Counter-Currents
1,848 words
Imagine a world where the following paragraph was true:
White people are just 2% of the population of South Africa.
And yet, a whopping 31% of South African media companies are owned by white people; 38% are founded by white people; 45% of their presidents are white people; and 47% of their chairmen are white people. 26% of all the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media are white people. 75% of the senior administrators of the best South African colleges are white people, and from 11 to 27 percent of students admitted to those colleges are white. 139 of the top 400 richest people in South Africa are white. Of the top 100 political campaign funders, at least 42 of them are white. 15 out of 30 executives at the major think tanks that determine policy are white. To top it all, 8 of 11 senior advisers to President Zuma are white.
The corollary of these statements is that Blacks are around 98% of the population, and yet make up only 69% of media company owners, 62% of their founders, and 55% of their presidents … Only 25% of senior administrators at the best colleges are black; and only 3 of 11 Presidential advisers are black.
What would leftists’ response to this situation be?
The answer to that question is beyond doubt: they’d be outraged.
And it wouldn’t matter in the slightest that whites were a minority of the South African population—that would just make their domination of the country’s most important offices worse.
In the United States, we have a group calling itself the ‘Reflective Democracy Campaign’ which finds that white men are 31% of the population—but 66% of those who run for political office, and 65% of those elected. Once these figures are produced, no further investigation is required before leftists start asking why it is that “in the year 2015, there are roughly double the number of white men in elected office as there ought to be[?]” Another campaign strives to draw awareness to the fact that white men make up 79% of elected prosecutors.
Or to give another example, when Spike Lee thought black winners at the Oscars were underrepresented compared to white winners, he called for a boycott. It turns out he was wrong: a USC study found that blacks, who are about 13% of the U.S. population, comprise 12.5% of actors in the top 100 films from 2007; 23 of 192 Oscar nominations (12%), and 9 out of 68 academy awards since 2000 (13.2%)—close to perfect statistical representation. But the mere idea that whites might be overrepresented in the Oscars compared to blacks was all it took to set off a loud and persistent conversation, with many people instantly prepared to believe that whites are overrepresented and that this is a problem in need of urgent address.
So in the case of the Oscars, the over–representation of whites compared to blacks was exactly zero. And in the case of the Reflective Democracy Campaign’s argument, whites are overrepresented amongst political candidates at just 1.4 times their population rate (whites are 63% of the population, and a combined 89% of Republican and Democratic candidates), and amongst elected prosecutors at 1.25 times their population rate.
So we can absolutely rest assured that if our opening paragraphs were true, liberals would be outraged to find whites overrepresented at 5–36 times their rate of the population rather than a mere 1.2.
So what makes liberals different from white supremacists—besides their target?
Everything stated in the opening paragraph of this post is, in fact true—about Jews.
Jews are just 2% of the United States population. And yet, they make up 18 out of 24 senior administrators of Ivy League colleges (75%), 8 out of 11 senior advisors to President Obama (72%), 8 out of 20 Senate Committee chairmen (40%), 33 out of 51 senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies (64%), 23 out of 40 senior executives of the major Wall Street mutual funds, private equity funds, hedge funds, and brokerages (57%), 41 out of 65 senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines (63%), 43 out of 67 senior executives of the major television and radio news networks (64%), 15 out of 30 senior executives of the major think tanks (50%).[1]
New students admitted to Harvard University? 25% Jewish. Yale? 27% Jewish. Cornell? 23% Jewish.
And when Jewish organizations reflect on Jewish representation in Ivy League colleges, they do so not to worry about whether Jews are pushing non–Jews out through their own overrepresentation, but to analyze the puzzle that “Thirteen percent of Princeton’s undergraduate student body is Jewish, the lowest percentage of any Ivy League university besides Dartmouth, which comes in at 11 percent.” Yet, both of these are still more than 4 and 5 times the Jewish percentage of the population.
The media? If we’re looking at the CEOs of media companies, then they’re 31% of the total. If we’re looking at founders, then they’re 38%. If we’re looking at presidents, then they’re 45%. If we’re looking at chairmen, then they’re 47%. If we’re talking about the directors and writers, then Jews represent “26 percent of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series”.
These numbers range from over 12 to over 22 times the Jewish percentage of the population.
Banking? Of the five Federal Reserve board governors (Daniel K. Tarullo, Jerome H. Powell, Lael Brainard, Stanley Fischer, Janet L. Yellen), three are Jewish. Of the nine executive officers of Goldman Sachs (Edith W. Cooper, Gregory K. Palm, John F. W. Rogers, Alan M. Cohen, Harvey M. Schwartz, Mark Schwartz, Gary D. Cohn, Lloyd C. Blankfein, Michael S. Sherwood), six are Jewish. Of the ten operating committee members of JP Morgan Chase (John L. Donnelly, Gordon A. Smith, Jamie Dimon, Mary Callahan Erdoes, Matthew E. Zames, Daniel E. Pinto, Douglas B. Petno, Marianne Lake, Stacey Friedman, Ashley Bacon), six are Jewish. Combining just these three major banks, 62% are Jewish—almost 30 times the Jewish population rate.
“ … the Jews run everything? Well, we do. The Jews run all the banks? Well, we do. The Jews run the media? Well, we do … It’s a fact; this is not in debate. It’s a statistical fact … Jews run most of the banks; Jews completely dominate the media; Jews are vastly disproportionately represented in all of these professions. That’s just a fact. It’s not anti-Semitic to point out statistics … It’s not anti-Semitic to point out that these things are true.” — Milo Yiannopoulos, The Rubin Report, March 2016
So how can leftists, who immediately take any statistical over–representation of whites in anything at all as a major social problem that needs to be changed—even at just 1.1 or 1.4 times the white population rate—condemn white supremacists for being worried about statistical over–representations several times larger than that? Indeed, how are the racialist left and white supremacists anything but two different sides of the same coin?
Amusingly enough, a large percentage of my audience will probably suspect me immediately of having gone full Nazi just because I went through the effort to pinpoint exactly how overrepresented Jews are at all. Now, that suspicion may be fair—but if so, why is it that going through the effort to pinpoint how overrepresented whites are in various fields or professions is not seen as bigotry in just exactly the same way?
As a matter of fact, the ‘Reflective Democracy Campaign’ itself has apparently failed to notice that it is not “whites” who are overrepresented within the legal profession—it’s Jews, who in fact make up 26% of the nation’s law professors, and 30% of Supreme Court law clerks. In Jews and the New American Scene, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab point out that Jews make up “40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington.” So Jews are overrepresented in the legal profession at 13 or more times their population rate.
And if you subtract the 26% of lawyers who are Jewish from the 79% of prosecutors the RDC calls “white,” that leaves only 53% of prosecutors who are non–Jewish whites, compared to about 61% of the U.S. population that is non–Jewish white. So it turns out that ‘whites’ are not over-represented at all—they’re under-represented at about 0.86 times the population rate. But what would happen to the RDC’s left–wing credentials if it were to openly admit this and call explicitly for a reduction of the Jewish percentage of elected prosecutors?
Indeed, what would happen to their public image in general once this was known?
Suddenly, they’d go from being a respectable campaign calling attention to a real social issue to being classed with Nazis and white supremacists—the lowest of the low—just because the demographic their numbers targeted happened to turn out to be Jews instead of whites. But why is it that this kind of campaign is valid just so long as it targets whites, and racist bigotry the moment it hits any other demographic?
Why are Jews statistically over-represented? There are essentially two possibilities:
- Jews could be acquiring positions of power and then using them to grant favors to other Jews—say, Jews could take over the senior administrative positions in Ivy League colleges (where they indeed compose about 75% of the total), and then they could favor admitting Jews as new students over others.
- Perhaps Jews are simply more intelligent, or industrious, or intellectual, or otherwise have temperaments more conducive to these arenas—and so they acquire their status in these positions through legitimate success.
The first of these options is the white supremacist answer: Jews aren’t any more intelligent than the rest of us; they’re just more nepotistic, networking with other Jews to take over the world. In order to avoid sounding like bigots, then, we’re supposed to give the second answer: Jews are simply more intelligent or more industrious or more intellectual, or simply have temperaments more conducive to these arenas.
But if we’re talking about whites instead of Jews, then suddenly the first option is exactly what social justice warriors demand that we say: ‘whites aren’t any more intelligent than anyone else; they’re just more nepotistic’! Meanwhile, the second option is suddenly the one that is now inexcusably, irredeemably racist: if you claim that whites are simply more intelligent or more industrious or more intellectual, you’re a bigot.
What the ‘politically correct’ view requires us to say about Jews is exactly what it calls bigotry if we say it about whites. And what it requires us to say about whites is exactly what it calls bigotry if we say it about Jews. The disproportionate success of whites is purely the result of unjust ‘privilege’, and you’re a bigot if you think it has anything to do with greater merit. But the disproportionate success of Jews is the result of greater merit, and you’re a bigot if you try to diminish that by attributing it to ‘privilege’, much less want it to change!
The egregiousness of the naked double standard here is overwhelming. As far as resolving it, it would seem we have exactly two possible options: either we grant the argument in both cases, and encourage the social justice warriors and white supremacists to join forces against their new common foe—or else we deny it in both cases.
So which is it?
Note
1. http://thezog.info/list-summaries/
Source: https://zombiemeditations.com/2016/04/28/calling-for-alliance/
11 comments
“Why are Jews statistically over-represented?”
The Jewish author Ron Unz answers the question with regard to Ivy League admissions in his landmark paper, The Myth of American Meritocracy.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
The answer is that one group has ethnic lobbyists embedded throughout the Ivy League admissions process whereas the other doesn’t. As a result one group ends up massively overrepresented while the other gets shafted.
The same pattern repeats throughout the rest of the elite establishment and for the same reason. One group is allowed to engage in ethnic favoritism because objecting to it leads to persecution for anti-semitism while simultaneously the other group is not allowed to engage in ethnic favoritism because doing so leads to persecution for racism.
Jewish organizations manage and coordinate both types of persecution. Persecutions for anti-semitism are driven by the ADL whereas persecutions for racism are driven by the SPLC.
When you win because the playing field has been angled in your favor you can call that nepotism. But when you are the one who angled the playing field in the first place then it’s called something else: cheating.
That’s the answer to the question.
Superlative comment, Nxx. Thank you.
I wanted to address some of these issues further, and didn’t get a chance to, so responding with my thoughts to this comment looks like as good a place as any. There’s definitely a case to be made that you’re correct, at least as regards university admissions—and Unz’ essay on the topic is seminal and can’t be more highly recommended to anyone interested in exploring it further.
At the very least, Jewish ethnic favoritism (whether we call it “nepotism” or “cheating”) can’t be the full story. The situation reminds me of the stand–up comedian who asked, “If men and women are equal, then how come women have never succeeded at oppressing an entire gender?””
If Jews have succeeded at normalizing their favoring of their own kind where others haven’t, then how is it that they were able to pull that off? For my purposes in this essay (which was to make leftists’ heads “literally explode”, as another commenter put it), what matters is that at least part of the story is inevitably going to have to involve the higher–than–average genetic Ashkenazi IQ—whether that explains all of it or not.
Now, I don’t reject Unz’ argument outright, but I am at least a little skeptical of the soundness of some of his reasoning. For example, he makes much of a declining average Jewish IQ due to the higher birth rates of the lower–IQ Orthodox population that isn’t subsequently reflected in Jewish admission rates over time. But if the average Jewish IQ is declining, that doesn’t entail that the average Jew’s IQ is falling: we’re still talking about a small population where an extremely high number of very high IQ individuals are concentrated, and we don’t reduce the actual number of high–IQ individuals just because we throw more low–IQ individuals into the mix. In fact, I think it’s fair to assume that even Unz himself doesn’t think it’s the ultra–Orthodox who are gaining these disproportionate admissions into Yale and Harvard in the first place.
To settle that question once and for all, I’d like to see a record of the IQs of all college applicants, categorized by ethnicity, and then see whether IQ or ethnicity is more predictive of gaining admission (and for the record, I really would like to see that). Is what’s happening in college admissions really ethnic bias, plain and simple? Or is it taken care of after controlling for IQ, and perhaps adding in political bias (as Unz notes, 4H, ROTC, and FFA membership actually makes an applicant LESS likely to be admitted)? Unz gives some subjective reasons for thinking IQ won’t account for it, but he isn’t capable of ruling it out. And I’m not sure all of them are persuasive.
Here’s part of my concern: if we’re going to argue that literature claiming that poorer outcomes for other racial groups is largely explained by white discrimination is actually explained by constitutive factors such as lower IQs, we need to make sure that we hold this argument to a very high standards. Just as leftists can be accused of hypocrisy when claiming white overrepresentation can only be the result of racial favoritism (but suggesting Jewish overrepresentation is due to racial favoritism is just an anti–semitic canard!), so it’s also incredibly easy for a white complaint about Jewish representation to sound a hell of a lot like a black complaint about white representation.
So until we have more direct data addressing the question, Unz’ input is some of the most valuable that any of us have, but I have to say I think the jury is still out. The essay could have benefited from clarifying that explanations 1. and 2. aren’t actually mutually exclusive—I think whether we’re talking about white or Jewish success compared to other groups, the answer is inevitably going to involve some measure of both; and the real question is, “How much?”
So arriving back at my own more limited point in this essay, Unz doesn’t deny that IQ plays a significant role in admission rates for Jewish students—he just doesn’t think it accounts for all of it. But for my purposes here, it doesn’t matter whether it accounts for all of it or not; it just matters that it qualifies as a factor, because the typical leftist is ideologically committed to having to consider it offensive that Unz claims that IQ plays any role at all.
So regardless where the answers to the other questions involved actually land, that’s where I’m able to trap them—because precisely to whatever extent it’s not about IQ, it’s about ethnic favoritism (“racism”). But accusing Jews of attaining dominance through ethnic favoritism is just a white supremacist trope! (Right?) And if the leftist wants to avoid having his very own premises lead him to endorse those “white supremacist tropes” by accepting the importance of IQ in relation to outcomes between whites and Jew, then there’s no way he can then turn around and deny at least the partial relevance of IQ in relation to outcomes between whites and other minorities.
In summary: (1) I think Unz’ essay is incredibly valuable and I highly recommend it, but I also think that the jury is still out on how correct its conclusions are; (2) I think the deeper problem is that we can’t openly talk about this stuff; because if we could, then performing the appropriate test to see whether he’s right or not would be incredibly easy; and (3) either way, this essay is designed in such a way that it should achieve its purpose no matter what you think the answer to that question is, because the point here is about dismantling the internal consistency of leftist premises from the inside out, rather than making any other positive arguments about what actually is true. And if we could accomplish (3), then we could accomplish (2) easily; and then solving (1) would come along for the ride automatically.
If you could actually get a leftist to sit down and read this then I think their heads might literally explode.
This article is a fantastic example of how to use an undeniable logic both efficiently and subtly.
This is interesting. I argued something on the lines of this. SWJ is a syndrome of whites acting over-protective, upright, snobby, and intellectual. It’s almost natural for whites to pretend we are all in some kind of long, philosophical debate and argue about muh, “points,” “logic,” “reasoning,” and “thesis.”
Unfortunately, only white people do this to each other. And sadly, other whites see non-whites as white like them. It creates this retarded and insane feedback loop.
A SWJ and Alt-Right alliance could happen in our lifetime. Imagine, the white liberal now projects what was once “racist” on to other’s personal business. The problem is really about the Victorian and post-war tradition of whites and how it has influenced us globally as a race. In the long run, non-whites will always understand “arguing” is a white people thing.
At least white suicide is off the menu. I can agree with that.
The introduction to this article reminds me of that of Revilo P. Oliver’s article “Small Voices” (Liberty Bell, August 1989):
“The few who are seriously interested in preserving our civilization and race have frequently observed that the local weekly newspapers will often print letters and even small articles that could never appear in the jewspapers, i.e., the daily press of large circulation.
“An interesting example is the issue of the Post Eagle for 12 April 1989, of which a copy was recently sent me. The Post Eagle is a weekly, published, almost entirely in English, for Poles in this country. Letters to the editor are published as though they were signed articles.
“One letter begins with a description of the way in which a hatchet man on one of the television stations ganged up with a rabbi to interview a young white man, ‘a twenty-year-old skinhead,’ who was not ashamed of his race. Using the technique of the Spanish Inquisitors, who often trapped their victims by verbal trickery, using a word in several different senses, thus confusing them and making them make inconsistent statements, the rabbi and his goy hunting dog were able to make the Aryan youth seem somewhat ridiculous.
“The author of the letter then deplores a doctrine of ‘White Supremacy,’ the term now applied to the wicked notion that even creatures so self-degraded and abject as White men and women have rights. He gives a list of major crimes committed by Whites, among which one especially notices, e.g., ‘The Jewish traitors, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were white.’ ‘The Russian and Jewish KGB agents who murdered . . . Polish officers and intellectuals at Katyn were white.’ ‘The Russians and Jews who starved 8 million Ukrainians in the 1920’s and 30’s were white.’ ‘The violence and filth televised into American homes is done primarily by white people. Fifty-nine percent of them were raised in Jewish homes (from statistics).’ I do not know what was the writer’s purpose, but I am sure he must have incited serious reflection in some readers.”
https://www.stormfront.org/rpo/VOICES.htm
Good work
Believe me, it’s the first one. Jews acquire positions of power and then use them to grant favors to other Jews
Anyone with access to a Jewish boss’s emails can tell you, it’s nothing but networking and nepotism. Sometimes it’s explicit (like private listservs that are just for Jewish networking). Sometimes it’s implied (“I’m sending you my intern Joel’s resume. He’s a real mensch.”). And a lot of times it’s unconscious. That’s a key part of MacDonald’s evolutionary theory of Jewish group behavior. They do it without even thinking about it.
It’s true Jews score a bit higher on IQ tests, especially in verbal ability. And they do talk a good game (originality is another matter). But even taking into account those scores, they’re overrepresented. I hope someone with statistics knowledge will do the regression analysis and completely end that rationalization for Jews dominating our elite institutions.
I would love to see a leftist or Jewish advocate seriously try to answer or refute the logic presented in this article. Has anyone every heard serious answers to questions like these? All I’ve ever heard is shrieking or ‘wow just wow’.
And the punch line is that Jewish “educators” appear at White Privilege conferences to decry the supposed dominance of American society by Whites.
If the high Jewish admissions are based solely on higher IQ, then wouldn’t that mean that they would have the highest marks in the same percentage? I believe David Duke has shot many holes in that theory by studying the makeup of the highest scoring undergrads, which come out as a higher percentage euro-american as compared to admissions. You also have to take into account that most Jewish kids are pushed to be professionals, which is admirable. Everyone else should be pushing their kids harder to get a post-secondary education. Lastly, if it was solely based on IQ, wouldn’t Asians have higher admissions?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment