As TOO readers are aware, one of my favorite targets for white advocacy critique is The New York Times. There are many good reasons for this, one of which is the Times’ standing as America’s pre-eminent newspaper. Sometimes, one can tell a lot about the direction of American society simply by looking at what the Times chooses to highlight (or not), even in seemingly innocuous areas.
Take wedding announcements. The New York Times wedding announcements are famous for their exclusivity. Once the domain of WASPy Ivy Leaguers, it is now heavily Jewish. Of the 35 announcements to make the cut for the July 6, 2008 Sunday Styles section, 13 were Jewish couples. That’s more than a third, for a population that does not claim to constitute more than three to six percent of American society. It’s also more than double the 12 percent seen about 10 years ago (see below).
Of course, the Ivy League — or any connection to it — remains important as a criterion for admission, as do the medical and legal professions, finance, and of course, journalism. The working class need not apply. But instead of the white gentile Ivy League, it now features the Jewish Ivy League.
The Times surely congratulates itself on its “inclusivity” otherwise. For instance, there was a Shinto wedding, a Muslim wedding and a Hindu wedding, three homosexual couples (including a black lesbian couple, one of whom was described as a self-employed carpenter), Hispanic couples, and several Asian couples. How does a self-employed carpenter get a wedding announcement in the New York Times? By being a black lesbian, of course. This is contra Slate writer Timothy Noah’s prediction that no such thing would happen.
Amusingly, Noah, whom I believe is Jewish, admits to pulling strings to have his own wedding announcement run. In his piece, Noah cites a 1997 article by David Brooks — also Jewish — who leads off with an anecdote about the marriage of a Jewish Ivy League couple.
Brooks is frank about the replacement of Episcopalians with Jews on the pages, and even references The Bell Curve in doing so. The article is loaded with clever speculation and insight on the whole business of wedding pages demographics. But Brooks puts a Jew-positive spin on the trend by saying it’s now brains over birth, or merit over heritage. In other words, the white WASPs once featured didn’t deserve to be there, but the new smart Jews do.
I don’t see it that way. WASPs once ran America not because it dropped in their laps, but because they had the strength to forge a new society in America, and the ethnic cohesion to run it. Jews now run America because they had the strength to take it over, and the ethnic cohesion to hold and expand their position. Meanwhile, WASPs were easy targets because their own will to survive died long ago.
There are obvious differences between WASPs and Jews — one being that Jews aren’t running America to the benefit of whites. But from way up high, it’s a simple replacement of one power group with another. Even for whites whose modest unions will never grace the pages of the New York Times’ wedding announcements, this is something to pay attention to. We whites should be asking: who holds power in America, and is it good for us?
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.