Calling for a Nazi / Social Justice Warrior Alliance

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 boycottIt 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 trueabout 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 Brainard1, Stanley Fischer2, Janet L. Yellen3), three are Jewish. Of the nine executive officers of Goldman Sachs (Edith W. Cooper, Gregory K. Palm, John F. W. Rogers, Alan M. Cohen1, Harvey M. Schwartz2, Mark Schwartz3, Gary D. Cohn4, Lloyd C. Blankfein5, Michael S. Sherwood6), 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. Zames1, Daniel E. Pinto2, Douglas B. Petno3, Marianne Lake4, Stacey Friedman5, Ashley Bacon6), 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 overrepresented 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 overrepresented? There are essentially two possibilities:

  1.  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.
  2. 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?


8 responses to “Calling for a Nazi / Social Justice Warrior Alliance

  1. B.B. April 28, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    Aedon Shevirah Cassiel said:
    The first of these options is typically the white supremacist answer: Jews aren’t any more intelligent than the rest of us; they’re just more nepotistic.

    Is that really the typical “white supremacist” answer? One is hard-pressed to find any self-described white supremacists, but as far as people who have been labeled as such by the likes of the Anti-Defamation League, such people often not only acknowledge superior cognitive skills of Ashkenazi Jews compared to gentiles, but that fact is rather central to their critique of Jewish power and influence. David Duke, whilst dismissive of the visuo-spatial skills of Jews compared to gentile Whites, acknowledges their superior verbal skills in Jewish Supremacism. Kevin MacDonald likewise extensively discusses data indicating a high Ashkenazi IQ in A People That Shall Dwell Alone. Their critique of Jewish power is centered on how an intelligent ethnocentric diaspora people who perceive themselves separate from the wider society in which they live further their own interests at the expense of others.



    • Aedon Shevirah Cassiel April 29, 2016 at 12:19 am

      There is a distinction between the terms “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”, and I’ve stuck to the strict use of the terms here. Wikipedia defines “white supremacy” as: “a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non–white people.

      Meanwhile, it defines “white nationalism” as “an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity [and attachment to same which] ranges from a preference for one’s ethnic group, to feelings of superiority ….” The page further clarifies that: “White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups within white nationalism. The former seek a separate white state; the latter add social Darwinism [or] Nazism ….”

      I figure people like Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor qualify as ‘white nationalists’, but not ‘white supremacists’. The former do tend to be race realists of the more consistent variety, so you’re mostly correct in what you state here. However, amongst white supremacists, we do find a variety of paranoid theories that attribute Jewish power to a conscious conspiracy (which would imply that Jews have the amount of success that they have due to greater malevolence, rather than greater intelligence). For example, phrases like “Zionist Occupied Government” originated specifically from Neo–Nazis (who are white supremacists), and not from white nationalists. As that Wikipedia page notes, “the usage of Zionist in this context is… intended to portray Jews as conspirators who aim to control the world, as in the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

      I didn’t delve into detail on the points you’re bringing up because this post resulted from a conscious decision to try to write something far shorter, and aimed at a wider audience, than my usual. The thesis: there is a parallel between social justice warriors’ thinking and that of the more paranoid variety of white supremacists. And it was simply a diversion from that point, given the audience for which it was intended, to go into any more detail on the views of different white identity politics camps than what was said here. Even if that were just a boogeyman in liberals’ minds (but I don’t think it is), it would still serve that purpose.


    • Aedon Shevirah Cassiel May 14, 2016 at 12:31 pm

      Well, so far, I’ve addressed their key source for job discrimination and unemployment (Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?) in “Are Sociologists More Employable Than a Pet Rock? A Case Study on Time Wise”, and I’ve addressed racial disparities in prison sentencing (which do exist—but with a surprising twist that makes it particularly ironic that these links come from “r/blackgirls”: the gap favoring women over men in prison sentencing is six times larger than the gap favoring whites over blacks, with the end result that black women are actually the most “privileged” in prison sentencing of all) in “‘Privilege’ in Prison Sentencing: A Crash at the Intersection.”

      Economic disparities are of course just brute correlations that don’t even attempt to tease out causation—but the links under that header all talk about the disparate impact of the ‘07 Great Recession. So why did the Great Recession hit blacks disproportionately? Because “it gutted home values, and home ownership is a much more significant part of the group’s overall wealth.”[1] And why did it gut home values? Because we decided to try to extend home ownership to minority households that we knew ahead of time, in the aggregate, couldn’t pay for it. [2] This wasn’t the only, or even biggest, cause of the recession as a whole; but still as usual, the “anti–racist” assumption that disparities in outcome must always be the result of racism actually harmed minorities in the end. We see the same thing, for example, when stop and frisk policies are called “racist” because minorities are “disproportionately” stopped and frisked … even though that’s because minorities are “disproportionately” concealing weapons—which they’re using primarily to kill other minorities (See here, and CTRL+F for “That brings us…”). In other words, ending the “racism” of stop and frisk policies which “disproportionately” targeted black people demonstrably resulted in more black people dead.

      Leftists will complain that higher–cost loans were disproportionately given out to minority homeowners, but this isn’t the problem itself; this was a necessary consequence of trying to extend homeownership to people who weren’t going to be able to pay for it—if you want to do that, you have to make up for the costs from elsewhere. It’s exactly the same reason why men pay more than women for car insurance: men cost auto insurance companies more, and those costs have to be made up from somewhere. You can either statistically discriminate against the group that is responsible for that (in this case, men), or else you can spread the costs around to everyone, and charge women more even though they aren’t causing more accidents. Charging men more on the statistically correct assumption that they are individually more likely to cause a costly accident than a woman is simply the only viable way to do that. So extending homeownership to minority households that weren’t going to be able to afford it hurt minorities as a whole the same way it would hurt men as a whole if we decided to give ex–cons free cars and then require them to pay car insurance; insurance rates would rise for everyone, and the value of owning a car would fall.

      The key source on housing discrimination says that “on average, black and Hispanic households live in neighborhoods with more than one and a half times the poverty rate of neighborhoods where the average non-Hispanic white lives.” My essay, The ‘Poverty’ of Sociology, on the relationship between poverty and crime (and single parent families) goes a long way towards illustrating the complexity of teasing out why that is, and at suggesting at least part of the answer—one of the key findings I discuss in that essay is from a study which finds that children borne to families after they rise out of poverty don’t have any different life outcomes, on average, from children who are actually borne into poverty—therefore, it can’t be poverty itself which does the most work of explaining those outcomes; and it must be something else about the kinds of families who end up in poverty which does that work. Educational outcomes is an interesting question that I will, at some point, get into addressing directly, so I won’t do so here, except to point out that given how significant Jewish over–representation in elite colleges is (as noted in this post), there’s a lot of overlap between the gist of the argument in this post and some of the arguments I’d end up making in that one.


  2. Darryl May 20, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Dude, you need to do a follow-up post on Jewish over-representation in the Ivy Leagues. Read “The Myth of the American Meritocracy” by Ron Unz. Jews are over-represented in the Ivy Leagues by 385% based on their incoming test scores (SAT, grades).

    Moreover these spots are taken from GENTILE whites for the most part. The data indicates that only 1/3 gentile whites that merit Ivy league educations actually are admitted.


    • Aedon Shevirah Cassiel May 20, 2016 at 11:47 am

      Yes, I’ve definitely been contemplating that. The only thing causing delay is that I don’t want to write a post in which I can’t find anything unique of my own to offer on top of Unz’ already quite definitive analysis.


      • Darryl July 12, 2016 at 8:02 pm

        Hey Aedon,

        The follow-up essay on the Ivy league education gap should focus on the yawning gap between wage growth and productivity growth that began to develop in the 1970s.

        Unz leaves the Jewish achievement gap that began developing in the late 80s/90s and reached astonishing levels in the 2000s basically unaddressed, but posits that it is likely due to “immigrant vigor”. In short, his view is that Jewish kids outhussled the gentiles until they were accepted in the larger community and lost all motivation.

        This idea of immigrant hussle fits well in Unz’s worldview. But it doesn’t explain the sudden nature of the achievement collapse and it doesn’t address the timing. Why? Jewish immigration largely occurred between 1890-1910. These weren’t recent immigrants at all, but third, fourth and even fifth generation Americans.

        And that’s because the key is the wage/productivity gap. The breakdown of the working and middle class combined with burgeoning cultural norms based on educational achievement created new incentives for youth growing up in slowly disintegrating towns in the rust belt/midwest. They could no longer rely on a good job locally, therefore there was a large push to become educated and attain a position in the information economy in larger cities. And the educational marginalization happened right on cue for those born in the late 70s/early 80s.

        Educational prestige is a crucial element in legitimizing power in the current system; especially for a small ethnic group focused on vertical integration within a society. Therefore, there is a great deal of incentive to “skew” access to prestige in order to marginalize potential rivals. Especially when this new class of gentiles may try to use their increased access to high level government or industry resources to alter the system in such a way as to favor their local communities or disfavor Jewish interests.

        It’s really a story of re-aligned incentives.

        Need any help give me an email, I’d be more than happy to help.


  3. Burns December 6, 2016 at 7:11 am

    If IQ is merit, the second answer is correct, for Jews in the current discussion, and for whites in comparison with URM’s. Simple.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: