The most important newspaper in America is the New York Times. The most important court in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. And the most important law school in America is Yale Law School.
So whoever finds himself straddling these three towering institutions has power on the order of say, being the Senate Judiciary Committee, all by himself.
Today, that man is Adam Liptak, a Yale Law School graduate who got his start working as a clerk for the New York Times in the 1980s. Liptak took the beat over from Linda Greenhouse, a Jewish woman who once marched in parade for abortion rights (while working as a Times reporter). Greenhouse covered the Supreme Court for an astounding 29 years.
Liptak has all the indicators of also being a powerful Jew: Like Greenhouse, he has a typically Jewish first and last name, was born in New York City or nearby, went to Yale Law School, is a lecturer at Yale Law School, and has an appearance that isn’t inconsistent with being Jewish. The name ‘Liptak’ appears in JewishGen, a website devoted to Jewish genealogy.
His Times biography mentions that he was an associate on First Amendment issues at Cahill Gordon, a leading international law firm. What it doesn’t mention is that Cahill Gordon is the home of First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who is most certainly Jewish and with whom I would imagine Liptak worked, given Abrams’ own connection to the Times. (Between clerking and the Cahill Gordon, Liptak worked in the Times‘ general counsel’s office).
As a clerk at the Times, Liptak worked under Myron (M. A.) Farber, a Jewish reporter for the Times.
So, in the unlikely event Liptak isn’t Jewish, he has certainly lived a life marked by Jewish typicalities and runged with powerful Jews.
It so happens that I find Liptak’s legal coverage to be competent and interesting enough. He’s even been accused by some bloggers of leaning right, something I doubt Linda Greenhouse was ever accused of.
Even Greenhouse’s coverage could not quite be faulted for lack of sophistication. But, as the record shows, neither has shown sympathy for issues that speak to the dispossession of Whites in America, which would be an easy issue to cover while overseeing the Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and the Ricci case are just two examples of recent issues that could benefit from a fresh perspective — say, a White one. Would Liptak include that in his coverage? So far, he hasn’t.
What this apparently unbroken dynasty shows is that the Jewish web of power is self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing, and makes for a lock-out of White non-Jews at the upper echelons of American power. The fact is that on the basis of their IQ, Jews are overrepresented among American elites. Though they are both certainly smart people, I see nothing so unusually remarkable about either Liptak or Greenhouse that ethnic connections aren’t a powerful alternate explanation for their choke-hold on the Supreme Court beat.
On one level, this matters to Whites because coverage is far less likely to address their issues. But it also matters to Whites on a pure power level: When the top spots are occupied by Jews, they’re not occupied by Whites. The left, of course, has argued this for years: Without the “example” of, say, president of the United States as a role model, Blacks everywhere are brought low. I’m beginning to understand… and if that sounds contradictory, well, such are the difficulties of a multiracial society.
The Times, of course, is no doubt an advocate of “diversity”, by which they mean keeping Whites out and Jayson Blair in. But this notion of “diversity” doesn’t apply to its own animating ethnic group, Jews.
What’s most confounding about all this is that Jews themselves, probably like any group in power, doesn’t see itself as having a lock on power. Quite the opposite: it sees itself as too recent a victim to worry about its own dominance.
But Whites should recognize this lock on power, understanding how it affects them, and work to change it.