Kevin MacDonald

Tag Archive for: Kevin MacDonald

"The Social Network"

Is The Social Network a  Jewish movie and, if so, what can we make of it? Of course, if Alan Dershowitz had his way, such a question is completely off limits. The movie is simply a movie written by a screen writer who happens to be Jewish (Aaron Sorkin) about people, some of whom happen to be Jewish. End of story.

That seems to be the take of the vast majority of critics if Wikipedia’s summary is any indication. Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks, who is about as obsessively Jewish as Dershowitz, does see a Jewish message, but you have to read between the lines: Mark Zuckerberg is the symbol of the new Harvard, smart and driven to succeed (i.e., Jewish), but without social or moral graces. “It’s not that he’s a bad person. He’s just never been house-trained. He’s been raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct.” And he compares Zuckerberg to the Jews who elbowed out the WASPs and invented their version of Hollywood: “Immigrant Hollywood directors made hyperpatriotic movies that defined American life but found after fame and fortune they were still outsiders. In this movie, Zuckerberg designs a fabulous social network, but still has his reciprocity problem. He is still afflicted by his anhedonic self-consciousness, his failure to communicate, his inability to lose himself in the throngs at a party or the capacity to deserve the love he craves.”

Brooks’ version presents Jews as they want to be seen—smart and driven, sweeping away the bad old WASP Harvard, their minor blemishes deriving from a culture “reticent to talk about social and moral conduct.” No mention of discrimination against Whites and in favor of Jews in admissions to elite universities. And Brooks would be the last person to produce a serious discussion of the issue of how Jewish culture contributes to lapses in moral conduct.

One obvious subtext is Jewish ethnic networking. The idea for developing a social networking site at Harvard came from the Winklevoss twins and their Indian business partner. The Winklevosses are presented as quintessential Aryans—right out of central casting for a movie on the SS. But when they approach the Zuckerberg character about doing the technical work on the site, Zuckerberg steals their idea,  ditches the Aryans, and forms a partnership with two Jews, Eduardo Saverin and Dustin Moskowitz. In the end, the Winklevosses settled for $65 million.

The other moral lapse is when Zuckerberg screws his best friend Saverin out of his share of the company—an obvious moral failing that was eventually settled for $1 billion. Saverin was taken in by assuming that his friend would not cheat him, effectively signing away his share of the company without knowing it.  Granted Zuckerberg didn’t like what Saverin was doing for the business, but there was an obvious moral failing with how Zuckerberg handled it.

Is there a Jewish story to what Zuckerberg did to the Winklevosses? The reality is that there is a long tradition enshrined in canonical Jewish texts where Jews who commit fraud  or other dishonesty against non-Jews are accepted in the Jewish community, particularly if they are generous to Jewish charities. Certainly not all Jews would have done what Zuckerberg did, but his actions fit into a pattern  of behavior that is tolerated within the Jewish community.

So far, Zuckerberg has attempted to rehabilitate himself by a $100 million gift to the Newark Public Schools. There’s a scene in the movie where Bill Gates gives a talk at Harvard and mentions the possibility that someone in the audience could be the next Bill Gates. Zuckerberg clearly fills the bill in the sense that, like Gates, he is quite adept at flushing his money down the toilet: Test scores are “among the lowest in New Jersey” despite 15 years of state control of the system.

Is there a Jewish story in what Zuckerberg did to Saverin? Like the Jewish victims of Bernie Madoff, Saverin relied on his sense that a fellow Jew would not cheat him. But Saverin got screwed anyway.

This should put Zuckerberg into the lowest level of Jewish hell. So far I haven’t seen any attempt to make it up to the Jews. I think a major contribution to the ADL or AIPAC is in order.

Alan Dershowitz on Jewish Media Influence

A sure sign that Jews control the media is that someone like Alan Dershowitz can get away with trotting out totally lame arguments in the mainstream media against the idea that Jews control the media. (Do Jews Control the Media?)  It’s an example of Orwell’s idea of blackwhite: “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

Dershowitz’s basic point is that yes, there are “individual Jews” with influence in the media, as well as the law, finance, and academia. His phrase “individual Jews” is meant to indicate that they are people “who happen to be Jewish.” They do not “act together in a conspiratorial manner.”

If he means that Jews in the media do a Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion thing where they get their marching orders from Abe Foxman, I would have to agree with him. But the fact is that in general Jews do not act simply as individuals. There is a shared vision that influences the attitudes and behavior of individual Jews. As I note in summarizing J. J. Goldberg, “There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties” (see Jewish Power, p. 5). Indeed, the consensus on these issues among Jewish activist organizations and the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed here despite a great deal of disagreement on other issues is striking.These attitudes typify the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the mainstream Jewish left to the neoconservative Jewish right, and in general, the Jewish profile on these issues is quite different from other Americans. Massive changes in public policy on these issues coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States.

Philip Weiss points out that Dershowitz himself has emphasized general Jewish goals, particularly the defense of Israel. And he presents examples of Jews in the media who see themselves as promoting Israel or who actively exclude points of view critical of Israel. To which I would add the comment by Eric Alterman about Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic: It is not enough to say that TNR’s owner is merely obsessed with Israel; he says so himself. But more importantly, Peretz is obsessed with Israel’s critics, Israel’s would-be critics, and people who never heard of Israel, but might one day know someone who might someday become a critic.”

Dershowitz gives the New York Times as an example of a Jewish-owned media, noting that is critical of Israel. But in general, the Times’ coverage has been highly skewed toward Israel, as documented by Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew. Weiss gives the well-known quote from former editor Max Frankel: The NYT’s former executive editor Max Frankel wrote, “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”

A recent Forward article recounts the firings of Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, and Helen Thomas for their comments on Jewish issues. It points out that “Jews have done more than other groups to make it clear that they will not suffer lightly the public slights like those made by Sanchez — let alone by those with even bigger mouths, like Mel Gibson. As Foxman put it, ‘We are a community that is sensitive, and — have no doubt — we’ll respond.’ ‘

Right. But at least we know what the game is. The truth will be suppressed with all the power that the Jewish community can bring to bear. The message is out that anyone who wishes to have a career in the media must play by these rules or look for another line of work.

Lasha Darkmoon: Sex Plague

Kevin MacDonald: I invite comment on Dr. Lasha Darkmoon’s current TOO article “Sex plague.” It is yet another take on Jews as a hostile elite—the “sheer destructive power” of the Jewish intellect, as Paul Johnson had it. Psychoanalysis attacked the most basic institutions of Western society—its sexual mores. It was the most egregious pseudo-science ever invented. Maintained by cult-like devotion and the political discipline worthy of a communist cell, it opened the door to a host of cultural changes. But it is the motivation of these Jewish intellectuals that is critical: Freud’s “we are bringing them the plague” and his hatred of the Catholic Church are paradigmatic. But Darkmoon also brings in contemporary descendants of this attitude: Al Goldstein’s “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks.” And Richard Pacheco who saw no conflict between his career as a porn star and his career as a rabbinical student. And Annie Sprinkle, who blurs the border between pornography and high art—a feat that is possible only in a culture that is completely degraded.

There can be little doubt that these movements have had a generally negative influence on the culture and on the cultural self-confidence of those espousing traditional values. My view is that the biggest effects of this cultural onslaught have been on people on the lower end of the Bell curve. See here.

As usual, there is no claim that all Jews have these attitudes. And certainly many non-Jews have been involved whether motivated by fame, fortune, or psychosis. (Darkmoon mentions Tracey Emin, Hannah Wilke, and Karen Finley.) And yet, while not necessarily focused on sexual subversion, it is acknowledged on all sides that in general Jews have hostile attitudes toward the people and the culture of the West, particularly Christianity. (See, e.g., here.) Of course, this wouldn’t matter if Jews were a powerless minority like the Gypsies. It matters a great deal when Jews have risen to an elite in all of the areas that matter: politics, the media, personal wealth, and the academic world.

More Reactions to the Sanchez Indiscretion: Jon Stewart and Christopher Hitchens

I have the feeling that Rick Sanchez will manage to return to a career in the national media. Jon Stewart concluded his bit on the affair by questioning whether Sanchez should have been fired for some “banal Jew baiting”; he also showed a clip where Sanchez condemned a guy with a swastika in the background who says he avoids the “Jew media.” So Sanchez’s heart is in the right place, at least when he “has time to think about it” and “isn’t worried about being fired anyway.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Hurty Sanchez

Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Christopher Hitchens wrote some odd things.

In the manner in which Sanchez spoke … there was something like a buried resentment. He didn’t descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media

But that’s exactly what he did say. Which is why he got in so much trouble. The amazing thing about all the mainstream discussion is a failure to discuss the extent which that is true. Hitchens continues:

But he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity.

Sorry, I didn’t get that. Sanchez certainly accused Stewart of being a bigot and of having “an establishment White liberal point of view.” Hitchens comes much  closer to acknowledging Jewish power when he comments:

I ask myself if the world in which I have worked for so many decades—the intersecting and overlapping world of the news media, publishing, the academy, and the think-tank industry—is even imaginable without the presence of liberal American Jews. The answer is plainly no. Moreover, I can’t think of any other “minority” of which this is remotely true, unless it were to be the other minority from which I can claim descent: people of British or Anglophile provenance.

Hitchens’ claim that “British and Anglophile provenance” are even remotely on a par with Jewish involvement in these overlapping elites is far less than remotely true. And in any case, this high level of Jewish involvement means that Jews effectively hold veto power over things that can and cannot be said. That’s why Sanchez got fired in the first place.

Still, his statement is one of the remarkable comments on Jewish involvement in the information elites to appear from a mainstream media figure—a nice addition to Edmund Connelly’s collection.  Coupled with his statements on the power of the Israel Lobby and his defense of Karel de Gucht, Hitchens is definitely being a bit edgy.

That reminds me of Philip Weisss recent comments in his series “Note on my racism” (which bear a more extended discussion):

When you look at hives of Jewish writers, say the New Yorker Magazine, or the professors at Columbia University schools, I believe there is a strong kinship network at work. I’ve mentioned Lawrence Summers and Elena Kagan and Michael Walzer and Judith Shklar, their faculty networks at Harvard, as indicative of the same tendency.

Right. Elena Kaganas the poster child of Jewish ethnic networking. Jewish ethnic networking is the key to understanding contemporary information (and other) elites.

Hitchens wants Sanchez reinstated:

The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez’s reinstatement. If it then didn’t happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.

The idea seems to be that if Jews in the media like Hitchens (half-Jewish on his mother’s side) and Stewart call for Sanchez’s reinstatement but fail, then it would show that Jews really do pull the strings.

But the issue of how much influence Jews have on the  media is not at all dependent on what happens in this case. There is already overwhelming evidence for Jewish power in the media and elsewhere based on a great many sources. Sanchez’s reinstatement, perhaps after a bit of groveling, certainly wouldn’t change that.

The good news is that statements of Jewish power are becoming more common all the time, both on the power of the Israel Lobby and the power of Jews the media. In the long run, frank discussion of Jewish power would also mean a frank discussion of how Jewish power compromises the interests of White Americans. That would really be the stuff of which revolutions are made.  And even without an above-ground discussion, Whites with any degree of political sophistication are starting to “get it” and that in itself is a major step in the right direction.

Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power

In my post on Joe Sobran’s passing, I included this quote from Joe:

Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

A current example that illustrates exactly this is the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN for saying the following about Jews as victims:

Very powerless people… [snickers] He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]… Please, what are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]

This is the offending section of the  interview:

So the scenario is exactly as Joe Sobran described it. Deep down you must be fully aware of Jewish power, but public utterances must pledge allegiance to the idea that Jews are powerless victims. Don’t mention the fact that “a lot of people who run [CNN and] all the other networks are a lot like [Jon] Stewart” — that they are Jews with immense power, able to shape public discourse on everything of importance. Never mention the obvious fact that Jews are a very large component of the elite in the US and throughout the West. And if you don’t go along with the “Jews as powerless victims” idea, then Jews will destroy you.

Powerless victims with the power to destroy their enemies.  And that’s exactly what happened.

Joe Sobran (1946-2010)

Joe Sobran will be much missed. I met him only once, but I am a great admirer of his writing. The American Conservative wrote this:

The 20th century produced many great conservative writers, but none brought together wit, erudition, and humanity on a single page so well as Joseph Sobran.

At, Steve Fulford included this very appropriate quote from Joe:

Most prejudices aren’t created by official doctrines; they result from popular experience and the slow spreading of a group’s reputation. The first gypsy I ever met — on a street in Rome — grabbed a wad of money out of my hand. I’d been too naive to be wary of her, though my companions had warned me against her.

(Editor’s note: Readers of this post have posted many other wonderful quotes from Sobran in the comments section. Well worth reading. Joe clearly understood exactly what was going on and who our enemies are.) My own favorite quotes, culled from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, include the following:

In comments reminiscent of those of Heinrich von Treitschke, columnist Joseph Sobran has also raised the issue of Jewish media control and how it shapes discussion of Jewish interests versus those of the Christian Right:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

This quote ended with the following footnote:

In another column, Sobran (1996b) quoted an essay, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote, “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” Sobran comments that “in a single phrase—‘in our hands’—Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk.” Sobran lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel.

As indicated in the last line, Sobran paid for his honesty about the Israel Lobby. His departure marked the rise of neocon domination at the Buckley’s execrable National Review and the equally execrable Republican Party. It was a huge loss for conservative thought in America.

The following may be called  Joe Sobran’s Dictionary. These are quotes attributed to Joe. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these, except for the definition of an anti-Semite (which has become a classic). But they certainly fit his character. A particularly insightful comment, not included in the dictionary, is the  following — very appropriate in an age where the courts routinely overturn popular referenda, such as the recent Arizona immigration law: “Our constitution has never been an impediment to those who rule us.” The same thing happened to California’s Proposition 187. As Sam Dickson notes, the American legal system is a fraud.

Joe Sobran’s Dictionary

anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews

association, freedom of: discrimination

bigot: one who practices sociology without a license

bribe: an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government

civil rights: government power used in behalf of large groups

guilt: the deepest vested interest

isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries

opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors

political correctness: the felt pressure of enlightened public opinion, under which we sense that certain thoughts, though technically legal now, are already destined to become taboo.

psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people

public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks

rich: politicians’ nickname for “other people” (as in “tax the rich”)

rights: authorizations for new areas of government control

rogue nation: a country that behaves like America

voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth

Rest in Peace.

Moving Video: "I am an Englishman"

Kevin MacDonald: There are a lot of good videos coming out. Just lately someone sent me a (now blocked on copyrighted content grounds) video with clips from Enoch Powell and one on how Muslims are taking over the streets of Paris with tacit collusion of the French government. (Relatedly, the LATimes has an op-ed on the looming threat that Muslims pose to free speech in America.)

But the video that really got to me was a dramatic video (has been removed titled “I am an Englishman.”

This is the statement of an English patriot who is angry that the England he loves is being taken away from him–“we who have inhabited this island fortress for an unbroken thousand years.” He asks the question about the immigrants put by his patron, Enoch Powell: “What can they know of England?” A good question given that immigrants, most notably Muslim immigrants, are bent on retaining their own culture and view traditional English culture with scorn.

If this does not move you, you are incapable of being moved. And of course the same points may be made about all Western countries, including the US.

This is the kind of media that strikes a chord with everyone. If the mainstream media broadcast this sort of thing widely and sympathetically, it would ignite a revolution.