostensibly true – must be uttered pseudonymously. Oy vey!

  32. The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article

    Steve, are you actually implying that some Jews are wealthy? Don’t you know that is noting more than a vicious, anti-Semitic canard? All right-thinking people know that the Jews are the poorest, weakest people in the entire universe.

  33. Personally I think we should have a non-refundable tax credit that would give a 50% refund for up to $500 in contributions to a federal campaign. You contribute $500, and the government lops $250 off your tax bill – provided you owe that much. It will never happen, of course, and there would be complications (and probably fraud) but it’s a crackpot idea that could actually make a bit of difference.

    Drawbacks:

    (1) Could a taxpayer earmark his contribution to go to the political party of his choice, including parties other than Dem. or Repub.?

    If no earmarks, how would the gooberment divvy up the money amongst D.’s, R.’s, the Lib Lib Libwetarian Party, the Greens, the Constitution Party, etc.? On the basis of which parties got the largest vote, the smallest vote, and so on in the last election? How would that improve American politics?

    If earmarks to a party of the taxpayers choice are not allowed, then this tax would only reinforce the grip of the two big existing parties.

    (2) In either case, this additional tax credit would give the Internal Revenue Service more scope to meddle in American politics. Why not simply reduce everyone’s taxes by $250?

    (3) Your proposal is a quasi poll tax, which I think the Supreme Court has found to be unConstitutional. Me, I’m in favor of going back to real poll taxes, meaning those who can’t pay the poll tax can’t vote. That’s the way it was in earlier America. But getting the federal courts to agree with me would be a practical problem.

    • Replies: @Divine Right
    @David Davenport

    "Why not simply reduce everyone’s taxes by $250?"

    The point of his original post was to note how little average Americans donate and to propose something that might encourage them to donate more - lessening the influence of billionaires in American elections. Furthermore, we have cut taxes before, and I'm not sure anyone has shown a link between those cuts and increased donations from middle-class families to either political parties or causes (or at least substantial increases).

    I would guess that reducing middle-class taxes by just $250 would result in virtually none of that going to political donations and almost all of it being spent on debt, clothes, electronics, and groceries.

    "Your proposal is a quasi poll tax, which I think the Supreme Court has found to be unConstitutional."

    A tax deduction is now a tax?

    "I’m in favor of going back to real poll taxes, meaning those who can’t pay the poll tax can’t vote. That’s the way it was in earlier America. But getting the federal courts to agree with me would be a practical problem."

    His proposal was more realistic than yours.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @David Davenport

    Minnesota has had such a program for 40 years:

    http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/treatise/campfin.htm#_1_9

    On the tax form, it's right next to the non-game wildlife checkoff, which works the same way. I've always made it a point to donate to the critters and pass up the pols!

  34. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey
    "But let me extend that: isn’t the problem that billionaires have too much influence over elections anyway?"

    Part of the reason billionaires have too much influence over elections is because the middle class doesn't contribute or otherwise pay much attention. If 10 million people gave an average of $500 apiece each election cycle (i.e., every other year) that would be $5 billion to various campaigns, and it could swamp, or at least make less crucial what the billionaires are giving. It's not unrealistic to think that many people could afford such contributions.

    But the billionaires seem to have every bit as much influence in countries with entirely different campaign finance rules. The immigration laws are certainly as bad. It's not just about campaign contributions. It's about the control of the culture wielded by billionaires and the corporations and other institutions they control, working in concert with the usual far left suspects, who seem to be entirely oblivious to the fact that most of their political causes are exactly what the billionaires want.

    Personally I think we should have a non-refundable tax credit that would give a 50% refund for up to $500 in contributions to a federal campaign. You contribute $500, and the government lops $250 off your tax bill - provided you owe that much. It will never happen, of course, and there would be complications (and probably fraud) but it's a crackpot idea that could actually make a bit of difference.

    Replies: @Anon

    That’s because the middle-class has better things to do with their money that give it to a bunch of blasted politicians. Politicians are people who take money from the middle-class in the form of an excessive tax burden. No way should the middle-class be giving even more to the thieves voluntarily. Besides, everyone who’s not donating can still trump (pardon the pun) all that spending. It’s called the vote.

  35. In addition and furthermore, if this $250 contribution went to a political party and not to the particular candidate of one’s choice, then this year you’d be donating to Hillary C. and Jebito! B.

    • Replies: @Divine Right
    @David Davenport

    "In addition and furthermore, if this $250 contribution went to a political party and not to the particular candidate of one’s choice, then this year you’d be donating to Hillary C. and Jebito! B."

    Neither of those candidates have received their party's respective nomination as of yet, so that money would not be going to either of those candidates at this point. Also, he never implied that there would be any sort of restriction concerning whom or what you could donate to. If you don't want to donate to political parties, you could donate to individual candidates, etc.

  36. @pyrrhus
    @Dave Pinsen

    You would be shocked at how many people don't know that jewish donors dominate both parties. The media certainly aren't going to tell them...

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    I’ve read Jewish donors are responsible for most Dem donations, and that sounds likely, but for the GOP too? It would be interesting to see a breakdown.

    Incidentally, per Yahoo!, Bernie Sanders has raised more money than any GOP candidate so far: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-is-raising-more-money-than-every-republican-candidate-155430566.html

  37. Where is the full list of donors?

  38. @SFG
    You'll notice they say 'mostly finance and energy', when finance way outpaces energy and the other fields; energy's a distant 2nd and close to #3. Trying to create a false equivalence--if there's a story here it's the dominant role of finance.

    I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names, but I don't really have the time to Google 150 names. (If they match the Forbes billionaire list, there should be more than that, especially as Jews tend to prefer throwing money at politics rather than sports.) If Steve wants to make this his project...

    Replies: @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @tbraton

    “I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names,”

    Would you consider “Jordan Belfort” a Jewish name? In case you aren’t familiar with that name, he was the “Wolf of Wall Street.” BTW the name of his company was “Stratton Oakmont.” What about Steve Roberts? What about Brian Roberts?

    • Replies: @helena
    @tbraton

    We seem to be in phase II - difficult to recognise Jewish ancestry, say in the credits for a TV drama, now that many descendents have celtic or other surnames. It's still just possible to watch something one perceives as a bit schmaltzy, sensationalised, and recognise considerable Jewish influence on the production team; such as many of the attempts to mimic nordic noir. But IMO the multi-layered, slow burn, real-time emotion, of nordic noir is essentially the product of nordic culture/brain.

  39. @NOTA
    I imagine it's very hard to keep your campaign going if you say things that those 158 families (or the subset that might support you given your party and ideology) don't like to hear. My guess is that this explains a fair bit of the deference to Israel of pretty-much all serious candidates, and probably the lack of desire to restrict immigration.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    The exceptions to that appear to be Trump (self-financed) and Sanders (lots of small donors + unions).

  40. @Hosswire
    "In a nation that is being remade by the young, by women and by black and brown voters."

    I'm not sure that "remade" is the word I would choose. It implies an element of construction & creation that I don't see.

    "Re-purposed," perhaps.

    Replies: @helena

    Agree. The new world is about doing ‘deals’. Plenty of fit Euro-men around – building houses, mending streets, cleaning windows, fixing, maintaining, constructing, engineering.

  41. @tbraton
    @SFG

    "I could only pick out about 31 of them as having recognizably Jewish names,"

    Would you consider "Jordan Belfort" a Jewish name? In case you aren't familiar with that name, he was the "Wolf of Wall Street." BTW the name of his company was "Stratton Oakmont." What about Steve Roberts? What about Brian Roberts?

    Replies: @helena

    We seem to be in phase II – difficult to recognise Jewish ancestry, say in the credits for a TV drama, now that many descendents have celtic or other surnames. It’s still just possible to watch something one perceives as a bit schmaltzy, sensationalised, and recognise considerable Jewish influence on the production team; such as many of the attempts to mimic nordic noir. But IMO the multi-layered, slow burn, real-time emotion, of nordic noir is essentially the product of nordic culture/brain.

  42. Wikipedia…. Israel lobby
    “In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party’s fundraising came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees. Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for 60% of money from private sources.[49]”

    Also Mearsheimer and Walt, Israel Lobby, p.163
    “Despite their small numbers in the population(less than 3 per cent), American Jews make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties”
    footnote 55 “In 1976, over 60% of the large donors to the Democratic Party were Jewish; over 60% of the monies raised by Nixon in 1972 were Jewish…..”

  43. Money controls the political process.

    Smart people tend to make more money than the dumber ones.

    As a group, Jews grade out smarter than the average bears.

    More smarts, more money, more political influence.

    Wow! The stuff you can learn at Unz is just mind-blowing.

  44. @Wilkey
    LOL. I was just coming here to post a link to this article.

    Only counting the obvious Jewish names, plus a few others I'm pretty sure are Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%, which is much higher than the 2-3% of the population that is Jewish, but much lower than the ~35% or so of the Forbes 400 who are Jewish.

    Jews might be even more heavily represented than that if the Democratic primary were more competitive. Indeed, one could argue that the fact that the Democratic primary is so uncompetitive is the fact the the Jewish lobby's preferred candidate pretty much has the nomination already sewn up, despite her huge and obvious weaknesses.

    Bill Clinton was probably closer to the Jewish lobby than any president in history. Both of his Supreme Court nominees were Jewish, 25% of his cabinet (in terms of man years) was Jewish, and four of his six nominees to the Federal Reserve Board were Jewish, while only one was (possibly) a white gentile and the other was black. And, of course, his only child married into a Jewish family.

    * The list includes four of the candidates themselves - Trump, Clinton, Chafee - whom I exclude from the tally.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Whiskey, @Jack D

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently – the next generation won’t do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all “g loaded” activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude – instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting ‘bergs and ‘steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Jack D

    "This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy."

    True, but the discussion centers more on the Times' obsession with how white the list is while it pretends not to notice how Jewish it is. Your argument could be applied to both - of course it's whiter than America on average, because whites are smarter and richer than average; of course it's full of older people, because older people tend to have higher incomes and greater wealth.

    If they're going to obsess about the importance of demographic disparity in political contributions then they have no right to ignore the elephant in the room. Personally, I think Jews are a lot more conscientious about contributing to political campaigns, and the gap isn't entirely explained by income disparity. Even if you controlled for wealth and income, I'd wager that Jews are still more likely to donate to political campaigns. But that's shame on us, not on them (though it's a lot easier to justify campaign contributions when you know the guy you're donating to is unlikely to betray you on your pet causes).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Wilkey
    @Jack D

    * But I'd reiterate that tallying the Jewish share of large donors kinda misses the point when you consider that about 70-80% of Jews are Democrats. Until only very recently, it's been taken for granted that Hillary would be the Democratic Party's nominee - in large part because she has so many of the party's Jewish donors in her corner. That means a lot less money going to the Democratic field (for now) since this money is all for the primary. If it heats up we'll get a better overall picture. If it does, the Jewish share of large donors will go way beyond 25%. And if you want an even better picture of who the large donors are, you really need to wait for the general election. One out of four? That's not the ceiling, that's the floor.

    , @Dutch Boy
    @Jack D

    Ethnic nepotism and population concentration in the big eastern cities are the other terms of the equation.

    , @tbraton
    @Jack D

    "Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc. "

    So Jews make up a smaller percentage of Supreme Court law clerks (30%) than they do of actual Supreme Court Justices (3 of 9 or 33%). Back in the 70's when Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Harry Blackmun were on the Court, they were referred to as "the Minnesota Twins," since they both came from Minnesota and, in their early years on the Court, both tended to vote the same way. Now that we have three Jews on the Court, all appointed by Democratic Presidents and all tending to vote the same way, we do not hear anything about "the Torah Trio." I won't say anything about the other six Justices, who just happen to be Roman Catholics.

    , @tbraton
    @Jack D

    "Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc. "

    So Jews make up a smaller percentage of Supreme Court law clerks (30%) than they do of actual Supreme Court Justices (3 of 9 or 33%). Back in the 70's when Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Harry Blackmun were on the Court, they were referred to as "the Minnesota Twins," since they both came from Minnesota and, in their early years on the Court, both tended to vote the same way. Now that we have three Jews on the Court, all appointed by Democratic Presidents and all tending to vote the same way, we do not hear anything about "the Torah Trio." I won't say anything about the other six Justices, who just happen to be Roman Catholics.

  45. @David Davenport
    Personally I think we should have a non-refundable tax credit that would give a 50% refund for up to $500 in contributions to a federal campaign. You contribute $500, and the government lops $250 off your tax bill – provided you owe that much. It will never happen, of course, and there would be complications (and probably fraud) but it’s a crackpot idea that could actually make a bit of difference.

    Drawbacks:

    (1) Could a taxpayer earmark his contribution to go to the political party of his choice, including parties other than Dem. or Repub.?

    If no earmarks, how would the gooberment divvy up the money amongst D.'s, R.'s, the Lib Lib Libwetarian Party, the Greens, the Constitution Party, etc.? On the basis of which parties got the largest vote, the smallest vote, and so on in the last election? How would that improve American politics?

    If earmarks to a party of the taxpayers choice are not allowed, then this tax would only reinforce the grip of the two big existing parties.

    (2) In either case, this additional tax credit would give the Internal Revenue Service more scope to meddle in American politics. Why not simply reduce everyone's taxes by $250?

    (3) Your proposal is a quasi poll tax, which I think the Supreme Court has found to be unConstitutional. Me, I'm in favor of going back to real poll taxes, meaning those who can't pay the poll tax can't vote. That's the way it was in earlier America. But getting the federal courts to agree with me would be a practical problem.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @Reg Cæsar

    “Why not simply reduce everyone’s taxes by $250?”

    The point of his original post was to note how little average Americans donate and to propose something that might encourage them to donate more – lessening the influence of billionaires in American elections. Furthermore, we have cut taxes before, and I’m not sure anyone has shown a link between those cuts and increased donations from middle-class families to either political parties or causes (or at least substantial increases).

    I would guess that reducing middle-class taxes by just $250 would result in virtually none of that going to political donations and almost all of it being spent on debt, clothes, electronics, and groceries.

    “Your proposal is a quasi poll tax, which I think the Supreme Court has found to be unConstitutional.”

    A tax deduction is now a tax?

    “I’m in favor of going back to real poll taxes, meaning those who can’t pay the poll tax can’t vote. That’s the way it was in earlier America. But getting the federal courts to agree with me would be a practical problem.”

    His proposal was more realistic than yours.

  46. @David Davenport
    In addition and furthermore, if this $250 contribution went to a political party and not to the particular candidate of one's choice, then this year you'd be donating to Hillary C. and Jebito! B.

    Replies: @Divine Right

    “In addition and furthermore, if this $250 contribution went to a political party and not to the particular candidate of one’s choice, then this year you’d be donating to Hillary C. and Jebito! B.”

    Neither of those candidates have received their party’s respective nomination as of yet, so that money would not be going to either of those candidates at this point. Also, he never implied that there would be any sort of restriction concerning whom or what you could donate to. If you don’t want to donate to political parties, you could donate to individual candidates, etc.

  47. I’m not a Game of Thrones fanatic, but I do follow it. Tywin Lannister understood one simple, fundamental fact: A crown and titles do not give you power, armies and weapons do. To some degree he used his money to buy influence, but largely his power came from the loyalty of his retainers in the Westlands. They weren’t loyal to the incestuous bastard Joffrey, they were loyal to HIM, and to their home and their blood.

    Loyalty bought by money is no loyalty at all. Eventually your mercenaries will either decide it isn’t worth it or find greener pastures elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Bert

    Tywin Lannister understood one simple, fundamental fact: A crown and titles do not give you power, armies and weapons do.

    Cersei understood it too, as in the classic "Power is power" scene:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvkuePL7oDY

    Replies: @Bert

  48. @anon
    One of the "NYT Picks" comments:

    Bruce Watson Leverett, MA 4 hours ago

    These 158 families are lucky to live on islands of wealth that isolate them from a country whose shifting demographics they cannot possibly understand.
     

    Okay, this guy seems to get it...

    Luckier still are the rest of us who get to live without them here in an increasingly diverse, tolerant, and interesting America.
     
    Okay, this guy doesn't seem to get it.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    “This guy” lives in a Western Massachusetts town that’s 95.3% white. Diversity to him is an Italian.

    Leverett is close enough to the Seven Sisters area that he probably does know some lesbians.

  49. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

  50. “And you can see the value of belonging to a Designated Victim class. The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article.”

    Perhaps the three NYT writers of the article (one of whom is Jewish by the way) do not consciously consider much less count “Jewish” in with being white. Just as the earlier DC Post article on the rabbi who urged for Jews to no longer be considered as white but as persons of color.

    In other words, the NYT list of bad white males controlling all the elections don’t contain any Jews. And after all, lest anyone forget, the Holocaust you know, it did happen. Therefore they get a permanent victim class card and thus are always exempt from any direct societal harm that other white males inflict upon the nation at large.

  51. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently - the next generation won't do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all "g loaded" activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude - instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting 'bergs and 'steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Dutch Boy, @tbraton, @tbraton

    “This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy.”

    True, but the discussion centers more on the Times’ obsession with how white the list is while it pretends not to notice how Jewish it is. Your argument could be applied to both – of course it’s whiter than America on average, because whites are smarter and richer than average; of course it’s full of older people, because older people tend to have higher incomes and greater wealth.

    If they’re going to obsess about the importance of demographic disparity in political contributions then they have no right to ignore the elephant in the room. Personally, I think Jews are a lot more conscientious about contributing to political campaigns, and the gap isn’t entirely explained by income disparity. Even if you controlled for wealth and income, I’d wager that Jews are still more likely to donate to political campaigns. But that’s shame on us, not on them (though it’s a lot easier to justify campaign contributions when you know the guy you’re donating to is unlikely to betray you on your pet causes).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Wilkey

    Rich white gentiles have important college football weight room donations to make, so they can hardly be bothered with who is going to be president or who is paying for the think tanks that set the Overton Window.

  52. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently - the next generation won't do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all "g loaded" activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude - instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting 'bergs and 'steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Dutch Boy, @tbraton, @tbraton

    * But I’d reiterate that tallying the Jewish share of large donors kinda misses the point when you consider that about 70-80% of Jews are Democrats. Until only very recently, it’s been taken for granted that Hillary would be the Democratic Party’s nominee – in large part because she has so many of the party’s Jewish donors in her corner. That means a lot less money going to the Democratic field (for now) since this money is all for the primary. If it heats up we’ll get a better overall picture. If it does, the Jewish share of large donors will go way beyond 25%. And if you want an even better picture of who the large donors are, you really need to wait for the general election. One out of four? That’s not the ceiling, that’s the floor.

  53. They have to blame it on whitey, because that keeps non-elite whites on the defensive and more likely to support the rich whites who are selling them out. But I don’t think it’s working anymore. People have caught onto the game, which is why media attacks have been backfiring left and right.

    As for the Jewish angle, I think it was a lot more of an issue 20 years ago. Look at the average age of Jewish donors. I bet it’s around 70. Not long ago, the US was culturally a lot more Jewish than it is today. Money only buys so much when all you’ve got rallying the troops is John Stewart and some talentless white gentiles who are hated with gusto by the majority of their co-ethnics.

  54. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    About people getting rich in finance, the ironic thing is how ‘arranged’ and in some sense artificial it seems to have become, a lot in response to the Great Depression…

    When I was a kid I knew a little old lady (probably in her late 70s or early 80s) who owned the town bank. There were two such locally owned banks in a town that probably had a population of less than a thousand. (But than these banks probably served ranchers and farmers throughout the county.) Little old widowers often ended up running these banks after their husbands died.

    These bankers were “relationship bankers”. They knew the farmers and ranchers and most everybody in town. Also, everybody knew them, which imposed, I think, some sense of obligation on the bankers. It was personal. These bankers did not make a whole lot of money. They were capable of going to bat for the locals as their success was tied to the success of the community.

    Somewhere along the line, probably in the mid-70s, before the savings and loan crisis, all the little private banks were gobbled up in a very short period by the big investment banking multinationals (the Citis, JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanleys, etc.). The little banks just couldn’t compete with their degree of automation, size/assets, and, apparently, freedom of investment. The ironic thing seems to be that the investment banks were able to do all this because they were less regulated than the ‘traditional’ banks. The traditional banks were heavily regulated coming out of the Great Depression, but the investment banks, doing a lot of their business overseas and not nearly as large and automated as they are today, received less attention and regulation. So in a few decades the investment banks were able to run wild and put all the ‘little old ladies’ out of business. (Well, buy them out, to the same effect.)

    Was it an improvement? I really don’t know. But the interesting thing is that, far from being an exercise in pure, blind capitalism, it seems to depend in large degree on narrow specifics of how laws get written. Market-design, a complex problem that often determines who gets really rich.

  55. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    Trump on Merkel

    • Replies: @Honorary Thief
    @Priss Factor

    "The Gulf States have nothing but money." So is Trump reading Sailer?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  56. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently - the next generation won't do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all "g loaded" activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude - instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting 'bergs and 'steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Dutch Boy, @tbraton, @tbraton

    Ethnic nepotism and population concentration in the big eastern cities are the other terms of the equation.

  57. Bel Air and Brentwood in Los Angeles; River Oaks, a Houston community popular with energy executives; or Indian Creek Village, a private island near Miami that has a private security force and just 35 homes lining an 18-hole golf course.

    I would interpret those locations as a word to the wise that a majority were not gentiles (or Mormons). Nothing suggests any of the big donors were anti-immigration, which is prolly why the NYT mentions the Houston people were energy executives. The donors at the other 2 locations seem me likely overwhelmingly pro immigration.

  58. Remember the famous quote from Howell Heflin? Democrats biggest contributors were, “Jews, lawyers, and unions”. He said it in reference as to why the Dem party could never support tort reform. The WSJ put it in a lead editorial in the 90’s and I cut it out and put it on my wall so people could read it for banter and laughter when visiting.

  59. @Wilkey
    @Jack D

    "This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy."

    True, but the discussion centers more on the Times' obsession with how white the list is while it pretends not to notice how Jewish it is. Your argument could be applied to both - of course it's whiter than America on average, because whites are smarter and richer than average; of course it's full of older people, because older people tend to have higher incomes and greater wealth.

    If they're going to obsess about the importance of demographic disparity in political contributions then they have no right to ignore the elephant in the room. Personally, I think Jews are a lot more conscientious about contributing to political campaigns, and the gap isn't entirely explained by income disparity. Even if you controlled for wealth and income, I'd wager that Jews are still more likely to donate to political campaigns. But that's shame on us, not on them (though it's a lot easier to justify campaign contributions when you know the guy you're donating to is unlikely to betray you on your pet causes).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Rich white gentiles have important college football weight room donations to make, so they can hardly be bothered with who is going to be president or who is paying for the think tanks that set the Overton Window.

  60. Hell uber alles

  61. @Priss Factor
    Trump on Merkel


    https://youtu.be/cQsJNao2xCc?t=8m45s

    Replies: @Honorary Thief

    “The Gulf States have nothing but money.” So is Trump reading Sailer?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Honorary Thief

    So is Trump reading Sailer?

    I wouldn't put it past him.

    About 75 percent of what Trump says makes perfect sense to me, and I, like Trump-analyst Scott Adams, suspect that a lot of the other stuff he says is strictly for future negotiation.

    By the way, Adams keeps talking about what a brilliant guy Trump is and how cleverly he's positioning himself, but always adds "not that I would ever vote for him" or "not that I agree with his immigration policy." I've begun to suspect that this is Adams using one of the influence techniques he talks about on his blog. In this case he knows that if he were to praise Trump's performance and say, "This man has my vote," all the Trump haters would tune out everything else he has to say. On the other hand, saying, "I'm not going to vote for this guy, but notice how clever his position is on this issue" causes the listener to think, "Wait a minute, you don't even like the guy but you're blown away by how shrewd he is. How much more sincere could praise be? You've convinced me the guy is a genius, but you never explained why I shouldn't vote for him."

    Replies: @Seneca

  62. @Bert
    I'm not a Game of Thrones fanatic, but I do follow it. Tywin Lannister understood one simple, fundamental fact: A crown and titles do not give you power, armies and weapons do. To some degree he used his money to buy influence, but largely his power came from the loyalty of his retainers in the Westlands. They weren't loyal to the incestuous bastard Joffrey, they were loyal to HIM, and to their home and their blood.

    Loyalty bought by money is no loyalty at all. Eventually your mercenaries will either decide it isn't worth it or find greener pastures elsewhere.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Tywin Lannister understood one simple, fundamental fact: A crown and titles do not give you power, armies and weapons do.

    Cersei understood it too, as in the classic “Power is power” scene:

    • Replies: @Bert
    @Harry Baldwin

    Congratulations on completely missing my point.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  63. @Honorary Thief
    @Priss Factor

    "The Gulf States have nothing but money." So is Trump reading Sailer?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    So is Trump reading Sailer?

    I wouldn’t put it past him.

    About 75 percent of what Trump says makes perfect sense to me, and I, like Trump-analyst Scott Adams, suspect that a lot of the other stuff he says is strictly for future negotiation.

    By the way, Adams keeps talking about what a brilliant guy Trump is and how cleverly he’s positioning himself, but always adds “not that I would ever vote for him” or “not that I agree with his immigration policy.” I’ve begun to suspect that this is Adams using one of the influence techniques he talks about on his blog. In this case he knows that if he were to praise Trump’s performance and say, “This man has my vote,” all the Trump haters would tune out everything else he has to say. On the other hand, saying, “I’m not going to vote for this guy, but notice how clever his position is on this issue” causes the listener to think, “Wait a minute, you don’t even like the guy but you’re blown away by how shrewd he is. How much more sincere could praise be? You’ve convinced me the guy is a genius, but you never explained why I shouldn’t vote for him.”

    • Replies: @Seneca
    @Harry Baldwin

    Great point! I think you are on to Mr. Adams...clever though he is.

    Replies: @tbraton

  64. Steve, you didn’t like my comment, probably because I wrote phase II. It wasn’t intended to be anything sinister; phases happen in nature not just military campaigns.

    My point is that if HBD follows the logic of ‘where does culture come from?’, and considers Jewishness to be an endogamous pool, then there should be a Jewish cultural influence distinct from European culture and it should be possible for that to be described and discussed as a cultural influence?

  65. @David Davenport
    Personally I think we should have a non-refundable tax credit that would give a 50% refund for up to $500 in contributions to a federal campaign. You contribute $500, and the government lops $250 off your tax bill – provided you owe that much. It will never happen, of course, and there would be complications (and probably fraud) but it’s a crackpot idea that could actually make a bit of difference.

    Drawbacks:

    (1) Could a taxpayer earmark his contribution to go to the political party of his choice, including parties other than Dem. or Repub.?

    If no earmarks, how would the gooberment divvy up the money amongst D.'s, R.'s, the Lib Lib Libwetarian Party, the Greens, the Constitution Party, etc.? On the basis of which parties got the largest vote, the smallest vote, and so on in the last election? How would that improve American politics?

    If earmarks to a party of the taxpayers choice are not allowed, then this tax would only reinforce the grip of the two big existing parties.

    (2) In either case, this additional tax credit would give the Internal Revenue Service more scope to meddle in American politics. Why not simply reduce everyone's taxes by $250?

    (3) Your proposal is a quasi poll tax, which I think the Supreme Court has found to be unConstitutional. Me, I'm in favor of going back to real poll taxes, meaning those who can't pay the poll tax can't vote. That's the way it was in earlier America. But getting the federal courts to agree with me would be a practical problem.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @Reg Cæsar

    Minnesota has had such a program for 40 years:

    http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/treatise/campfin.htm#_1_9

    On the tax form, it’s right next to the non-game wildlife checkoff, which works the same way. I’ve always made it a point to donate to the critters and pass up the pols!

  66. @Harry Baldwin
    @Honorary Thief

    So is Trump reading Sailer?

    I wouldn't put it past him.

    About 75 percent of what Trump says makes perfect sense to me, and I, like Trump-analyst Scott Adams, suspect that a lot of the other stuff he says is strictly for future negotiation.

    By the way, Adams keeps talking about what a brilliant guy Trump is and how cleverly he's positioning himself, but always adds "not that I would ever vote for him" or "not that I agree with his immigration policy." I've begun to suspect that this is Adams using one of the influence techniques he talks about on his blog. In this case he knows that if he were to praise Trump's performance and say, "This man has my vote," all the Trump haters would tune out everything else he has to say. On the other hand, saying, "I'm not going to vote for this guy, but notice how clever his position is on this issue" causes the listener to think, "Wait a minute, you don't even like the guy but you're blown away by how shrewd he is. How much more sincere could praise be? You've convinced me the guy is a genius, but you never explained why I shouldn't vote for him."

    Replies: @Seneca

    Great point! I think you are on to Mr. Adams…clever though he is.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Seneca

    I agree. Someone posted a video of Scott Adams, which I watched. I was impressed by his intelligence and knowledgeable discussion of Trump and business. It hadn't occurred to me that he giving me a subtle sales pitch. But, then, I was able to listen to Trump and make my own assessment, so I didn't need to be convinced.

  67. @Harry Baldwin
    @Bert

    Tywin Lannister understood one simple, fundamental fact: A crown and titles do not give you power, armies and weapons do.

    Cersei understood it too, as in the classic "Power is power" scene:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvkuePL7oDY

    Replies: @Bert

    Congratulations on completely missing my point.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Bert

    I guess I must have.

  68. @Bert
    @Harry Baldwin

    Congratulations on completely missing my point.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    I guess I must have.

  69. Minnesota has had such a program for 40 years:

    Which has helped the Farmer Labor Party, or whatever they call it up there, to maintain a majority in Squarehead politics for more than 40 yrs.

    Isn’t Al Franken currently one of the US Senators representing our modern Scandinavia-on-the-Great-Lakes? By their fruits ye shall know them.

  70. Well, you asked, and I gave you a place to look. There’s a paper trail, it’s just not federal.

    During Franken’s first campaign, I overheard people at the State Fair talking about “Al Franklin”.

  71. On the tax form, it’s right next to the non-game wildlife checkoff, which works the same way. I’ve always made it a point to donate to the critters and pass up the pols!

    But you assume that a state income tax is normal and normative.

    I live in TN, which ain’t got no state income tax on wages and salaries.

  72. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently - the next generation won't do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all "g loaded" activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude - instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting 'bergs and 'steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Dutch Boy, @tbraton, @tbraton

    “Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc. ”

    So Jews make up a smaller percentage of Supreme Court law clerks (30%) than they do of actual Supreme Court Justices (3 of 9 or 33%). Back in the 70’s when Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Harry Blackmun were on the Court, they were referred to as “the Minnesota Twins,” since they both came from Minnesota and, in their early years on the Court, both tended to vote the same way. Now that we have three Jews on the Court, all appointed by Democratic Presidents and all tending to vote the same way, we do not hear anything about “the Torah Trio.” I won’t say anything about the other six Justices, who just happen to be Roman Catholics.

  73. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Jewish, I counted 35 of the 154*, or 23%

    This is sort of an iron law of American life (or was until recently - the next generation won't do as well due to intermarriage and other factors) just like the 1 SD spread in IQ between blacks and whites. Ashkenazim have earned 27% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, 25% of ACM Turing Awards, and 26% of the Fields Medals. Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc.

    These (including being a billionaire) are all "g loaded" activities. All of them are just a statistical artifact of the difference in IQ ( BTW, how many of the 154 were black?), not some nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion. If you shift a population mean almost 1 SD to the right, when you get out to the right tail their tail will not be as skinny by about 1 order of magnitude - instead of 1 in 500 having an IQ of 145+, you will have 1 in 50. So Jews show up in these g loaded occupations at about 10x their frequency in the general population. This is about as surprising at this point as learning that the sun rises in the east or that the gold medal for the 100M sprint has been won by a black guy. I could have given you that % right off the bat without all that laborious effort at counting 'bergs and 'steins. In fact I bet you missed a few and the real # was around 27% and not 23%.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Wilkey, @Dutch Boy, @tbraton, @tbraton

    “Ashkenazic Jews, 2 percent of the US population, make up 30% of elite-college faculty, 30% of Supreme Court law clerks, and 27% of Ivy Leaguers, etc. ”

    So Jews make up a smaller percentage of Supreme Court law clerks (30%) than they do of actual Supreme Court Justices (3 of 9 or 33%). Back in the 70’s when Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Harry Blackmun were on the Court, they were referred to as “the Minnesota Twins,” since they both came from Minnesota and, in their early years on the Court, both tended to vote the same way. Now that we have three Jews on the Court, all appointed by Democratic Presidents and all tending to vote the same way, we do not hear anything about “the Torah Trio.” I won’t say anything about the other six Justices, who just happen to be Roman Catholics.

  74. @Seneca
    @Harry Baldwin

    Great point! I think you are on to Mr. Adams...clever though he is.

    Replies: @tbraton

    I agree. Someone posted a video of Scott Adams, which I watched. I was impressed by his intelligence and knowledgeable discussion of Trump and business. It hadn’t occurred to me that he giving me a subtle sales pitch. But, then, I was able to listen to Trump and make my own assessment, so I didn’t need to be convinced.

  75. Liberals doth protest too much about the excessive role of elites in politics.

    I think the best way to look at it is that there are different “wings” of the ruling class (eg, media, intellectual, government, business, entertainment, non-profits, etc.) All of these are firmly on the Left with the exception of the business wing, which is split between the cultural Left and the milquetoast corporate Right. The latter is not all that different from the liberals, but what matters is that leftist partisans *think* that, say, the Koch brothers are rightwing fascists.

    When the Left talks about campaign finance reform, it’s because they want to disempower the one element of the ruling class that (mildly and ineffectively) disagrees with them and further entrench the left’s crypto-aristocratic hold on society.

    Leftist attacks on campaign finance are just (to use a shorthand) Upper West Side word people airing their intramural resentment at Upper East Side money people over who should rule the proles. It’s pseudo-populism.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS