In the 21st century West, the greatest crime may have become "racism," and the method to detect it in the workplace is through the use of statistics to discover the percentage of under-represented Blacks, Hispanics, or women; followed by the demand for...
Ver más
In the 21st century West, the greatest crime may have become "racism," and the method to detect it in the workplace is through the use of statistics to discover the percentage of under-represented Blacks, Hispanics, or women; followed by the demand for "remedies" to fix the "problem," - which is the over-representation of white males. Still, there are clearly certain anomalies. And these anomalies are related to The Jewish Century. In the US, "diversity is our strength" has become a mantra of liberals, and to achieve this, affirmative action (AA) on behalf of the under-represented groups is justified, even required. In the UK, AA is called "positive discrimination," and elsewhere the policy may have other names, but in each case the aims are the same - increase the percentages of the under-represented groups until their percentage of the workplace approximates their percentages of the general population. As Slezkine phrases it: "Affirmative action always implies negative (relative to strict meritocracy) action toward those not targeted for preferential treatment."(p. 336-37)
The US Supreme Court of 9 members is 67% Roman Catholic, and 33% Jewish. The majority of Americans are Protestant, yet they have not a single Justice on the highest court in the land. And there is hardly a peep in the media about this grossly under-represented group. Roman Catholics on the high court are about double their percentage of the general population. Jews on the Court are about 15 times over-represented (they are about 2.5% of the American population.) Not a word from the media about this vast over-representation by a tiny minority OR the totally un-represented majority of Americans!
During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the media were pleased and Clinton proud when he announced that his Cabinet would look like America. It would be as diverse as America, and seemingly, it was. While a superficial glance confirmed the hype, for white men were only slightly over-represented in the Cabinet, closer inspection revealed that white male gentiles were actually under-represented, while Jews composed 24% of the Cabinet. Are Jews 24% of the general American population? The academedia complex almost never discusses the enormous over-representation of Jews in the American elites, economic, political, cultural; and especially in academia and the media. Instead, the media, and more recently government (through education departments) has stressed the evils of "white male privilege"; how white men are oppressively over-represented. But often white male gentiles are under-representation, while Jews are vastly over-represented. The media will have stories weekly about the latest findings in some job category, some bank loans, some answers to job applicants, all stories targeting "white male privilege." Some colleges now award credits to students who attend special seminars and conferences on the alleged problems of white male privilege and over-representation. Yet, while Jews are tremendously over-represented, far more so percentage-wise than white men, no one dares speak of Jewish privilege. Indeed, the very silence of the media on this topic is yet another symptom of Jewish privilege. Further, I would suggest that the creation of the bogeyman of "white male privilege" was a tactic by those who are truly privileged to divert attention from themselves and their real privileges.
How did this situation arise?
Slezkine provides a hint when he writes: "...Jewish prominence in the American political elite began perceptibly in the 1970s, during the ascendance of nonprofit organizations, political foundations, regulatory agencies, new information technologies and public-interest law firms."(370) I would suggest Jewish influence preceded the 1970s, but Slezkine's statistics are persuasive - "The Jews are the wealthiest of all religious groups in the United States(367)...and the highest representation among the richest individual Americans (about 40% of the wealthiest forty...in 1982)(p. 368)...According to studies conducted in the 1970s and 80s, Jews made up between one fourth and one third of the media elite...(p. 369) Jews are strongly over-represented in both houses of Congress (three to four times their percentage of the general population...Jews provide between one-fourth and one-half of all Democratic Party campaign funds, and...in 27 out of 36 senatorial races of 1986 `at least one of the candidates (and often both) had a Jewish campaign manager or finance chairman.'"(369)
How did they use this power? "Young Jewish students were vastly over-represented in the student Left and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.(348)...two-thirds of the white Freedom Riders who went South in 1961...; one third to one half of the `Mississippi Summer' volunteers of 1964 (348) (and two of the three murdered martyred..."(349) Jewish interest in race and civil rights and had been on-going for decades, so no one would have been surprised when the leadership of a governmental regulatory agency on civil rights might be headed by a Jew.
In 1964, after much debate in Congress, most Republicans and a majority of Democrats joined to curtail the filibuster conducted by a large segment of the Democratic Party, which opposed all civil rights legislation. The proposed new law was in the long tradition of anti-discriminatory rhetoric and principles developed over decades of agitation. The ideal was simply abbreviated, to treat people without regard to race, color, or creed. This ideal had been espoused for so long that some of the words had changed their meaning over time. In 1900, "race" usually meant what we might call ethnos today, the German race, the Hungarian race, the French race; while "color" then was more like what we call race today. Creed then and now would refer to beliefs, usually religious beliefs. The objective of anti-bias legislation was to end discrimination against individuals based on race, color, or creed. Nevertheless, when such legislation was introduced into the State Legislature of New York in the 1940s, opponents claimed that the result of passage would be "Hitlerian" quotas. (See Anthony Chen's, "The Hitlerian Rule of Quotas," J. of American History, March 2006, and our correspondence about it, JAH, December 2006) Opponents of the law were defeated when Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey enthusiastically endorsed the measure; New York thus became the first state to enact such an anti-discrimination law.
In the early 1960s with sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and growing protests, there was also a rising demand for national civil rights legislation. In his speech on the subject of 28 February 1963, Pres. John Kennedy declared that our Constitution was color blind. In accord with this spirit, during the 1963 March on Washington, Martin Luther King dreamt of the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
After the assassination of Kennedy in Dallas, the Congress took up the civil rights issue in earnest in 1964. In the debate, Democratic opponents alleged that the proposed national bill would result in quotas and with Negroes being hired instead of better qualified whites. To assure Americans that such would not be the case, Republicans and Democrats worked to frame the legislation to clarify that there would be neither quotas nor anti-white discrimination. For example, several amendments were included so that firms could continue to use testing to ascertain the best qualified candidates for a position, even if certain groups did poorly on the examinations. Merit, not quotas, was to be the essential criterion in hiring and promotion. Part of the new law explicitly forbade the use of quotas in hiring. Liberal Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minn. announced he would eat his hat if, because of this proposed law, a Negro would be hired over a better qualified white. Humphrey also stated: "...there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give power to the Commission [the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC] or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial `quota' or to achieve a racial balance...In fact, the very opposite is true....Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion."(Hugh Graham Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 150) With passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, merit and qualifications, would be the major reason for being hired or promoted. There was to be no more discrimination in employment based on race, color, creed, and an amendment added sex to the list of qualities against which discrimination was now forbidden.
To investigate and enforce the new law, the EEOC was created, and manned by people who supported civil rights. However, quickly it became clear that many Blacks failed the employment examinations, and were not competing well with whites even when there was no discrimination. Leftist and Black racial groups were dissatisfied with the outcome of the legislation. They were not receiving the jobs that they assumed would follow passage of the law. The non-violent protests of the early 1960s were followed by the riots of the later 60s.
I emphasize, in the debate in Congress about the proposed law, no senator who favored the civil rights bill spoke up for quotas, "positive integration," racial balance or preferences for minorities above whites. Quite the contrary.
So, how then did a law which promised to end discrimination by outlawing discrimination against any individual, a law that promised preferences for no group, which agreed to retain testing to reject unqualified applicants - how was this law subverted into its opposite? Here the role of Alfred Blumrosen is crucial. Blumrosen was among the zealots working for the EEOC who did not want the agency to function in accord with its legal mandate.
Alfred Blumrosen was instrumental in this and other shifts. He was a professor at Rutgers University who became the EEOC's liaison chief for federal, state and local agencies, and he admitted that his "creative" reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "contrary to the plain meaning." (Graham, 195, emphasis mine) But why worry? By 1965 when the Bank of America instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, "the standard refrain of the EEO bureaucracies, [was that] affirmative action [AA] had nothing to do with racial quotas. That was illegal." Unfortunately, that deceptive refrain is still heard today.
The goal of Sonia Pressman, another ideologue in the EEOC, was "to document large disparities in employment patterns, [so] that discriminatory intent might legally be inferred." The EEOC sought to impose quotas while not calling them such because quotas were clearly illegal. The agency sought to break the law.
Blumrosen and Pressman pushed the EEOC to defy the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by imposing quotas, demanding racial balance in the workplace and giving preferences to Blacks over whites. Essential to the Blumrosen campaign was the collection of statistics to show "disparate impact," how minorities were underutilized, employed in a smaller proportion in various occupations to their numbers in the general population.
Blumrosen was set upon "selectively enforcing" the civil rights act by using disparate impact theory and proportional representation only when it affected others. (More accurately, Blumrosen was "selectively malenforcing" the civil rights law, imposing quotas for underrepresented Blacks, using quotas to curb whites; for women, against men; but never for gentiles and against Jews.)
Of course, had the EEOC sought to restrict Jews as it has restricted white men, the storm of protest would have cast "disparate impact" theory into the dustbin of history. Thus, the role of Blumrosen and his allies in the media, academia etc., was to create a false target - the "overrepresented," "privileged" and "oppressive" white male. According to the EEOC, the statistics proved just that. However, the statistics proved otherwise. The partial statistics used by Blumrosen were simply the effort to deflect criticism to another group instead of the one most overrepresented, privileged and oppressive - his own.
By not asking the religious question on the EEOC questionnaires, the EEOC created a scapegoat of the white male. Once smeared as "privileged" and "oppressive," the non-privileged, working-class and poor whites began to pay the price for the "moral" system of affirmative action by being legally discriminated against and denied equal opportunity.
My point is this, not merely that personnel is policy (sometimes), but that Jewish bureaucrats in the EEOC defied the will of the American people and broke the law they were pledged to enforce, by turning a law against discrimination into a law requiring proportional representation of groups (one that inevitably resulted in discrimination against better qualified white male candidates.) Furthermore, they deliberately refused to use the same measure of enforcement concerning religious discriminatory aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Had they done so, they would have had to demand no law schools admit Jews until the number of Jewish lawyers was reduced to 3%, and medical schools must be 97% gentile until gentiles reached their fair share of that lucrative profession, and the same proportion in education, films, journalism, etc.
I do not mean that a few Jews in an agency alone could so radically change the US. Leftwing Justices on the Supreme Court, collaborators in other governmental agencies, researchers in sociological departments, and rioters, all converged to aid Blumrosen in his remaking of America. Important too, though surprising to many, was liberal Republican President Richard Nixon, who revived Lyndon B. Johnson's Philadelphia Plan, a quota plan for hiring in the construction trades in that city (under the euphemism of goals and timetables, meaning the company would be granted time to reach the quota). Nixon revived and expanded the goals and timetables approach and made it "affirmative action," extending it to all jobs, making it nation-wide, and expanding the quotas to Hispanics, women, and others. But it was Blumrosen, Pressman, and some other Jewish bureaucrats in other agencies that got the ball rolling, a ball that would change America. Some Jews like Bakke, in the lawsuit that bears his name, sued in court because of the anti-white discrimination, but most Jews were in the camp of the Left, and they supported rights by groups, rather than individual rights. At late as 2003 when a most important AA case from Michigan went before the US Supreme Court, the gentile vote was 4-3 against affirmative action. But Justices Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, the two Jews then on the court, voted solidly in favor of AA - so the final vote was 5-4 in favor of AA and the quota system continues to this day because of Jewish support.
How does this relate to Slezkine's book? Over-representation of Jews in the upper reaches of the various national elites was the major question facing Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Slezkine, like Thomas Sowell, compares Jews in Europe to other minority trader-business-circus types. Slezkine calls them all Mercurians and contrasts them with the more agricultural, warrior, physical types, the Apollonians. Interestingly, he rejects the Nietzschian model, asserting that the Dionysians were simply drunken Apollonians. Like Sowell, he sees the analogy between the Jews in Europe, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, the Indians in East Africa, and the Parsis in India. Slezkine also adds the gypsies. Many have questioned the latter, for while Jews were often outsiders at the top of the economic ladder, gypsies were at the bottom.
By 1900 some social scientists like Max Weber had concluded that there was a connection between the Protestant ethic and capitalism. Yet, others saw a closer connection between capitalism and Judaism. "Most radical Jewish memoirists remembered ...acquisitiveness stripped of the Jewish tradition was distilled capitalism, i.e., `practical, real Judaism.'"(153)
Of course, there were numerous successful Protestant businessmen. But as Slezkine notes: "A Scottish Protestant was not just a pork-eating Jew, as Heine would have it; he was a solitary Jew, a Jew without the people of Israel, the only creature to have been chosen."(43) This observation by Slezkine implies that it may not have been mere aptitude of the individuals that propelled Jews to such success.
Slezkine also argues that successful Jews became lonely individuals, too. They had become modern, less religious, deprived of their tribe, but not allowed to join in the rising nationalisms swirling round them no matter how much Goethe or Pushkin they could recite.(74-75) However, even if Jews could not fully partake in the nationalisms of the French, Czechs, Poles, flooding the lands in which they resided, this did not mean that they were alone. Slezkine asserts "Communism was the principle religion of the young Jewish intellectuals..."(209) Perhaps, children of successful businessmen, they joined together to remake society. They may have been somewhat deprived of the comforts of their religious traditions, which they rejected, but they were meeting, greeting, and joining others of their tribe (and some gentiles too) in a modern variation of their ancient faith.
According to Slezkine, "...Jews created the left-wing intellectual movement in Germany."(86) He then presents a list of Jewish socialists and communists in early 20th century Europe demonstrating their influence on the movement.(85) Slezkine acknowledges that when Bela Kun's Communist regime took power in Hungary after WWI, 20 of the 26 ruling commissars were Jews. He also mentions that the Bavarian Soviet Republic of 1919 was led by Jews.(85) He does not mention how a soldier, recently released from hospital after being gassed at the front, was elected from his unit as a representative to the Soviet. That soldier, Adolf Hitler, also marched in a procession honoring one of the Bavarian Soviet's Jewish leaders.(See my "Affirmative Action and the Nazis.") Though the Soviet was Jewish led, clearly its message appealed to gentiles too.
What was true in central Europe was true in Russia. Slezkine discusses Jewish over-representation among the Bolshevik leadership, with Trotsky head of the Red Army, and numerous Jews in the leadership. Even Lenin had a Jewish grandfather (though it was not widely known, and when, after his death, a relative wanted to publicize this fact, Stalin vehemently suppressed it.) There were Communist leaders who were not Jews, but often their wives were, or they had in-laws who were.
Jews also performed an important role in the secret police of the Bolshevik government. "...in the Cheka (sec. police), Bolsheviks of Jewish origin combined ideological commitment with literacy in way that set them apart and propelled them upward. In 1918, 65.5% of all Jewish Cheka employees were `responsible officials.' Jews made up 19.1% of all central apparatus investigators and 50%...of the investigators employed in the department for combating counterrevolution. In 1923, at the...creation of the OGPU (the Cheka's successor), Jews made up 15.5% of `leading' officials and 50% of the top brass..."(177)
The Bolsheviks had their AA programs to dismiss unreliable former governmental officials, and the older bureaucrats of Russian or German heritage now had to pass tests of loyalty. And who would be the judge? And if they were fired, whom would the Communists hire to replace them? Jews effectively manned the new bureaucracy in the Soviet state. After all, Jews were the "true believers" in Communism,(232) the most dedicated of apostles of the new system.(156)
"Most members of the new Soviet elite were not Jews, and most Jews were not members of the new Soviet elite. But there is no doubt that the Jews had a much higher proportion...than any other ethnic group in the USSR."(236) "From the inception of the Soviet regime, the unique combination of exceptionally high literacy rates and a remarkable degree of political loyalty... had made Jews the backbone of the new Soviet bureaucracy."(224) And what were some of the reasons for the large over-representation of Jews in the Soviet elite? One Soviet authority, Yuri Larin (who was Jewish) presented 3 reasons for their success, one of which I cite here, "the strong sense of solidarity among them."(252) Slezkine elaborates on the results over time: "Indeed, the Soviet secret police...known after 1934 as the NKVD - was among the most Jewish of Soviet institutions."(254) Slezkine adds that Jews were dominant in the Soviet Foreign Service and in spying for the USSR in Western Europe and in the USA. Jews also headed the Gulag institutions and camps until November 1938.(255)
Of course, in the 1920s the Soviet Union was not the only nation in which Jews were doing well. Indeed, what Jews were more admired for their enormous success and influence than the Jews of Germany. Jewish Communists in Moscow may have been in the Soviet elite, but they were still impoverished by German standards. Rounding up kulaks, running concentration camps, ruffians! How could that compare to Dr. this, and Prof. that in Germany? As Germany reorganized following defeat in WWI, the new Weimar Constitution for the republic was mainly the handiwork of a Jew, Hugo Preuss. Though less than 1% of the population Jewish success was evident in books, newspapers, Einstein and other scientists, the new film industry, department stores, banks, furs, and the lucrative professions.(See my "Affirmative Action and the Nazis for many more examples of statistical over-representation.") Slezkine reports, "In 1908-11, in Germany..., Jews made up 0.95% of the population... and 31% of the richest families (with a "ratio" of economic over-representation" of 33, the highest anywhere, according to W. E. Rubenstein.(50) Someone remarked that if you went to a play, it was probably written by a Jew, directed by another, reviewed by a 3rd, in a newspaper edited by a 4th and owned by a 5th. As these general statistics are rather well known, I shall quote sparingly: "In Prussia, 16% of physicians, 15% of dentists, and one fourth of all lawyers in 1925 were Jews; and in interwar Poland, Jews were about 56% of all doctors in private practice, 43.3% of all private teachers and educators, 33.5% of all lawyers and notaries, and 22% of all journalists, publishers, and librarians."(50) Slezkine adds that by 1900 "In large parts of Eastern Europe, virtually the whole `middle class' was Jewish."(50) According to Slezkine, the Rothschilds were the wealthiest family of the 19th century "by a wide margin."(48)
In Central Europe there was a growing desire to restrict Jewish over-representation in the economy and culture of the various new nations after WWI. This was "the Jewish Question." And it is related to AA. In the 1920s Soviet Jews in the bureaucracy had used AA to eliminate from government jobs the Orthodox Christians, the old nobility, the former German-Russian bureaucrats, the "bourgeoisie," and a little later physically eliminate the kulaks and other "counter revolutionary elements through starvation, the Gulag, drowning in the White Sea Canal project, or through a bullet in the head. Jews, powerful in the secret police and true believers in the system were, as Slezkine writes, "Stalin's willing executioners."(103)
The counter-attack occurred with Hitler's rapid rise in depression-ridden Germany. Boycotts of Jewish stores, dismissal of Jews from government posts (teachers, judges, etc.), limits on their admission to university to their percentage of the population, followed by ever-increasing segregation, discrimination, isolation, until the final solution. Other European nations also partook in these policies.
Slezkine reveals that the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 would result in Jews losing posts in the Soviet Foreign Service, but no major change occurred immediately. With the attack on the Soviet Union in summer 1941 by Nazi-led Europe, the role of Jews did change. The Nazis equated Communism and Jews, and they sought to exterminate one by killing off the other. Jews were treated so differently by the invader, that the Jews were determined to fight them to the death. After the defeat of Germany, Stalin established puppet states in Eastern Europe, and whom could he rely on to be sufficiently determined to root out all traces of Nazism but the Jews. And so in Eastern Europe, the remnant of Jews often took posts in the new Communists governments, including manning the secret police and running concentration camps with different inmates. But when Israel defeated to Arabs to create a new state, a major change occurred. Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir visited Moscow in the late 1940s and was hailed by Soviet Jews with intense enthusiasm. Stalin began to fear the loyalties of the Soviet Jews. There were trials in Eastern Europe accusing the Jews (and some others) of working for foreign (CIA) or other groups. In the USSR itself, some leading Jews simply disappeared, and various Jewish committees cease to exist. Anti-Semitism was vocalized, and fear spread. What was happening? Who would disappear next? Why was the Party betraying the Jews? Slezkine includes an illuminating anecdote from Ester Markish: "After the arrest of [Perets] Markish, our maid, who had lived in our house for more than fifteen years and had, in effect, becoming a member of our family, said to me: `You are crying now, but you did not mind when my father was being dekulakized, martyred for no reason at all, and my whole family thrown out in the street?'"(310-11) Some thought Stalin was even contemplating a round-up of all the Jews, to be sent to Siberia or worse. Then Stalin died.
Though Jews continued to be over-represented in the Soviet elite, the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party (CP) was determined to reduce their influence. AA was used to get more ethnics into university - Russians, Kazaks, Uzbeks, etc. Later attempts to increase blue-collar admissions were meant to reduce the influence of Jews and stimulate loyalty to the Party. Jews became ever more alienated, an intellectual class distrusting the political leaders, and the distrust was mutual. Jews were no longer the true believers. But Slezkine points out, as the regime aged, no one seemed to believe any more. With pressure from the US, whose government was pressured by Jewish groups, Jews were allowed to exit the USSR. Then the Soviet Union collapsed. By 1994 only 230,000 Jews remained in the Russian Federation.(361)
Slezkine's book is about immigration - of Jews from the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire to 3 possible ideal areas. Some left for America. Some, in the turmoil of WWI, left the shtetl for Moscow or Petersburg, and more joined them with the Bolshevik victory. A few went to the deserts of the Middle East. By the 1920s, it seemed those who left for Moscow had made the correct choice, - they had power, discrimination against them was illegal, and they were the elite (with a Russian nanny and a dacha) even if they lacked many of the new commercial items available in America. But Slezkine ignores another kind of utopia of the era - one to which large numbers of Jews could not easily immigrate - Germany. The German Jews seemed to have it all. They were the top, the pinnacle of Jewish culture, modernity and influence in a leading nation (unlike backward Russia). Yet, the 1% of immense influence in Germany was struck in 1933, and demolished by 1945.
Slezkine admits the great hopes by Jews in the Soviet experiment were crushed too. Not as murderously as those in Germany, but crushed never the less. In America, Jewish influence permeates in films, radio, TV, journalism, and so many areas of commerce and culture, politics and theory, one cannot overestimate it. Surely, Jewish influence was even determinative in the EEOC! Was the invention of "white male privilege" an application of a lesson learned from the disastrous German experience?
And what about Israel, the third locale for migration from the Pale?
Because of the length of my review, I stop here. You might read the rest elsewhere on the web.
In the 21st century West, the greatest crime may have become "racism," and the method to detect it in the workplace is through the use of statistics to discover the percentage of under-represented Blacks, Hispanics, or women; followed by the demand for "remedies" to fix the "problem," - which is the over-representation of white males. Still, there are clearly certain anomalies. And these anomalies are related to The Jewish Century. In the US, "diversity is our strength" has become a mantra of liberals, and to achieve this, affirmative action (AA) on behalf of the under-represented groups is justified, even required. In the UK, AA is called "positive discrimination," and elsewhere the policy may have other names, but in each case the aims are the same - increase the percentages of the under-represented groups until their percentage of the workplace approximates their percentages of the general population. As Slezkine phrases it: "Affirmative action always implies negative (relative to strict meritocracy) action toward those not targeted for preferential treatment."(p. 336-37)
The US Supreme Court of 9 members is 67% Roman Catholic, and 33% Jewish. The majority of Americans are Protestant, yet they have not a single Justice on the highest court in the land. And there is hardly a peep in the media about this grossly under-represented group. Roman Catholics on the high court are about double their percentage of the general population. Jews on the Court are about 15 times over-represented (they are about 2.5% of the American population.) Not a word from the media about this vast over-representation by a tiny minority OR the totally un-represented majority of Americans!
During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the media were pleased and Clinton proud when he announced that his Cabinet would look like America. It would be as diverse as America, and seemingly, it was. While a superficial glance confirmed the hype, for white men were only slightly over-represented in the Cabinet, closer inspection revealed that white male gentiles were actually under-represented, while Jews composed 24% of the Cabinet. Are Jews 24% of the general American population? The academedia complex almost never discusses the enormous over-representation of Jews in the American elites, economic, political, cultural; and especially in academia and the media. Instead, the media, and more recently government (through education departments) has stressed the evils of "white male privilege"; how white men are oppressively over-represented. But often white male gentiles are under-representation, while Jews are vastly over-represented. The media will have stories weekly about the latest findings in some job category, some bank loans, some answers to job applicants, all stories targeting "white male privilege." Some colleges now award credits to students who attend special seminars and conferences on the alleged problems of white male privilege and over-representation. Yet, while Jews are tremendously over-represented, far more so percentage-wise than white men, no one dares speak of Jewish privilege. Indeed, the very silence of the media on this topic is yet another symptom of Jewish privilege. Further, I would suggest that the creation of the bogeyman of "white male privilege" was a tactic by those who are truly privileged to divert attention from themselves and their real privileges.
How did this situation arise?
Slezkine provides a hint when he writes: "...Jewish prominence in the American political elite began perceptibly in the 1970s, during the ascendance of nonprofit organizations, political foundations, regulatory agencies, new information technologies and public-interest law firms."(370) I would suggest Jewish influence preceded the 1970s, but Slezkine's statistics are persuasive - "The Jews are the wealthiest of all religious groups in the United States(367)...and the highest representation among the richest individual Americans (about 40% of the wealthiest forty...in 1982)(p. 368)...According to studies conducted in the 1970s and 80s, Jews made up between one fourth and one third of the media elite...(p. 369) Jews are strongly over-represented in both houses of Congress (three to four times their percentage of the general population...Jews provide between one-fourth and one-half of all Democratic Party campaign funds, and...in 27 out of 36 senatorial races of 1986 `at least one of the candidates (and often both) had a Jewish campaign manager or finance chairman.'"(369)
How did they use this power? "Young Jewish students were vastly over-represented in the student Left and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.(348)...two-thirds of the white Freedom Riders who went South in 1961...; one third to one half of the `Mississippi Summer' volunteers of 1964 (348) (and two of the three murdered martyred..."(349) Jewish interest in race and civil rights and had been on-going for decades, so no one would have been surprised when the leadership of a governmental regulatory agency on civil rights might be headed by a Jew.
In 1964, after much debate in Congress, most Republicans and a majority of Democrats joined to curtail the filibuster conducted by a large segment of the Democratic Party, which opposed all civil rights legislation. The proposed new law was in the long tradition of anti-discriminatory rhetoric and principles developed over decades of agitation. The ideal was simply abbreviated, to treat people without regard to race, color, or creed. This ideal had been espoused for so long that some of the words had changed their meaning over time. In 1900, "race" usually meant what we might call ethnos today, the German race, the Hungarian race, the French race; while "color" then was more like what we call race today. Creed then and now would refer to beliefs, usually religious beliefs. The objective of anti-bias legislation was to end discrimination against individuals based on race, color, or creed. Nevertheless, when such legislation was introduced into the State Legislature of New York in the 1940s, opponents claimed that the result of passage would be "Hitlerian" quotas. (See Anthony Chen's, "The Hitlerian Rule of Quotas," J. of American History, March 2006, and our correspondence about it, JAH, December 2006) Opponents of the law were defeated when Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey enthusiastically endorsed the measure; New York thus became the first state to enact such an anti-discrimination law.
In the early 1960s with sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and growing protests, there was also a rising demand for national civil rights legislation. In his speech on the subject of 28 February 1963, Pres. John Kennedy declared that our Constitution was color blind. In accord with this spirit, during the 1963 March on Washington, Martin Luther King dreamt of the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
After the assassination of Kennedy in Dallas, the Congress took up the civil rights issue in earnest in 1964. In the debate, Democratic opponents alleged that the proposed national bill would result in quotas and with Negroes being hired instead of better qualified whites. To assure Americans that such would not be the case, Republicans and Democrats worked to frame the legislation to clarify that there would be neither quotas nor anti-white discrimination. For example, several amendments were included so that firms could continue to use testing to ascertain the best qualified candidates for a position, even if certain groups did poorly on the examinations. Merit, not quotas, was to be the essential criterion in hiring and promotion. Part of the new law explicitly forbade the use of quotas in hiring. Liberal Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minn. announced he would eat his hat if, because of this proposed law, a Negro would be hired over a better qualified white. Humphrey also stated: "...there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give power to the Commission [the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC] or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial `quota' or to achieve a racial balance...In fact, the very opposite is true....Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion."(Hugh Graham Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 150) With passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, merit and qualifications, would be the major reason for being hired or promoted. There was to be no more discrimination in employment based on race, color, creed, and an amendment added sex to the list of qualities against which discrimination was now forbidden.
To investigate and enforce the new law, the EEOC was created, and manned by people who supported civil rights. However, quickly it became clear that many Blacks failed the employment examinations, and were not competing well with whites even when there was no discrimination. Leftist and Black racial groups were dissatisfied with the outcome of the legislation. They were not receiving the jobs that they assumed would follow passage of the law. The non-violent protests of the early 1960s were followed by the riots of the later 60s.
I emphasize, in the debate in Congress about the proposed law, no senator who favored the civil rights bill spoke up for quotas, "positive integration," racial balance or preferences for minorities above whites. Quite the contrary.
So, how then did a law which promised to end discrimination by outlawing discrimination against any individual, a law that promised preferences for no group, which agreed to retain testing to reject unqualified applicants - how was this law subverted into its opposite? Here the role of Alfred Blumrosen is crucial. Blumrosen was among the zealots working for the EEOC who did not want the agency to function in accord with its legal mandate.
Alfred Blumrosen was instrumental in this and other shifts. He was a professor at Rutgers University who became the EEOC's liaison chief for federal, state and local agencies, and he admitted that his "creative" reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "contrary to the plain meaning." (Graham, 195, emphasis mine) But why worry? By 1965 when the Bank of America instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, "the standard refrain of the EEO bureaucracies, [was that] affirmative action [AA] had nothing to do with racial quotas. That was illegal." Unfortunately, that deceptive refrain is still heard today.
The goal of Sonia Pressman, another ideologue in the EEOC, was "to document large disparities in employment patterns, [so] that discriminatory intent might legally be inferred." The EEOC sought to impose quotas while not calling them such because quotas were clearly illegal. The agency sought to break the law.
Blumrosen and Pressman pushed the EEOC to defy the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by imposing quotas, demanding racial balance in the workplace and giving preferences to Blacks over whites. Essential to the Blumrosen campaign was the collection of statistics to show "disparate impact," how minorities were underutilized, employed in a smaller proportion in various occupations to their numbers in the general population.
Blumrosen was set upon "selectively enforcing" the civil rights act by using disparate impact theory and proportional representation only when it affected others. (More accurately, Blumrosen was "selectively malenforcing" the civil rights law, imposing quotas for underrepresented Blacks, using quotas to curb whites; for women, against men; but never for gentiles and against Jews.)
Of course, had the EEOC sought to restrict Jews as it has restricted white men, the storm of protest would have cast "disparate impact" theory into the dustbin of history. Thus, the role of Blumrosen and his allies in the media, academia etc., was to create a false target - the "overrepresented," "privileged" and "oppressive" white male. According to the EEOC, the statistics proved just that. However, the statistics proved otherwise. The partial statistics used by Blumrosen were simply the effort to deflect criticism to another group instead of the one most overrepresented, privileged and oppressive - his own.
By not asking the religious question on the EEOC questionnaires, the EEOC created a scapegoat of the white male. Once smeared as "privileged" and "oppressive," the non-privileged, working-class and poor whites began to pay the price for the "moral" system of affirmative action by being legally discriminated against and denied equal opportunity.
My point is this, not merely that personnel is policy (sometimes), but that Jewish bureaucrats in the EEOC defied the will of the American people and broke the law they were pledged to enforce, by turning a law against discrimination into a law requiring proportional representation of groups (one that inevitably resulted in discrimination against better qualified white male candidates.) Furthermore, they deliberately refused to use the same measure of enforcement concerning religious discriminatory aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Had they done so, they would have had to demand no law schools admit Jews until the number of Jewish lawyers was reduced to 3%, and medical schools must be 97% gentile until gentiles reached their fair share of that lucrative profession, and the same proportion in education, films, journalism, etc.
I do not mean that a few Jews in an agency alone could so radically change the US. Leftwing Justices on the Supreme Court, collaborators in other governmental agencies, researchers in sociological departments, and rioters, all converged to aid Blumrosen in his remaking of America. Important too, though surprising to many, was liberal Republican President Richard Nixon, who revived Lyndon B. Johnson's Philadelphia Plan, a quota plan for hiring in the construction trades in that city (under the euphemism of goals and timetables, meaning the company would be granted time to reach the quota). Nixon revived and expanded the goals and timetables approach and made it "affirmative action," extending it to all jobs, making it nation-wide, and expanding the quotas to Hispanics, women, and others. But it was Blumrosen, Pressman, and some other Jewish bureaucrats in other agencies that got the ball rolling, a ball that would change America. Some Jews like Bakke, in the lawsuit that bears his name, sued in court because of the anti-white discrimination, but most Jews were in the camp of the Left, and they supported rights by groups, rather than individual rights. At late as 2003 when a most important AA case from Michigan went before the US Supreme Court, the gentile vote was 4-3 against affirmative action. But Justices Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, the two Jews then on the court, voted solidly in favor of AA - so the final vote was 5-4 in favor of AA and the quota system continues to this day because of Jewish support.
How does this relate to Slezkine's book? Over-representation of Jews in the upper reaches of the various national elites was the major question facing Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Slezkine, like Thomas Sowell, compares Jews in Europe to other minority trader-business-circus types. Slezkine calls them all Mercurians and contrasts them with the more agricultural, warrior, physical types, the Apollonians. Interestingly, he rejects the Nietzschian model, asserting that the Dionysians were simply drunken Apollonians. Like Sowell, he sees the analogy between the Jews in Europe, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, the Indians in East Africa, and the Parsis in India. Slezkine also adds the gypsies. Many have questioned the latter, for while Jews were often outsiders at the top of the economic ladder, gypsies were at the bottom.
By 1900 some social scientists like Max Weber had concluded that there was a connection between the Protestant ethic and capitalism. Yet, others saw a closer connection between capitalism and Judaism. "Most radical Jewish memoirists remembered ...acquisitiveness stripped of the Jewish tradition was distilled capitalism, i.e., `practical, real Judaism.'"(153)
Of course, there were numerous successful Protestant businessmen. But as Slezkine notes: "A Scottish Protestant was not just a pork-eating Jew, as Heine would have it; he was a solitary Jew, a Jew without the people of Israel, the only creature to have been chosen."(43) This observation by Slezkine implies that it may not have been mere aptitude of the individuals that propelled Jews to such success.
Slezkine also argues that successful Jews became lonely individuals, too. They had become modern, less religious, deprived of their tribe, but not allowed to join in the rising nationalisms swirling round them no matter how much Goethe or Pushkin they could recite.(74-75) However, even if Jews could not fully partake in the nationalisms of the French, Czechs, Poles, flooding the lands in which they resided, this did not mean that they were alone. Slezkine asserts "Communism was the principle religion of the young Jewish intellectuals..."(209) Perhaps, children of successful businessmen, they joined together to remake society. They may have been somewhat deprived of the comforts of their religious traditions, which they rejected, but they were meeting, greeting, and joining others of their tribe (and some gentiles too) in a modern variation of their ancient faith.
According to Slezkine, "...Jews created the left-wing intellectual movement in Germany."(86) He then presents a list of Jewish socialists and communists in early 20th century Europe demonstrating their influence on the movement.(85) Slezkine acknowledges that when Bela Kun's Communist regime took power in Hungary after WWI, 20 of the 26 ruling commissars were Jews. He also mentions that the Bavarian Soviet Republic of 1919 was led by Jews.(85) He does not mention how a soldier, recently released from hospital after being gassed at the front, was elected from his unit as a representative to the Soviet. That soldier, Adolf Hitler, also marched in a procession honoring one of the Bavarian Soviet's Jewish leaders.(See my "Affirmative Action and the Nazis.") Though the Soviet was Jewish led, clearly its message appealed to gentiles too.
What was true in central Europe was true in Russia. Slezkine discusses Jewish over-representation among the Bolshevik leadership, with Trotsky head of the Red Army, and numerous Jews in the leadership. Even Lenin had a Jewish grandfather (though it was not widely known, and when, after his death, a relative wanted to publicize this fact, Stalin vehemently suppressed it.) There were Communist leaders who were not Jews, but often their wives were, or they had in-laws who were.
Jews also performed an important role in the secret police of the Bolshevik government. "...in the Cheka (sec. police), Bolsheviks of Jewish origin combined ideological commitment with literacy in way that set them apart and propelled them upward. In 1918, 65.5% of all Jewish Cheka employees were `responsible officials.' Jews made up 19.1% of all central apparatus investigators and 50%...of the investigators employed in the department for combating counterrevolution. In 1923, at the...creation of the OGPU (the Cheka's successor), Jews made up 15.5% of `leading' officials and 50% of the top brass..."(177)
The Bolsheviks had their AA programs to dismiss unreliable former governmental officials, and the older bureaucrats of Russian or German heritage now had to pass tests of loyalty. And who would be the judge? And if they were fired, whom would the Communists hire to replace them? Jews effectively manned the new bureaucracy in the Soviet state. After all, Jews were the "true believers" in Communism,(232) the most dedicated of apostles of the new system.(156)
"Most members of the new Soviet elite were not Jews, and most Jews were not members of the new Soviet elite. But there is no doubt that the Jews had a much higher proportion...than any other ethnic group in the USSR."(236) "From the inception of the Soviet regime, the unique combination of exceptionally high literacy rates and a remarkable degree of political loyalty... had made Jews the backbone of the new Soviet bureaucracy."(224) And what were some of the reasons for the large over-representation of Jews in the Soviet elite? One Soviet authority, Yuri Larin (who was Jewish) presented 3 reasons for their success, one of which I cite here, "the strong sense of solidarity among them."(252) Slezkine elaborates on the results over time: "Indeed, the Soviet secret police...known after 1934 as the NKVD - was among the most Jewish of Soviet institutions."(254) Slezkine adds that Jews were dominant in the Soviet Foreign Service and in spying for the USSR in Western Europe and in the USA. Jews also headed the Gulag institutions and camps until November 1938.(255)
Of course, in the 1920s the Soviet Union was not the only nation in which Jews were doing well. Indeed, what Jews were more admired for their enormous success and influence than the Jews of Germany. Jewish Communists in Moscow may have been in the Soviet elite, but they were still impoverished by German standards. Rounding up kulaks, running concentration camps, ruffians! How could that compare to Dr. this, and Prof. that in Germany? As Germany reorganized following defeat in WWI, the new Weimar Constitution for the republic was mainly the handiwork of a Jew, Hugo Preuss. Though less than 1% of the population Jewish success was evident in books, newspapers, Einstein and other scientists, the new film industry, department stores, banks, furs, and the lucrative professions.(See my "Affirmative Action and the Nazis for many more examples of statistical over-representation.") Slezkine reports, "In 1908-11, in Germany..., Jews made up 0.95% of the population... and 31% of the richest families (with a "ratio" of economic over-representation" of 33, the highest anywhere, according to W. E. Rubenstein.(50) Someone remarked that if you went to a play, it was probably written by a Jew, directed by another, reviewed by a 3rd, in a newspaper edited by a 4th and owned by a 5th. As these general statistics are rather well known, I shall quote sparingly: "In Prussia, 16% of physicians, 15% of dentists, and one fourth of all lawyers in 1925 were Jews; and in interwar Poland, Jews were about 56% of all doctors in private practice, 43.3% of all private teachers and educators, 33.5% of all lawyers and notaries, and 22% of all journalists, publishers, and librarians."(50) Slezkine adds that by 1900 "In large parts of Eastern Europe, virtually the whole `middle class' was Jewish."(50) According to Slezkine, the Rothschilds were the wealthiest family of the 19th century "by a wide margin."(48)
In Central Europe there was a growing desire to restrict Jewish over-representation in the economy and culture of the various new nations after WWI. This was "the Jewish Question." And it is related to AA. In the 1920s Soviet Jews in the bureaucracy had used AA to eliminate from government jobs the Orthodox Christians, the old nobility, the former German-Russian bureaucrats, the "bourgeoisie," and a little later physically eliminate the kulaks and other "counter revolutionary elements through starvation, the Gulag, drowning in the White Sea Canal project, or through a bullet in the head. Jews, powerful in the secret police and true believers in the system were, as Slezkine writes, "Stalin's willing executioners."(103)
The counter-attack occurred with Hitler's rapid rise in depression-ridden Germany. Boycotts of Jewish stores, dismissal of Jews from government posts (teachers, judges, etc.), limits on their admission to university to their percentage of the population, followed by ever-increasing segregation, discrimination, isolation, until the final solution. Other European nations also partook in these policies.
Slezkine reveals that the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 would result in Jews losing posts in the Soviet Foreign Service, but no major change occurred immediately. With the attack on the Soviet Union in summer 1941 by Nazi-led Europe, the role of Jews did change. The Nazis equated Communism and Jews, and they sought to exterminate one by killing off the other. Jews were treated so differently by the invader, that the Jews were determined to fight them to the death. After the defeat of Germany, Stalin established puppet states in Eastern Europe, and whom could he rely on to be sufficiently determined to root out all traces of Nazism but the Jews. And so in Eastern Europe, the remnant of Jews often took posts in the new Communists governments, including manning the secret police and running concentration camps with different inmates. But when Israel defeated to Arabs to create a new state, a major change occurred. Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir visited Moscow in the late 1940s and was hailed by Soviet Jews with intense enthusiasm. Stalin began to fear the loyalties of the Soviet Jews. There were trials in Eastern Europe accusing the Jews (and some others) of working for foreign (CIA) or other groups. In the USSR itself, some leading Jews simply disappeared, and various Jewish committees cease to exist. Anti-Semitism was vocalized, and fear spread. What was happening? Who would disappear next? Why was the Party betraying the Jews? Slezkine includes an illuminating anecdote from Ester Markish: "After the arrest of [Perets] Markish, our maid, who had lived in our house for more than fifteen years and had, in effect, becoming a member of our family, said to me: `You are crying now, but you did not mind when my father was being dekulakized, martyred for no reason at all, and my whole family thrown out in the street?'"(310-11) Some thought Stalin was even contemplating a round-up of all the Jews, to be sent to Siberia or worse. Then Stalin died.
Though Jews continued to be over-represented in the Soviet elite, the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party (CP) was determined to reduce their influence. AA was used to get more ethnics into university - Russians, Kazaks, Uzbeks, etc. Later attempts to increase blue-collar admissions were meant to reduce the influence of Jews and stimulate loyalty to the Party. Jews became ever more alienated, an intellectual class distrusting the political leaders, and the distrust was mutual. Jews were no longer the true believers. But Slezkine points out, as the regime aged, no one seemed to believe any more. With pressure from the US, whose government was pressured by Jewish groups, Jews were allowed to exit the USSR. Then the Soviet Union collapsed. By 1994 only 230,000 Jews remained in the Russian Federation.(361)
Slezkine's book is about immigration - of Jews from the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire to 3 possible ideal areas. Some left for America. Some, in the turmoil of WWI, left the shtetl for Moscow or Petersburg, and more joined them with the Bolshevik victory. A few went to the deserts of the Middle East. By the 1920s, it seemed those who left for Moscow had made the correct choice, - they had power, discrimination against them was illegal, and they were the elite (with a Russian nanny and a dacha) even if they lacked many of the new commercial items available in America. But Slezkine ignores another kind of utopia of the era - one to which large numbers of Jews could not easily immigrate - Germany. The German Jews seemed to have it all. They were the top, the pinnacle of Jewish culture, modernity and influence in a leading nation (unlike backward Russia). Yet, the 1% of immense influence in Germany was struck in 1933, and demolished by 1945.
Slezkine admits the great hopes by Jews in the Soviet experiment were crushed too. Not as murderously as those in Germany, but crushed never the less. In America, Jewish influence permeates in films, radio, TV, journalism, and so many areas of commerce and culture, politics and theory, one cannot overestimate it. Surely, Jewish influence was even determinative in the EEOC! Was the invention of "white male privilege" an application of a lesson learned from the disastrous German experience?
And what about Israel, the third locale for migration from the Pale?
Because of the length of my review, I stop here. You might read the rest elsewhere on the web.
