For example, in 2009, The Atlantic published its list of the fifty most important “columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates.” (Paul Krugman was ranked No. 1, with Rush Limbaugh second.) I was able to look up the demographics of virtually all of them and found that just under 50 percent were ethnically Jewish, compared with 2.2 percent of the population. (Similarly, Jews appear to make up about one-third of the Forbes 400.)
Back in the 1970s, neoconservative Jewish intellectuals such as Nathan Glazer used to worry that antiwhite quotas would be bad for the Jews. For example, in 1968 New York mayor John Lindsay gave control of one public school district in Brooklyn to black activists, who soon began firing Jewish and Irish teachers. This threat to Jewish jobs was a galvanizing event in the rise of neoconservatism, which a half century ago was less wholly obsessed with Israel than it is today.
But over time, Jews found that affirmative action for blacks didn’t really threaten their chances in the better sort of jobs that they were rapidly moving up to: The IQ gap between Jews and blacks is simply too large for many blacks to be competitive with Jews even with affirmative action. Perhaps only the top 5 percent of African-Americans are as smart as the median Jewish person.
The 1970s neoconservatives were still worried that the principle of discriminating in the name of diversity and inclusion against higher-achieving groups like whites in general might someday be re-extended to discriminating against Jews specifically, as had happened in the American Ivy League in the middle of the 20th century and in the Soviet Union after the creation of Israel.
But liberal Jews had an effective strategy to sidestep this: simply silence mainstream discussion of Jewish overrepresentation in anything other than adulatory contexts, while demoralizing whites in general by playing on their white guilt. The 1970s neoconservatives, with their love of analyzing ethnic differences, were seen as fools for talking intelligently about matters that were best not talked about at all, at least not anywhere that gentiles could overhear.
This proved a clever, successful strategy. But recently it has begun backfiring because it has not only dumbed down gentiles, but it is making mainstream liberal Jews such as Weisman less and less self-aware, much less self-critical, and therefore more extremist as their complacency and self-righteousness grow.
Hence, a recurrent theme in Weisman’s book is how national borders must go because they are bad for the Jews. Weisman appears to have never thought about how some of his passages sound like anti-Semitic propaganda:
The Jew flourishes when borders come down, when boundaries blur, when walls are destroyed, not erected…. Again, we see, national borders and walls, wherever they rise, tend to trap Jews, not liberate them.
Perhaps this is true, although the Israelis sure don’t agree. But you might think it would lead to some reflections from Weisman on how borders benefit many non-Jews, and thus there is a need for dialogue and compromise with fellow American citizens.
But no, Weisman’s only standard of judgment is: Is it good for the Jews?
He follows that up with the now traditional salute to how great Jews had it after the Muslims grabbed Spain away from the Christians. Whether that ominous cliché is reassuring to Christian Europeans today is not something Weisman sees the need to worry about.
In turn, Weisman portrays the Obama Era as a sort of neo-Al-Andalus golden age for Jews:
The borders were still blurred. Nationalism and chauvinism were in check. Undocumented immigrants marched in the streets of Washington and Los Angeles demanding rights. The polyglot nation recovered…. The Jew thrived.
Weisman’s knowledge of history largely consists of Jewish self-congratulation:
Educated, affluent Jews were the intellectual shock troops of the Enlightenment.
Uh, no. The Jewish Enlightenment lagged the Enlightenment by two or three generations. It’s usually dated to the 1770s (about 85 years after Newton’s Principia), when a handful of Jews finally began to notice with dismay that, after centuries of being richer and more sophisticated than the gentiles, they had fallen behind them.
Nor is Weisman good at foreseeing the future. Speaking to a Jewish audience in late October 2016, the ace newshound declaimed:
In ten days, the United States will have elected its first woman President. The question at the moment will be whether the hate and division during the 2016 campaign will be remembered as a last gasp of a defeated populace, clinging desperately to the old order they once ruled as it was swept away, or the beginning of a recalcitrant movement against American democratic pluralism.
“Defeated populace”? This is basically hate speech.
America’s main problem today is that there is too much hate in the hearts of white people…hatred of other white people.
We can do better than this.