From MondoWeiss:
Jewish success– is it ever a story?
Philip Weiss on July 30, 2013 38
This morning National Public Radio aired a story on the rivalry between Lawrence Summers and Janet Yellen to be the next Fed chairperson, succeeding Ben Bernanke. All three of these economists are Jewish.
Besides Summers and Yellen, Obama is also interviewing for the job a third economist, Donald Kohn.
It is plain evidence of the fact that Jews make up a large segment of the new Establishment, if not the leading segment.
I had the same impression Friday night, when the nightly news was also filled with Jews. The sex scandals involving San Diego mayor Bob Filner and would-be New York Mayor Anthony Weiner-- their pictures opened the NBC news. Then the lead story was food safety, and Nancy Snyderman was interviewing FDA head Margaret Hamburg, then Andrea Mitchell, who is married to a former chair of the Fed, was interviewing Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post about the sex scandals, and at the end of the broadcast they teased David Gregory's interview on Meet the Press of Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary. All these folks are Jewish or have some Jewish background. They're all in the center ring.
In recent months, I've heard Peter Beinart, Lester Crown, Jane Eisner, and Jeffrey Goldberg exclaim over Jewish success. Crown said that the acceptance of Jews "in almost everything is unbelievable, just remarkable, every place." But it seems to me that Jews in the media have largely avoided dealing with the implications of our success. They're embarrassed about it. Or they fear anti-Semitic riots if they say openly what everyone knows. The exception is Marc Ellis, who writes openly about Empire Jews.
This lack of reflection is unacceptable. Elites are traditionally criticized in the American discourse. It's the price. David Brooks's book about the "new upper class" is filled with slams of the previous order, the "WASPs," but has nothing to say about Jews. Nick Lemann wrote a highly-acclaimed book on the meritocracy that described the last ruling elite in religious terms-- as "the Episcopacy"-- and said that the folks in it got there by birth. It seems to me that the Jewish presence in the establishment merits some scrutiny: what is the role of birth in awarding place in the U.S.? What is the role of social kinship networks? What is the extent of Zionist ideology in the Jewish establishment? And how do successful Zionist Jews justify adherence to an ideology based on separation/colonization when they have done so well here? I'm a liberal and I trust Americans to have this conversation. I don't remember pogroms against the WASPs.
I've written several times about the valuable old concept of noblesse oblige. In essence, it meant that in feudal times, it meant that those on the top of a social order were honor-bound to personally fight to defend the social order, including those lower down in society, in which their privileged position depends.
Clearly, that concept needs to be updated for a 21st Century in which leading cavalry charges is no longer the most important manifestation of defense of the nation, but a public discussion over what exactly are the responsibilities of the people who have benefited most from living in America, and who they are, is long overdue.
As I wrote in 2008:
American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start more accurately thinking of themselves as belonging to the best-connected inner circle of the contemporary American Establishment.
Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant elite of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon themselves corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the United States—rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.
But that's unlikely to happen until the Jewish elite to begin to tolerate non-Jewish criticism, rather than to continue to try to destroy the careers of critics—or even just honest observers—in what seems to be an instinctive reaction intended to encourage the others.
A group self-image of victimization, combined with a penchant for ideological intensity and powerful ethnocentric lobbies, can lead to bizarre political manifestations—such as the dominant Jewish assumption that proper veneration of their Ellis Island ancestors requires opposition to patriotic immigration reform today.
In contrast, Italian-Americans, who lack institutions such as the ADL, appear to feel themselves freer to make up their own minds about what immigration policy will be best for their American posterity.
Posts
69 comments:
The fiction is that Jews owe their hugely disproportionate presence in the corridors of power and influence to their gigantic throbbing intellects, when it fact it is almost entirely due to their tribal loyalty to one another.
You can see this by asking yourself whether a "Jew" who regarded all Americans as equally his countrymen and felt no particular kinship with other Jews would even be considered Jewish. The answer is, he would not. Just as you cannot be "authentically black" without holding certain rather racialist and separatist views, you can't be "authentically Jewish" either.
A Jew who basically disavowed his Jewishness would never advance very far in this country, because he would be cutting himself off from the extensive network of Jewish contacts by which Jews advance themselves.
Jews behave like a minority on immigration issues because they are a minority. Are they as left-leaning these days as Asians even?
A number of orchestras and museums and foundations are endowed or at least partly supported by elite Jews, and they're often in the forefront of the people who talk about the need for more and better education. There was always this element of noblesse oblige - a sort of curator urge, you could call it, that, at least, helps Bach et al. to continue to have exposure.
That curator urge is a bit 20th century, though - a bit rinky-dink. Aren't there more ambitious (but still benign!) projects and plans for the United States as a whole? The elites of all stripes are currently sucking it dry to build their ersatz Versailleses, their yachts-with-helipads and helipads-with-yachts. Maybe all of them will tire of this and get interested in running a nation (as opposed to running one into the ground)? Nah. Who needs humanity when he has a yacht with a helipad?
The problem is that people like to rule themselves. They don't like being ruled by another group. The WASP ruling class ruled over what was by and large a WASP nation.
Jews instinctively understand this, which is why they tend to promote broader identities for the ruled in the first place, such as white and Caucasian, proposition-nation American, etc.
I recall William F. Buckley remarking that American Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans. Being married to one, I will admit we live an upper middle class lifestyle, but I can attest to the fact that she votes Republican. So do all three of our daughters. So there is hope...
"That curator urge is a bit 20th century, though - a bit rinky-dink. Aren't there more ambitious (but still benign!) projects and plans for the United States as a whole?"
What about funding hospitals and medical research? Wealthy American Jews have endowed a number of hospitals and medical schools, including Cedars-Sinai in Steve's hometown, Weill Cornell in New York, etc. Or donating to research universities? Bloomberg donated a large sum to his alma mater Johns Hopkins. Those are examples of noblesse oblige.
Weiss elides the most salient point about the elite: not that many of them are Jewish, but their insularity and lack of ideological diversity. After all, if Weiss were hired to replace Brooks tomorrow, the media elite wouldn't be any less Jewish, but it would be altered ideologically. Brooks and Weiss may both be Jews, but ideologically, Brooks has a lot more in common with, say, Bill Clinton.
Similarly, Bernie Sanders is as Jewish as the media elites Weiss mentions, but I doubt he identifies much with them. He's an old-school lefty populist.
"Jews behave like a minority on immigration issues because they are a minority. Are they as left-leaning these days as Asians even?"
They're not white, then? Somehow Ivy League college admissions officers by and large let them pass for "majority" for quota purposes. Asians aren't so lucky.
The fiction is that Jews owe their hugely disproportionate presence in the corridors of power and influence to their gigantic throbbing intellects, when it fact it is almost entirely due to their tribal loyalty to one another.
I once dated a girl who's sister was engaged to a jewish guy. (their mother married and converted after a divorce from their biological father)
He and her mother were trying to convince her to convert - and the argument was all material - jews help one another, there are advantages to being Jewish on wall street. The step-father ran a firm that employed all jews and they blatantly favored Jews.
Both complained about 'anti semitism' numerous times. and if even so much as hinted that well, gosh maybe we WASPy goy should to the same thing, or that maybe, just maybe they shouldn't, they both went alan-desherwotiz on me.
That experience was first time I saw what I suspected all along - and Ron Untz Ivy studies confirmed - the Jewish elite is corrupt and self serving and violated the trust they were given. they have no sense of stewardship or custodianship .they are a bad elite, and need to go, because they completely lack any self awareness or self criticism. their whole identity centers around the narrative that they are innocent little lambs in a world of hostile goy
They will never reflect, they will never reform.
"The problem is that people like to rule themselves. They don't like being ruled by another group. The WASP ruling class ruled over what was by and large a WASP nation."
It was by and large populated by their co-ethnics, to be sure, but I don't know how closely WASP elites identified with their non-elite cousins. Then as now, ideology and class trumped ethnicity. One illustration of that is the narrow usage of the term WASP. Although the term denotes an ethno-religious group, in practice it's usually only applied to upper class WASPs. There are colonial descendants in trailer parks who won't be gettiing into the DAR or the Social Registry anytime soon.
Another illustration of this is the "curator impulse" mentioned by David above. It's one thing to endow orchestras and libraries when the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy are already taken care of by the welfare state, but WASP elites were doing this when there was no welfare state. They were in effect donating more to their class than to their co-ethnics.
"The fiction is that Jews owe their hugely disproportionate presence in the corridors of power and influence to their gigantic throbbing intellects, when it fact it is almost entirely due to their tribal loyalty to one another."
Let's not exaggerate. It's BOTH. Italian-Americans, black-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Asian-Indian-Americans and Mexican-Americans all have been very tribalist, but how come they don't have the power of Jews?
While Jews help one another out, how did Jews reach the top in the first place if Jewish rise depends mostly on tribalism?
Larry Summers is a very smart guy, and so are many Jews in the academia, law, science, medicine, and etc. It's no joke that the many of the best doctors are Jewish. Just ask around from personal experience.
So, Jewish power isn't only the product of merit, but merit is part of the key.
It is a recurring pattern from the Prince's trusted advisor and physician, to his banker, to the banker of (and tax farmer for) the nobility. Then there are the inevitable slave/peasant revolts, and the Prince realizes he can not only calm the peasants down but relieve himself from rather oppressive debt by letting the masses have their way. Aaron of Lincoln comes to mind, as does the 1648 slave revolt in the Ukraine. Ginsburg's "The Fatal Embrace" has much about this. Amy Chua's "Worlds on Fire" addresses the phenomenon of market dominant minorities (MDMs) in a more phenomenological and non-Jew-centric sense. The Jews sense it on a subterranean mental level. See e.g. the Borat movie which had a not-so-hidden message for Jews (the "throw the Jews down the well" song) and more recently Brooks' "World War Z".
Thank goodness Jews have their own country now in wgich they reign supreme and don't have to live in Exile as luftmensch. Herzl and the Zionists were right: Jews need their own land where they can live and run things as they see fit for the benefit of their own nation.
The problem, of course, is that there is much more money to be gotten off the goyim in Exile and therefore there is little interest for most Jews in making aliyah.
Even in Israel there are problems. The centuries-old habit of milking the system for whatever they can extract is generating a great deal of intra-Jewish grief between the Haredim and the regular, everyday shrimp-eating secular Jewish working stiffs. Haredi welfare scams, draft-dodging, and education frauds are really p!ssing off regular, go-to-work-every-morning Jews. Some habits die hard. I wish them all the best of luck, however.
Just think how wonderful Israel could be if all the Exiles returned home and brought their wealth and talent with them, instead of buying up all the luxury apartments in Tel Aviv and living like kings for two weeks a year and then returning to Brussels, London, Miami, New York and Los Angeles to make money off the goyim. The Bernankes and Yellens as well as the Zuckerbergs and Weinsteins right there in Israel. Great banking, great movies, great technology, great TV, great music, great medicine, great professors, all there in Israel at the service of the Jewish Nation. The Great Ingathering of the Exiles.
A century ago it was the golden dream of the Zionists. Alas, it looks like it will never come true ... without another Event.
Actually, Dave, if Weiss and Brooks were to trade places, the media would become slightly more Jewish. Brooks is half-Jewish by ancestry.
It was by and large populated by their co-ethnics, to be sure, but I don't know how closely WASP elites identified with their non-elite cousins. Then as now, ideology and class trumped ethnicity. One illustration of that is the narrow usage of the term WASP. Although the term denotes an ethno-religious group, in practice it's usually only applied to upper class WASPs. There are colonial descendants in trailer parks who won't be gettiing into the DAR or the Social Registry anytime soon.
Except that term and its usage were popularized by academics, not "upper class WASPs".
Let's not exaggerate. It's BOTH.
Well, nobody is saying that Summers and Yellen would support a Jewish small businessman to be appointed Fed chief. But the pool of potential Fed chiefs is predominantly Jewish not because Jews have some innate understanding of money which non Jews lack, but because Jews make up such a large proportion of senior figures in the banking industry. That in turn is attributable to a large amount of Jewish ethnic tribalism.
It's true tough that there are many non Jews who have completely bought into the "Jewish genius" stuff and that when such non Jews are in positions of power, they also go to pains to advance the careers of Jews - in the mistaken belief that by doing so they advance the interests of the country.
Italian-Americans, black-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Asian-Indian-Americans and Mexican-Americans all have been very tribalist
The past tense is very apt in the case of Italian-Americans, and every other Euro-American group with the notable exception of Jews. For the last several decades the federal government has devoted its efforts to eradicating tribalism among ethnic Euro-Americans. Asian Americans do not get the same treatment, in fact the government encourages them to think and act tribally. And the results appear ominous.
Larry Summers is a very smart guy
Give it a rest. There are (at least) tens of thousands of equally smart non-Jewish guys in the country. Larry is of course a very smart guy, but very little of his life path is attributable just to that. Jewish over-representation in positions of power and influence has no explanation in the field of IQ.
It's just a fact. Jews give more to charities that help people with their basic needs than non-Jews do. See:
On the matter of why the GOP has been losing so badly, there has been lots of theories...
GOP lost the black votes, GOP cannot gain the brown or even the yellow votes, GOP don't have enough women's votes, GOP lost the Reagan Democratic or white working class vote, and etc. But few talk about the fact that the GOP doesn't have sufficient Jewish support-vote, and I think this debate is suppressed because it makes us take notice of the centrality of Jewish power in American power politics and because Jewish power is closely associated with the elites and the superrich.
I would say the MAIN reason GOP has been losing lately is because it really lost the superrich vote(among whom Jews are very prominent). Though superrich are numerically small in number, they control the media and is closely connected to other powerful elite institutions. Superrich fund elite think tanks, academia, and etc, and elite intellectuals provide the ideas and 'values' for the superrich and their children. Though superrich may be 'greedy pigs' while elite intellectuals may be 'progressive' and 'egalitarian', it's a symbiotic relationship that is wonderful for both sides. Superrich, by funding 'progressive' groups, in effect win indulgences not unlike what the rich got from the Catholic Church before Martin Luther raised a fuss about it. So, if you're Warren Buffett, Annenbergs, Rockefellers, or Soroses, your wealth can be forgiven and protected since you are on the side of 'progress'. AS for the leftist intellectuals, they get to go on Nation Magazine cruises with all the money that keeps on flowing from rich donors. And of course, many such intellectuals are children of the rich who went to Ivy League schools and rub shoulders with the 'progressive' privileged or the progileged.
When big labor used to cause a lot of headache and prior to the rise of finance and high tech to knock out manufacturing as America's biggest sector, Jewish superrich power wasn't what it is today. When manufacturing was big, GOP was on the bosses and Dems were on the side of labor, more or less, though not always. So, the rich guys favored the GOP by a sizable margin... even if they might have been socially much more liberal than your rank and file conservative. Also, the 60s gave Dems a bad rap on crime and patriotism, and so, working class folks voted for Reagan in the 80s, which really put the Dems in trouble.
But with end of cold war, with dems going along with free trade and lower taxes, and etc. the Democratic Party became the OTHER superrich party, and with boomer Jews becoming among the richest people in America, Dems were beginning to win over more big money.
While it's true that demography hasn't been good for the GOP, the fact is many whites would likely have voted for the GOP had a lot more big money and top talents gone over to GOP political campaigns. TV advertising plays a very big role in making voters whom to vote for. Though there are superrich funders of the GOP, the balance isn't as lopsided as some other major institutions.
For example, even when a Wall Street firm gives more to the GOP than to the Dems, the split is more like 55 to 45 or maybe 65 to 35. But consider firms like Google or Facebook where 99% of the funds go to Democrats. And most Silicon Valley firms--the future business of America--are like that. The discrepancy is astounding. Even Evangelical groups don't give so lopsidedly to the GOP in such manner. I'll bet even Mormon owned firms were not that lopsided in campaign contributions in 2012.
Or take an institution like Harvard or University of California system where something like 95% of the funds go to the Democrats.
So, the main reason for the downfall of the GOP is having lost the superrich and their superduper loads of cash and talent pool(as money buys the best talent around).
Now, one many wonder why the superrich and many rich go with Democrats than with the GOP. Why not go with the party that is willing to offer more to the superrich? There is the 'coolness' factor. Suppose there are two clubs. One club is cool and sassy, and it costs $20 to get a burger, fries, and drink. The other club is uncool and lame, but a burger twice its size and loads of fries and bigass gulp drink is $10. Which one would a rich person go to? Clearly, the second club is better for his wallet than the first one, but the first is cool, stylish, and has a certain mystique. Now, if the cool club priced the burger/fries/drink at $1000 while the lame club charged only $10, the rich might say, "fuc* it" and go with the uncool club, but the rich can afford to pay $10 more to eat at the cooler place with hipper crowd.
The GOP image is what? Fatass Limbaugh, country music, mash potatoes and gravy, Pat Robertson and 700 Club, and redneck hicks with shotguns and Stars and Bars. Okay, I like mashed potaters and gravy and some country music--especially Tammy Wynette--, but GOP simply isn't the cool party.
Democrats have Bruce Springsteen, most Hollywood stars, big name intellectuals, media, smart people in academia, and etc. GOP has the Rock.
But as Jews rose higher and higher, despite all their progressive yammering, they became further distanced from the masses of people. Jews no longer identified with the working class Ralph Kramdens and Archie Bunkers of the world. Unlike Samuel Gompers who led such people, Jews began to look down on such people as vulgar dummies. And as blacks caused all sorts of havoc in big cities since the 60s, Jews became less enamored of them as well, especially as the likes of Jesse Jackson kept on playing the 'Zionism is racism' card and often baited Jewish power.
And as youth anarchy of the 60s unleashed problems and havoc that progressives didn't know what to do about--Haight Asbury mess was entirely the doing of liberals--, elite Jews began to lose faith in the liberating power of youth, something Steven Pinker discussed in BETTER ANGELS.
As Jews got richer and richer and more a part of the elite, the ONLY group they could really identify with were the homos since homos too were rich, privileged, urban, creative, fancy, well-educated, and etc.
Though Jews were rich and powerful as hell, old habits die hard, and they still sought to cling to the notion of victimhood and underdog-ism, and they did this by promoting the homo cause as the BIGGEST MORAL CAUSE of the 21st century.
This is a rather odd development in progressive politics. When progressive politics used to champion workers, blacks, and youths(and women with feminism), it was indeed speaking for the masses of people since there were many laborers, many blacks, many youths, and many women. But when progressivism is mostly about homos, among the tiniest and most privileged groups in America, it's has turned into the ideology of the neo-aristocratic elites. It'd be like like making the well-off Mormons out to be the main VICTIMS OF THE AGE because many Americans still don't like the idea of Mormonism and thus may be Mormophobic, as well as polygamophobic.
This isn't to say there is no victim narrative in homo history. We know homos were persecuted in the past, and it's been common in some communities to mock and make fun of homos, and some homos do have hurtful memories, and we can't deny that. BUT, homos today are among the richest, most favored, and most protected elite groups in America, and so, when progressivism is inordinately about providing cushions for homos so they can feel ever more comfortable in the queen's throne next to the king's throne occupied by Jews, the whole thing's a bit icky, not to mention ludicrous. The Jewish-Homo alliance or Jomo alliance means we are living under a Jomocracy.
Jewish attitude toward homos could actually be weirder than the media make out. In FRIEDKIN CONNECTION, William Friedkin seems to be against 'homophobia' too, but his description of a gay club in the section on CRUISING is about the funniest thing I ever read. It sounds like something written by Pat Robertson had he found himself in the pits of Hell and stumbled upon the Devil and his minions as homosexuals have the most debauched kind of orgy.
Re the comments at Mondoweiss, I don't know how they go back centuries to talk about progroms against Jews by Christians and against Christians by Christians, and not mention that the Old Testament is full of Jews' record of their progroms against others. Though I guess "progrom" is a bit euphemistic.
I don't know of any religious tract that enshrines genocide quite as lovingly as the OT. And this, from what? The second millennium before Christ? They did all the early and important work, and they get no credit.
What about funding hospitals and medical research? Wealthy American Jews have endowed a number of hospitals and medical schools, including Cedars-Sinai in Steve's hometown, Weill Cornell in New York, etc. Or donating to research universities? Bloomberg donated a large sum to his alma mater Johns Hopkins. Those are examples of noblesse oblige.
First, Steve isn't really talking about charity in the sense you are. I mean, it's common for colonialists and imperialists to build infrastructure and institutions and such in the lands they colonize, but that doesn't get them much traction with lefties, does it? We built schools and hospitals and such in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
I have not delved into the matter extensively, but I don't think Jewish patterns of charity are something you'd want to dredge up, anyway. I've read enough examples of wealthy Jews donating huge sums of money to exclusively Jewish charities to suspect that Jews wouldn't want to dredge the issue up, either. Basically, I think Christians (and post-Christians) completely and thoroughly whip Jewish ass in the universalistic charity sense, and Jews know it. Are there any Christian (or post-Christian) charities that don't take all comers?
It was by and large populated by their co-ethnics, to be sure, but I don't know how closely WASP elites identified with their non-elite cousins.
A lot more closely than Jews did. Hell, Anglo-Saxons in general seem to identify more closely with humans of any stripe than Jews seem to with Europeans, with whom they share significant racial overlap.
It's just a fact. Jews give more to charities that help people with their basic needs than non-Jews do. See:
Hey, post the link and I'll look. I'm genuinely interested.
1/ As to Jewish noblesse oblige, I look forward to the establishment in any US city of a hospital established by any group that is explicitly White Christian.
People here should start soon. I'm not getting any younger.
Until that happens you really shouldn't criticize.
2/ As to modern non-Jewish noblesse oblige, isn't this the website which criticised wealthy non-Jews for putting so much money into college football?
Hi Steve, I'm an Orthodox Jew, so although this topic interests me, since I'm a member of a more right wing culture, I'm pretty unfamiliar with the inner workings of "elite" Jewish success. Secular, left wing Jews hate, and discriminate against, orthodox Jews more than any goyim do.
Anyway, there are two things I don't get:
1) it's not only the elite Jews that keep selecting and promoting one another, goyim seem just as inclined to do the same (like every ex-president, for example). Why are goyim so eager to perpetuate this Jewish success at the very highest levels?
2) although it was different a generation ago, today's genx/geny elite secular Jews appear to have absolutely zero tribal loyalty towards Judaism other Jews (except to the extent other elite leftists happen to be Jewish). They usually don't even marry Jewish. Heck, most of the time they are only fractionally Jewish anyway. Think of today's Jewish top up and comers in the media. Yglasias, Ezra Klein, nate silver etc. do any of them even consider themselves Jewish? Does mark zuckerberg? The only loyalty they seem to have is to progressive politics.
-OJ
They will never reflect, they will never reform.
They didnt when they were weak and they arent now when they are strong. So whats the answer?
Anonymous above, the one with with three long comments makes some interesting and might I say good points. Meanwhile my comment over at Mondoweis: http://mondoweiss.net/exile-and-the-prophetic
As Jews got richer and richer and more a part of the elite, the ONLY group they could really identify with were the homos since homos too were rich, privileged, urban, creative, fancy, well-educated, and etc.
What about nerds? Why not them? I suspect that the 1970s-80s which forged the great Judaeo-Queer Alliance was not a time of great nerd awareness. Everybody "knew" what a nerd was and how to treat one, but only at a pre-conscious level. Basically, they were little more than the Bad Guys That Got No Respect No Matter What They Tried. Gays may have been BADDER (tm) than nerds, but they were also more visible and got more respect - AND had some form of group identity. Now there is Bill Gates, the Internet, assortative mating, and the neurodiversity movement. It will be interesting to how the corporate Jewish attitude develops toward them.
"1/ As to Jewish noblesse oblige, I look forward to the establishment in any US city of a hospital established by any group that is explicitly White Christian."
Does Catholic count?
My hometown of Topeka has two hospitals dating from the last half of the 19th century, one founded by the Episcopal Church and the other by a Catholic order. I assure you that both groups were nearly exclusively white and Christian then. The Episcopal hospital is now a nonsectarian nonprofit and the Catholic hospital is still Catholic. Add Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists I bet you could account for an overwhelming majority of hospitals founded before WWII and a good many founded since.
1/ As to Jewish noblesse oblige, I look forward to the establishment in any US city of a hospital established by any group that is explicitly White Christian.
Everywhere I've lived there seems to have been a few hospitals created by the Catholics. I've even come across some Lutheran and Baptist ones too. Are they explicitly white Christian? Probably not, but in practice they are, or at least were when those institutions were created. Ditto for all the Catholic schools and universities. Ditto for all the Carnegie libraries all over the nation too.
Wealthy American Jews have endowed a number of hospitals and medical schools,
there is usually an ulterior motive - look at the scandals with NYU, Cooper union and New York and Brooklyn Library systems (they are different, btw)
...developers (and NY Trump is an exception) get on the board and for example cooper union builds a 477 million dollar building (Why?) and for the first time in its history starts charging students tuition.
A number of orchestras and museums and foundations are endowed or at least partly supported by elite Jews
Yeah, like the Brooklyn Museum and its never ending stream of anti-Christian art and obnoxious modern add-on which in many ways was symbolic of the Jewish elite (google a picture of the facade)
What about funding hospitals and medical research? Wealthy American Jews have endowed a number of hospitals and medical schools...
As a man wiser than me once said, philanthropy is the gateway to power.
"I have not delved into the matter extensively..."
I find that delving first generally leads to more informed comments.
". I've read enough examples of wealthy Jews donating huge sums of money to exclusively Jewish charities to suspect that Jews wouldn't want to dredge the issue up, either. Basically, I think Christians (and post-Christians) completely and thoroughly whip Jewish ass in the universalistic charity sense, and Jews know it"
The examples I mentioned above of Weill and Bloomberg suggest that the largest Jewish donations go to universalist institutions such as hospitals and universities, but with respect to donations to Jewish foubdations, a study last year found that only 24% of the money doled out by Jewish foundations actually goes to Jewush causes.
"A lot more closely than Jews did. Hell, Anglo-Saxons in general seem to identify more closely with humans of any stripe than Jews seem to with Europeans, with whom they share significant racial overlap."
Bernie Sanders seems to indentify with the poor whites in his state (the majority of whom aren't Jewish) more than, say, Bill Gates identifies with downscale American whites.
Steve nobless oblige is a feudal military levy system designed to produce security from attack with no central authority.
As such it flowed both ways, peasant and knight levys and nobles funding things. The lord gave protection the peasant and even knight could not get on his own, in exchange for military and other service.
Jew or non jew does not matter. Without new nobles needing the lower class for military and other service . . . we get this.
Off/On Topic:
I just finished reading "The Servile Mind" by Kenneth Minogue. A very good read for the Red Pill crowd.
For now, no-bullshit oblige would be enough.
Also, it's a matter of meritribalism.
Another thing... while there was an element of reformism among the wasps, they were pushed by other groups. If they had been pressured, they would have given up much less.
So, we can't just credit wasp noblesse oblige but Jewish nosy opposition(and from other groups).
But no one dares take the fight to the Jews. It's foolish to expect any people or power to give up their advantage out of the goodness of their heart. They must be called out and opposed, but there is silence.
"Then as now, ideology and class trumped ethnicity."
Oh, brother, you have to try hard to be this wrong.
That's what the communists thought up until WWI. A lot of them were apparently even hoping for war, as it would show the smelly proles they had more in common with other nation's proles than with their elites.
But... that's not what happened in WWI. When it came to it they all went into the trenches for their countrymen, from Scotland to Turkey.
yPutomm
Where's the evidence Bernie Sanders cares about his constituents? The equating of socialism with caring is so lazy. How much of his salary does he give to charity. Heck does his staff focus on constituent services or getting his crazy mug on tv. Doubt I'd be surprised be the answers.
There is one issue where Bernie Sanders could have made a difference for populism rather than just grandstanding on the senate floor wasn't hard to guess which way he went on immigration reform. Ole Bernie just a good old lefty populist who just happens to support the reserve army of the unemployed. Strange that. Kind of makes you wonder good old working man Dave owns a lawn service.
But no one dares take the fight to the Jews. It's foolish to expect any people or power to give up their advantage out of the goodness of their heart. They must be called out and opposed, but there is silence.
Who could possibly fill that role, or at any rate take the lead?
Well, how about other Jews? Why in the world would they want to?
In the first place because they can. And in the second place because . . . well, because it would be good for the Jews!
There's an awful lot of human capital locked up in that particular ethnic group, more in fact than there are opportunities to exercise it in present society. When populations were counted in the millions -- look at 18th century America for example -- this was not a problem, even for the Anglos. But now that populations are counted in the hundreds of millions it is very much a problem, especially at the national level.
See Unruly Americans by by Woody Holton, one of the best books in American history I've read in a long, long time.
It's amusing how nutso supposedly intelligent folks on this blog when the subject of the Jews comes up. Or as some of you call it, the "Joos." Very clever, you're a virtual Lenny Bruce cum Groucho Marx! Man, we Jews better watch out for the day when our humor dominance, no doubt grounded in tribalist suppression of goy comedians, is walloped by the masterful verbalists writing for Chronicles.
Incidentally, in my entire life, which includes immersion in all kinds of Jewish communities, I have never once heard the word "goy" used, let alone serious derogatory remarks about gentiles. Those commentors on this blog who like to think that Jews think in those terms are guilty of the paranoid style (projection of one's own negative thoughts and emotions onto enemies (cf. the KKK and their mummery of evil Catholics)). Yes, at times Jews show preference for Jews. Yet one man's tribalism is another man's communalism and extended familism (which Sailer no doubt supports!).
Some of you gentiles are quite simply jealous of Jewish cohesion and self-control in the face of the atomism of modernity. Read some Durkheim and other Jews of mediocre IQ whose dominance in sociology, etc. is caused by keeping the goy man down. That's how blacks and feminists see it too! It's a conspiracy, man.
Like everything else in life, it's a combo of nature and environment. Combine natural high average IQ with Jewish culture in a small-L liberal society and you get incredible Jewish success, which inevitably redounds to the benefit of the entire country. Boy, Germany could've used those Joo physicists, who, as we know, have been dominant for keeping the goy physicists down.
Somehow the aforementioned commentors forget Sailer's Occam's butterknife in this area. I suppose it's old fashioned ressentiment: How dare some other group be smarter than me? I could point to your fragile self-esteem, but psychology is another of the fields dominated by Jews keeping the goy psychologists down.
During the Spanish Inquisition, the Christians forced Jews to engage in disputations in the hope that when the Christian won, the Jews would convert. Alas, the Jews won time after time, even though the rules of the debate severely limited them. Hey, Sailerites, maybe someday the best of your goyim can battle the best of the Jews in single combat. The sort of thing Tom Wolfe described in The Right Stuff. Let's settle this once and for all. But wait, that WASP author, whom you love so much, ended up marrying a Jew. I guess he's dumb, too.
But Steve, progressivism, especially the kind espoused by the mainstream liberal jewish UMC, is modern noblesse oblige.
When I talk to my jewish peers about politics, the liberal camp always goes back to the same few justifications for everything from amnesty to foodstamps. You may think that their sense of duty is leading them into horrible policy (as I certainly do), but I think the most plausible motive for a lot of these well-wishers is altruism
"We owe it to them." Or, "we need to preserve the American Dream". Or "every child deserves a good education! it's the American way!". These are the real and true motivations of the liberal UMC jewish voting bloc, even in a smoke-filled roomed, at one in the morning, talkin' amongst ourselves, with two bottles of Manischewitz down the hatch, all PC filters removed. (Just kidding, we don't drink that shit except at Passover.)
And I don't know what it looks like from the outside, but from the inside, liberal progressive UMC jews don't see themselves as an oppressed class. Nor do most even have a particularly jewish identity. They don't plan to marry jewish and they certainly don't go out of their way to advance the careers of their fellow-jews. I don't get that angle. If anything, there's family-ties nepotism, but not particularly more than non-Jewish. As I said to you in an email once, none of you gentiles watch a Lakers-Celtics game and think, "vast black conspiracy", but when somehow the logic you apply to left-curvers doesn't make the (perfectly valid) transfer to right-curvers.
@Anonymous of 8/4/13, 12:12 PM:
You can see this by asking yourself whether a "Jew" who regarded all Americans as equally his countrymen and felt no particular kinship with other Jews would even be considered Jewish. The answer is, he would not.
I can tell you for a fact this is incorrect. Jews' first metric of Jewishness is matriarchal descent. If your mom was a Jew, no matter what you believe or say, other Jews will insist "Yeah, but you're still really a Jew."
("Matriarchal Descent" would make a good name for a metal band.)
Anyway, while Jews do encourage and perpetuate a strong tribal loyalty, a "noblesse oblige" isn't beyond widespread possibility either. Lots of German-Jewish holocaust survivors reflected that they had considered themselves Germans first and Jews second, which is one reason so few left even during the long period where Jewish emigration was encouraged. Also, Jewish immigrants to the US a hundred years ago, and their kids and grandkids, were avid assimilationists.
I think the divisions between Jews and non-Jews really opened up after the 1950s, for the same reasons that divisions opened up between Charles Murray's Belmontians and Fishtowners.
One bit of evidence for this is the relative abundance of famous Jewish-American athletes pre-1950 (Lew Gehrig and Sandy Koufax being the most obvious examples) and the relative absence of them since.
I look forward to the establishment in any US city of a hospital established by any group that is explicitly White Christian.
That describes virtually every hospital in the US more than a century old. For example, New York Presbyterian Hospital, established in 1868 by the "explicitly white Christian" James Lennox.
Of course, both liberals and conservatives don't wanna discuss this matter of how the main reason for the decline of GOP power is due to GOP's loss of the support of the superrich
In order to have "lost" the "superrich" the GOP would have to have had them at one point, and that's simply not the case. The "superrich" have always trended left of center. What's changed is that the size and power of the superrich bloc has grown relative to the rest of the country over the last thirty years.
I don't like the idear of nobolig.
On the one hand, it is premised on the notion of permanent privilege and power that can be taken for granted.
Indeed, one can feel magnanimous if one is assured of one's power, and this was the case with the old aristocracy. Peasants were gonna remain peasants while aristos could take their highborn power for granted.
So, nobolig is inherently an unfair idea.
In the modern capitalist world, where one's wealth can rise up and down--here today, gone tomorrow--, nobolig can only really be indulged by the superduper rich. If Gates or Buffett loses several billions, they still got a lot more.
But it is foolish for anyone else to play this game. Even Ted Turner's wealth went from like 10 billion to 1 billion after the dotcom crash.
The problem with wasps is they thought their power was secure and certain that they could afford to be generous. But history moves very fast under capitalism, and nobilig is a fool's game unless one is very very rich like Bloomberg.
This is why Jews prefer to play troublesse oblige. Act like they're causing trouble against 'white privilege'.
"The "superrich" have always trended left of center."
Socially yes. But when taxes got too high, they went with the GOP. Dewey got the rich vote against Truman.
And the GOP was pulling in more money from big business until the mid 90s.
And rich suburbs used to be solidly pro-gop.
schlomo:
"But Steve, progressivism, especially the kind espoused by the mainstream liberal jewish UMC, is modern noblesse oblige."
Schlomo is right, and rich Jews can be awful generous, at least when it comes to certain causes. It seems a great amount of Jewish donations go to the very rich and to the non-white poor. Jews pour lots of money into black and brown causes and also lots of money into museums that rich folks like. So, when it comes to supporting stuff like museums and 'affirmative action' and 'non-citizen rights', Jews are generous indeed, and it could be called a selective form of noblesse oblige.
But there is more to noblesse oblige, at least in the modern use of the term, than generosity in giving and compassion. The other side of noblesse oblige is admitting that your kind has the power and privilege, your side can sometimes be wrong, and your side has caused grievous harm in certai cases, and that your side sometimes rig the game to favor its own kind over others.
So, wasp noblesse olige wasn't just about funding museums, schools, universities, and the like. It was about Wasp elites admitting that they were the elites of the nation and also admitting that they might have done things in the past that were morally dubious and harmful and may still be doing things that may be causing harm to the masses or to certain groups.
So, there are two sides to noblesse oblige. There is the generous giving part but also the self-critical willingness to accept responsibility for historical and social wrongs, but this side of noblesse oblige--what might be called responsiblesse oblige--is woefully missing among the Jewish elites.
I mean look how the Jewish media spun Bernie Madoff: "he hurt Jews!" though, in fact, Madoff hurt a lot of goyim as well and indeed had been pumping cash into his Jewish friends by taking huge amounts of wealth from the gentile community.
And even though rich Jews have been generous with donations to various causes, consider how much Wall Street Jews took from the Main Street middle class after the 2008 crash caused largely by Wall Street banksters playing the finance industry like a casino. And no one went to jail, and the media, another institution owned by Jewish oligarchs, merely paid lip service in criticizing Wall Street but pretty endorsed Bush and Obama's massive bailouts of them. This means Jews took far more than they gave. (And look how guys at Google and Facebook hire the best lawyers to use every loophole so that they can avoid taxes. It's funny how this works. Many rich Jews fund GOP to help the rich to get richer, but then the rich Jews who run the media attack the GOP as the party of the greedy rich.)
Also, consider what the recent wars have cost America, and why did these wars happen in the first place? Because US got so deeply involved and meddled with Middle East affairs mainly for Zionist interests. How much did these wars cost us? Trillions and thousands of soldiers dead or maimed. Who's gonna pay for this? Fed will print more money, and this will reduce the value of money, and the middle class will end up paying the bulk of this bill. (And of course, white goy soldiers did most of the dying and getting maimed.)
As for Arab Christians in places like Iraq, it's been total hell, but how much coverage has there been of that in the 'American' media? If a single Jew is killed Israel by a Palestinian terrorist, it's big news, but as for the unspeakable fate of the Arab Christian community as the result of the US invasion, there is mostly silence.
There is a collusion of media, government, Wall Street, and academic institutions, and these institutions are heavily if not entirely controlled by the Jewish powers-that-be. There is no doubt about this truth of American power reality, and yet, most college students have been led to believe that the most dangerous power in America is a KKK ghost at Oberlin or a 'white hispanic' hunting black babies crawling around on their limbs in search of skittles. Consider how the media spun the Zimmerman/Trayvon thing, and think of how many whites got beaten as a result--mostly covered up by media--just so the Narrative could be pushed yet again.
Wasp elites could be prejudiced, arrogant, and snobby, but they always admitted they had the power, and they admitted they were far from perfect, and they faced criticism in argument or agreement.
But, we don't hear any sense of responsibility from the Jewish elite community. They only wanna take credit for their 'good works', but they don't wanna admit that their favored policy led to Wall Street shenanigans, Hollywood cultural filth, politically correct death of free speech in colleges, blacklisting of people like Rick Sanchez, Jason Richwine, and Helen Thomas, pro-war policies in the Middle East that usually cause more problems than they solve, and etc.
Or Jews mask their power and privilege by calling it 'white privilege'. So, if blacks and browns complain that the Hollywood hierarchy is mostly absent of blacks and bronws, Jews will admit there is a problem of 'white privilege' in Hollywood and something must be done about it, but it's all just bogus therapeak. Besides, it gives the impression that Hollywood is run by Mormons, Southern Baptists, and the GOP, when it's overwhelmingly run by Democratic Jewish males, homos, and Jewish women. I'll bet Jewish females are more powerful in Hollywood than white gentile males.
Granted, I can understand why Jewish elites are nervous. Jewish power is a head without a body. Wasp elite head had a wasp body to support and go along with it, and this is why GOP is still in business. Though it has lost much elite power, the larger body of wasps and waspized whites still cling to the diminished head of the party. So, wasp elites felt that even if the head gots clobbered a bit, the body would still remain standing and intact to support the head.
But Jewish elite feels that if the Jewish head goes, all of Jewish power goes. Though Jews depend on the body of white libs, blacks, and browns, it's not a dependable support system. It's not joined heart and soul with the Jewish head but stitched together in the form of an alliance, and such alliances can vanish overnight.
"One bit of evidence for this is the relative abundance of famous Jewish-American athletes pre-1950 (Lew Gehrig and Sandy Koufax being the most obvious examples) and the relative absence of them since."
Lou Gehrig was not Jewish.
@Anonymous of 8/5/13, 1:50 PM:
Right you are. Gehrig was not Jewish. My mistake.
@Anonymous of 8/5/13, 1:30 PM:
Good point about Jewish anxieties. In my experience, Jews (especially aged 55+) are a lot more nervous about violent anti-Semitism in the US than they need or ought to be. Even those commenters on this blog who link everything back to an evil Jewish conspiracy would not, I am confident, actually hurt a Jewish person for being Jewish.
Jewish anxiety is more properly directed towards Arab Muslims. Profoundly, a lot of the most passionately pro-Palestinian people I've met were (rather secular) American Jews.
It's amazing how many Jews show up to a discussion like this to argue that Jews don't work to promote Jewish interests.
> I can understand why Jewish elites are nervous. Jewish power is a head without a body.
I don't know if Jewish elites are actually nervous, but if they were, it would be because of creepy comments like this one.
> The other side of noblesse oblige is admitting that your kind has the power and privilege
"My kind?" Fuck you, brotha. Bernie Madoff, Mark Zuckerberg, and Ben Bernanke share no more in common with me, a run-of-the-mill software engineer and all-around Decent Upper Middle Class American than you have in common with George W. Bush. The fact that you identify jews and "jewish power" with the very, very, very upper elite jews is called an apex fallacy, and it makes my blood run cold, and I don't even get hysterical about anti-semitism. I have mental model of reality that is complex enough to understand that a criticism of a jewish person, or of Israeli settlements in Gaza, or of USG aid to Israel, is not intrinsically an attack on jews. But your apex fallacy does essentially amount to that kind of an attack. Lots of jews go on record against the settlements in Gaza, both inside and outside of Israel. We aren't an ethnically-conscious hive-mind that acts in concert to do what is best for "jews as jews".
> It was about Wasp elites admitting that they were the elites of the nation
Here's the thing. You don't want jewish elites to admit that they're the elites of the nation. You want jews to admit that. It's preposterous. How about this: Why don't you admit that Kenneth Lay and Enron is just the tip of the iceberg of a giant WASP repressive conspiracy to corpro-fuck the little guy, and take personal responsibility for it? I don't want to hurt you, Anonymous, I just want you to admit that you, the Bush clan, and Kenneth Lay types, are all in it together as an ethnically cohesive and fundamentally amoral group that rules America.
> But Jews now control media, finance, government, academia, information and intelligence, foreign policy, military
Again, Lakers vs Celtics. 10 black guys on the court. Vast black conspiracy. Blacks control the NBA. No? You don't agree?
Many of these Jews saw too much of themselves in the blacks they were helping. There are many different kinds of persecution, many different reasons for it. Too many Jews saw, or wanted to see, blacks being persecuted for the same reason they were. The lack of animosity between blacks and Jews at the time was a factor too - and explained why Jews tended to side with blacks rather than downtrodden-in-their-own-way Irish Catholics (or how about Polish or Ukrainian Catholics?)
1/ As to Jewish noblesse oblige, I look forward to the establishment in any US city of a hospital established by any group that is explicitly White Christian.
So, I just want to check and make sure I have your point right: there are exclusively-Jewish-funded hospitals, but no explicitly-White-Christian hospitals, and this gives Jews the moral high ground. Do I have that right? I want to get that right before I rip your balls off.
I find that delving first generally leads to more informed comments.
And less time. I find that adding what one knows adds to the conversation.
a study last year found that only 24% of the money doled out by Jewish foundations actually goes to Jewush causes.
As opposed to the 0% of the money doled out by White Christians that actually goes to White Christian causes.
Bernie Sanders seems to indentify with the poor whites in his state (the majority of whom aren't Jewish) more than, say, Bill Gates identifies with downscale American whites.
Anglo-Saxons in general seem to identify with poor blacks anywhere more than American Jews seem to identify with the Euro-Americans they live among.
white people have a tendency to project their conceptions and cultural rules for non-European whites .
Everybody has a tendency to project. That's why Jews are always accusing whites of this and that, and attributing darker motives to their behavior.
In the first place because they can. And in the second place because . . . well, because it would be good for the Jews!
Indeed. Somebody's got to put the brakes on Weimerica.
Incidentally, in my entire life, which includes immersion in all kinds of Jewish communities, I have never once heard the word "goy" used, let alone serious derogatory remarks about gentiles.
If you don't think a lot of Jews have their noses in the air, you aren't paying attention. Whether they use "goy" or not is irrelevant. Hell, we use "goy," so what do we care if they do?
Those commentors on this blog who like to think that Jews think in those terms are guilty of the paranoid style (projection of one's own negative thoughts and emotions onto enemies (cf. the KKK and their mummery of evil Catholics)).
Projection does not bode well for what's going on inside the heads of Jews. I.e., it means they have dark, dark thoughts.
Some of you gentiles are quite simply jealous of Jewish cohesion and self-control in the face of the atomism of modernity.
I'm definitely envious of Jewish privilege. You get a taboo on mentioning, much less criticizing, your group. You never have to apologize as Jews, individually or as groups. You get to come from the wealthiest, most privileged group, yet see yourselves portrayed as victims and light-bearers. You get to attack anyone you like with impunity. It's a pretty sweet gig if you can get it; why wouldn't we envy that?
That's how blacks and feminists see it too! It's a conspiracy, man.
There are far more similarities in behavior between Jews and blacks than between blacks and white rightists. Jews vote like blacks, spew the same rhetoric, share the same Narrative, push the same agenda, and show almost exactly the same hostile approach to whites and their interests. Exactly the same double-standards, too.
incredible Jewish success, which inevitably redounds to the benefit of the entire country.
That's just a lie. Pretty much everything the Jews do in media & entertainment, and the social sciences redounds to the detriment of Euro-America. Jewish finance ain't much help, either.
Somehow the aforementioned commentors forget Sailer's Occam's butterknife in this area. I suppose it's old fashioned ressentiment: How dare some other group be smarter than me? I could point to your fragile self-esteem, but psychology is another of the fields dominated by Jews keeping the goy psychologists down.
Occam's Razor suggests that we're right: "It's nepotism + IQ" is simpler than "It's only IQ," because the latter takes a lot of strange explanations and doesn't fit the expected numbers.
Let's settle this once and for all. But wait, that WASP author, whom you love so much, ended up marrying a Jew.
Sorta like how Barry Bonds married a white broad, but is still a racist?
But Steve, progressivism, especially the kind espoused by the mainstream liberal jewish UMC, is modern noblesse oblige.
Rrrreaaally. Where's the "oblige" part for Jews? They don't mean "oblige" as in "obliged to never take criticism, always blame everyone and everything else, and keep the thought police on sweeps 24/7."
It's amazing how many Jews show up to a discussion like this to argue that Jews don't work to promote Jewish interests.
They don't seem to notice that they defend themselves far more vociferously than Euro-Americans do, or that the fact has obvious implications. Kind of hard to say your group is just the same as all the other groups while you're behaving in a very different manner right in front of them.
Even those commenters on this blog who link everything back to an evil Jewish conspiracy would not, I am confident, actually hurt a Jewish person for being Jewish.
I don't even dislike Jewish people for being Jewish. I'm actually grateful for Jews, on a certain level; they're the model for aggressive, modern ethnic tribalism. It's good to have the world's most racist group as the model of wealth and influence, and so admired; it says a lot about racism.
Lots of jews go on record against the settlements in Gaza, both inside and outside of Israel. We aren't an ethnically-conscious hive-mind that acts in concert to do what is best for "jews as jews".
But all they do is go on record about it. They don't mount a sustained attack, like they do on anything remotely resembling Euro-Americans starting to think or act like Israeli Jews. They don't make any movies like Deliverance, or Mississippi Burning, or Lethal Weapon II. Arabs have been a punchline in American cinema since at least the 70s, while blacks are enshrined.
Jews have put more effort into deflecting criticism in this thread than they have in working for justice and freedom for the Palestinians, never mind how much effort they put into snivel rights.
American Jews have a far better "in" to Israel than anyone else. Why aren't they all over there freedom-riding, snivel-righting, making movies left and right, etc?
Where's the Emil Tilhali Narrative, year-in, year-out?
Your tribe's up to no good. If my pointing that out that gets your dander up, tough.
In my experience, Jews (especially aged 55+) are a lot more nervous about violent anti-Semitism in the US than they need or ought to be. Even those commenters on this blog who link everything back to an evil Jewish conspiracy would not, I am confident, actually hurt a Jewish person for being Jewish.
I noticed this too, not only with Jews but with older white WASPy liberals. Extreme conservative WASPs believe that young people, in some cases even their own children, are all closet commies. For liberals, the young (white male) punks are closet Nazis. What a way to hate your own children!
It's not just old people are always fighting yesterday's wars. Some of them are so fixated specifically on Nazis and WW2, and paranoid of populist brownshirt movements in the pool halls and video arcades. Old Jews and liberals are like those Japanese soldiers stuck on islands, still fighting WW2 for decades.
In the late 40s, the Hollywood was forced to let go of its theater chains cuz it was deemed a form of 'trust'.
Was this part of a wasp plan to use government power to weaken Jewish business power? I dunno.
Anti-trust-ism isn't good for Jewish tycoons, as government will work hard to prevent any industry from owning and running too much.
Though free market libertarians have attacked trust-busting as government intrusion into the free markets, once trusts form, monopolies can do stuff to circumvent free competition, a fact that most libertarians overlook.
But it seems like the big news since the 1980s have mostly been about mergers, with companies getting bigger and bigger by merging synergistically with other companies and forming huge empires.
There was some stuff about going after Microsoft in the 90s, but since then, companies like Google has been let free to acquire just about everything.
Maybe Teddy Roosevelt was right to bust trusts.
"You don't want jewish elites to admit that they're the elites of the nation. You want jews to admit that. It's preposterous."
Nah, I don't want no Jewish plumber--and such folks do exist--to do such a thing.
And I have a Jewish friend who is an accountant who makes decent wages but nothing special, but I don't wanna hear that from her either. I mean she aint got no power.
"They don't seem to notice that they defend themselves far more vociferously than Euro-Americans do, or that the fact has obvious implications."
IOW, if they don't defend themselves, that proves your accusations are correct, and if they do defend themselves, that also proves your accusations are correct. Tough to argue against such sophistry.
Take a look at the Medical mile, funded in large part by the men who started Amway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Rapids_Medical_Mile
In Boston, Brahmans built the hospitals, Jews built the wings.
@ Dave Pinsen, who wrote: "One illustration of that is the narrow usage of the term WASP. Although the term denotes an ethno-religious group, in practice it's usually only applied to upper class WASPs. There are colonial descendants in trailer parks who won't be gettiing into the DAR or the Social Registry anytime soon."
The acronym WASP, for white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, was popularized by E. Digby Baltzell, a representative of the type, who was a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. The old American elite descended primarily from colonial settlers was a special object of his study. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Digby_Baltzell
I can't speak for the ladies of the DAR. However, as a past president of the constituent societies in my state both of the National Society of Sons of the American Revolution (SAR) and of the General Society of Sons of the Revolution (SR), which are the corresponding lineage societies for men, I can assure you that any descendant of a Revolutionary soldier, sailor, militiaman, or other qualifying ancestor, who fills out the provided application blank and provides acceptable proofs of his descent, will be admitted to either of those societies. Genealogy and not social standing is the central qualification. Their membership is substantially middle- to upper-middle-class. Very few could be described as rentiers or tycoons; those that are not retired typically hold white-collar or professional employment.
The Social Register (not "Social Registry") is a directory that has no set criteria for inclusion. The implication that it is some sort of equivalent to Debrett or Gotha is overblown. It is published by an association that one is invited to join. One pays an annual subscription and receives a winter and summer issue. Many of the persons listed are alumni of certain preparatory schools or universities, or members of private clubs or lineage societies, but not all are. They are generally of some social prominence and wealth, but many of their names would not be widely known to the general public. While it is fair to say that the Social Register lists a large number of people who could be called WASPs, it does not exclude others. Jewish names can easily be found amongst those listed.
"Anonymous anony-mouse said...
1/ As to Jewish noblesse oblige, I look forward to the establishment in any US city of a hospital established by any group that is explicitly White Christian."
You're changing up the terms. Most jewish hospital founders did so as ethnic Jews, not as religious ones. Plenty of europeans did likewise - this place, for example:
Swedish Medical Center
The notion, pushed by some here, that Jews are more selfless givers, giving to help the poor and needy, rather than to merely prestigious arts-related causes, is just a load of crap. What about this (once) famous act of philanthropy by a Scotsman - one of the single greatest gifts ever made to the common people by a man of great wealth:
Carnegie Libraries
It's unavoidable that this blog largely limits its focus to America, but re Jews and noblesse oblige, allow me to point out that that One Nation conservatism (an organic, hierarchical understanding of society in which the rich have a paternalistic obligation toward the poor), which was the ruling conservative ideology in Britain until Thatcher, was invented by the Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS.
Noblesse oblige is a fundamentally aristocratic feeling. I suspect that it's been on the wane in the U.S. ever since the WASP aristocracy declined--and with it the idea of aristocracy as such.
The more Jews or anyone else feels aristocratic in the good sense of the term, the more likely they will feel noblesse oblige.
Post a Comment