While most of the ‘conservative’ opposition has centered on the typical topics of abortion and double standards, the most insightful has come from a liberal blog complaining that Obama nominated a ‘white’ person to the Supreme Court.
In “Colored Demos: A blog on law, politics, democracy, culture, race” Luis Fuentes-Rohwer discusses ‘the social construction of merit’:
Far more important is how the Kagan nomination helps us understand the social construction of merit. While we carry on as if the twin concepts of merit and qualifications have objective, platonic qualities, the reality is far from that. The Kagan nomination underscores how mushy and malleable these concepts are.
In order to appreciate this claim, think first about the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court justice. Above all things, I suppose that one must have a “brilliant legal mind.” That aspect of the applicants resume, one would think, should be non-negotiable (we know this is not true, and a cursory look at the Court’s present membership should be enough to prove the point, but that’s a subject for another day). Beyond that, the nominee must have the right credentials, the right politics and, since the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Court in the early 70’s, judicial experience. In recent weeks, we have added “coalition building” to the set of necessary credentials, as well as a lack of a public record. We have also reversed course on judicial experience; what was once an asset now appears to be a liability.
In the end, it is not clear which one of these qualifications rises above all others. But that is not important.
Far more interesting is the fact that these qualifications rise and fall as needed. If a nominee has no judicial experience at all, and her scant record in court is hardly awe-inspiring, well, it matters not, because she is “brilliant.” If her publishing record is scant at best that does not matter, because, well, she is still “brilliant.” Note that at this stage, one needs not to prove the truth of the assertion. A person is brilliant because enough of her close friends and acquaintances say so. I have referred to this phenomenon as “group brilliance.”
The point is that merit can become whatever we need it to become. A nominee’s “brilliance” takes precedent because it is so easy to assert and so hard to refute. Same with the “coalition-building” skill often discussed. The point is not that the nominee is or is not a terrific coalition-builder. Rather, the point is that this becomes a qualification for the highest judicial office in the land because it fits a current need, because somebody, somewhere, decides that it must be. What counts as “coalition-building”? That is not totally clear. But it might be important to have the benefit of a few close friends and connected insiders, people who can vouch for you. This is to say, merit, while it might have many attributes, it is, at least in important part, socially constructed.
More on “group brilliance” from Fuentes-Rohwer:
For all the noise made about Kagan’s qualifications, how far would she have gone in her life in the legal academy without the support of critical networks?
Nobody would question that General Kagan has led an exemplary academic life, from her days at Hunter College High School to Princeton College, where she graduated summa cum laude, and a J.D. from Harvard Law, where she graduated magna cum laude. These accomplishments netted her clerkships with Judge Mikva and Justice Marshall, which she followed with a teaching job at Chicago Law. This is all quite standard in the life of an academic. Where things begin to fall apart is when the story resumes in Hyde Park. While General Kagan was quite good at taking law school exams and writing undergraduate papers, she was not a terribly productive academic (or maybe, for strategic considerations, chose not to). Fact is, she did not write very much, and yet, the Chicago faculty granted her tenure, in 1995.
Note: Judge Abner J. Mikva, where Elena Kagan began her career, is Jewish and can be considered part of Kagan’s ‘critical support network’
This is where it gets messy. How in the world did this happen? How does one with such a scant academic record receives tenure at a top-ten law school? This is where privilege and connections kick in. If her story is like that of many others in the academy, perceptions at the point of entry made all the difference in the world. She was hired as a superstar, and that meant that she could do no wrong. If she gave a bad presentation, well, she was still a superstar who just happened to have a bad day. If her first draft of a paper wasn’t very good, well, that is because she was tackling very big ideas, and such things are hard to do. And if she did not publish very much, well, that was easy: as a superstar, she was mulling her ideas in her head, giving them time to develop into the Really Big Ideas that they were.
Once the tenure clock ran, she made it through. That means, quite simply, that she was still a superstar, and a brilliant one at that. To achieve the status of brilliance requires a network of people who believes that you are, in fact, as brilliant as you think you are. Without that network, your brilliance might go unnoticed. I think of this kind of brilliance as “group brilliance;” you only achieve it when others say you did. But once you do, you reap its benefits for a lifetime.
How then does one get to be a front runner for the Supreme Court? In particular, how did Elena Kagan become the front runner? One possibility is to appreciate the force of social networks and “the people you know.” Those without networks stand no chance.
Fuentes-Rohwer continues on in this vein in a number of posters, wondering how Obama could have selected Kagan after the selection of his fellow Hispanic Sotomayor. Why would the first black President choose someone widely perceived as ‘white’ and ‘privileged’? The likely answer can be found in another piece of news today showing that Obama’s support amongst Jews has been cut in half, from 78% who voted for him in 2008 to 42% who said they would vote for him today. Around 60% of funding which is obtained by the Democratic Party comes from Jewish sources. Obama can not afford-quite literally-to lose Jewish support. He may not have thought of it directly in these terms, and may have been influenced in this direction by his top pair of advisors, both Jewish, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.
These advisers likely assisted in the creation of Elena Kagan’s ‘socially constructed merit’ via ‘group brilliance’. Kevin MacDonald describes the process:
The last time we went through the Supreme Court nomination process, there was a veritable groundswell of hyperbole for Elena Kagan — so much so that I couldn’t resist writing about it here. The theme is ethnic networking. How else explain the fact that someone with a completely undistinguished scholarly record not only got tenure at the University of Chicago but was appointed dean of Harvard Law School?
She had exactly two publications in law review journals when she got tenure and has done very little since. A record like that would be a tough sell for tenure even in the nether regions of academia, never mind the most elite schools in the land. But now her lack of publications is seen by her supporters as an asset: She has no embarrassing paper trail on controversial issues.
Once again, the same people are hyping Kagan as absolutely brilliant. In a recent Huffington Post article (”Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner“), Charles Fried says, “She is a supremely intelligent person, really one of the most intelligent people I have encountered, and I have met a lot of them, as one does in this business. She is very adroit politically. … She has quite a strong personality and a winning personality. I think she’s an effective, powerful person and a very, very intelligent person, and a very hardworking and serious person.” Presumably she can also walk on water.
Fried also praised Kagan effusively in the earlier round, along with Laurence Tribe, another Jewish Harvard Law professor. As I noted, “Kagan was appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.
The only thing Kagan has going for her seems to be that important people admire her. She’s good at networking, and it would seem that many of her most prominent admirers are other Jews — liberal and conservative. (Tribe and Summers are liberals; Charles Fried is considered a conservative. Fried was Solicitor General in the Reagan Administration but voted for Obama.) Ethnic networking indeed!
This points to corruption in the Jewish sector of the American academic elite. Kagan’s path to the academic heights of the legal profession and perhaps to a position on the Supreme Court is not based on a solid record of scholarship or any other relevant experience, but on ethnic boosterism from other Jews. As I noted elsewhere, Jews are represented in elite American academic institutions at levels far higher than can be explained by IQ.
While Professor Fuentes-Rohwer intended to assign this label to whites in general, it now applies almost exclusively to Jews. The old WASP networks, which Justice Stevens himself came through from Chicago before being appointed to the Supreme Court over 30 years ago, are gone.
Looking at what passes for ‘brilliance’ in modern America, we can see signs of ‘group brilliance’ every. As MacDonald discusses, Jewish academics praise each others works endlessly. Tedious movies by produced by Jews are proclaimed as ‘brilliant’ by Jewish entertainment critics. Jewish art critics declare the most bizarre forms of garbage to be ‘brilliant art’. Opposition to white racialism has reached such heights of ‘group brilliance’ that ‘ignorant’ has become a synonym in pop culture for whites noticing racial differences. A career hack politician like Joe Lieberman can become the ‘conscience of the Senate.’
Jewish columnist David Brooks describes mundane and boring Jewish columnist Charles Krauthammer as “he’s the most important conservative columnist,” and instead of being laughed at, this line is repeated. Not Ann Coulter, not Thomas Sowell, not Pat Buchanan, but lame ol’ Charles Krauthammer is ‘the most important conservative columnist’, as deemed by ‘group brilliance.’
‘High Art’ as determined by ‘group brilliance’
The lesson we can take away from this is to watch out for not just of what is being said, but who’s saying it.
Update: Kagan’s (mostly jewish) media friends:
For Elena Kagan, this much is true: She has friends in journo circles. Seems like everybody has a “Kagan Connection.”
Most assessments of Kagan begin like this:
“I first met Kagan in the mid-’90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,” wrote The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen.
“Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once,” wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.
“I had her for two classes” at Harvard Law School, said CBS’ Jan Crawford Greenberg. “But she was very challenging, while at the same time very engaging and lively.”
And those are just her periphery acquaintances.
“Elena danced at our wedding in 1986,” wrote The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin. “When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer.”
David Brooks wrote: “Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer.”
CQ’s Seth Stern told MSNBC: “I was her student in administrative law class” at Harvard.
And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.
All of this, of course, makes it weird that the White House would choose this controversial approach in its media unveiling of Kagan.
The one non-jew in the list, Jonathan Capehart, is black.
Suitably absurd for the last SCJ in the Kwa.
Supreme Court Justice nominee, like appointing President. Both-Kagan and Obama-are relatively inexperienced, and relied on ethnic-based networking, to climb the Political Ladder. Both were also helped by well-placed Jews!
What does “kwa” mean? I tried to google it but no luck.
I think it’s short for “Ammurikwa.”
More revelations here:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/how-to-get-job-in-obama-administration.html
“Kwa” is the sound that the bird makes in the background of the African jungle movies. (for those of you not old enough to remember).
So far only one Roman Catholic US Senator has announced that he “may not” vote for Kagan. Two other Roman Catholic’s Leahy, and Kerry are behind 100% behind Kagan.
The Roman Catholic support for Kagan will be interesting because it supports my position that the Roman Catholic’s in the Congress will vote for the Jew agenda even when it is against Roman Catholic interests!
Why is the troll Tom Watson still allowed to post here?
Here’s Roman Catholic Voinovich’s very weak statement on Kagan:
http://www.bignews.biz/?id=870117&keys=Senator-George-Voinovich-SolicitorGeneral
My contention is that the Roman Catholic politicians in the Congress will vote for the Jew agenda even if it runs against perceived Roman Catholic interests.
My contention is that the Roman Catholic politicians in the Congress will vote for the Jew agenda even if it runs against perceived Roman Catholic interests.
Boy, I don’t know which hobby horse is ridden more on this site — the ‘Nordicist’ one, or Tom’s hang-ups with Catholics. :{
Culture of Critique works both ways.
America + Kwanzaa = Amerikwa.
cognates of Amerikwa = Kwa, Kwan, Kwop
Somebody must have hit her with an ugly stick.
@9 Kulak
You may want to be a Kulak—I don’t. LOL. Real world politics, is real world politics.
Here’s one a Russian/Eastern Europe expert might want to specualte on. Is Senator Snow of Maine a Greek Catholic, or an ethnic Jew? I’ve seen some pretty strong stuff that Snow who is from the Greek Island of Lesbos is an ethnic Jewess.
I count Kerry & Kaufman as Roman Catholics, even though Kerry is a half ethnic Jew, and Kaufman is an ethnic Jew. Both are Roman Catholics.
Does accepting logos remove jewish dna?
One thing no lefty comes thru their cult circus without spewing a large dose of anti-white rhetoric. Somewhere in her woodpile there should be some juicy quotes. I would even hazard a guess that they are a mirror image of a nazis anti-semetic rants.
@14 Raza
That’s a question I will leave up to you Roman & Greek Catholics. I just know how they vote.
Another good one is Reid of Nevada. His wife is a Jewess, a convert to Mormonism(is that what you call it), but, Reid claims he bases his decisions on his wife’s Jewish family.
Do you count Reid as a Jew?
I think we should be welcoming towards all White Christians; but, politically, Tom Watson may have a point about the Jewish leadership forming a coalition with the Roman Catholic leadership.
I think Tom’s take on things is interesting. Someone with less of an ax to grind posted a comment on Free Republic a few years ago that said something like: “the entire limited government, Constitutional Republic idea was a White Protestant project, and despite over one hundred years of presence in America none of the even the most successful immigrant groups have joined the project”. Obama won the following, as an example: 78% of Jews. 67% of Hispanics. 65% of Asians. 54% of Catholics. But only 45% of Protestants.
This is what made Rove’s idiotic plan to win elections with Mexican voters so very stupid.
And of course there may be differences between different Catholic ethnic groups. Here is an interesting article on European ethnic voting trends. (Includes both Protestant and Catholic ethnics.)
http://openleft.com/diary/15941/2008-electorate-european-americans-tribal-politics-persist
Hey Tom can you post a link on Olympia Snow. I couldn’t find anything to suggest she is anything except Greek Orthodox on both sides.
I think Tom’s take on things is interesting.
There’s certainly something to be said for his position, but he’s too monomaniacal and unintelligent to do it justice. He attempts to steer every thread he posts on in the direction of his hobby-horse. That’s why he’s still a troll even if he’s 100% correct in his theories.
Good post. Tim Wise and co. should take note: “white privilege” doesn’t exist, but due to ethnic networking, Jewish Privilege certainly does.
Those without networks stand no chance.
A call for whites to stick up for each other. We need defensive tribalism to counteract non-white tribalism.
Jews are represented in elite American academic institutions at levels far higher than can be explained by IQ.
Jews also have average incomes that are considerably higher than those of whites when IQ is controlled for. It’s reasonable to inquire how much of the vast Jewish over-representation among the student bodies at Ivy League colleges and the top law schools is due to ethnic networking as well.
@21 Gussie
I will rub your Roman Catholic nose in it every chance I get until your Roman Catholic political alliance with the Jews is broken.
I play real politics sonny. LOL.
Somebody must have hit her with an ugly stick.
She looks exactly like a post-op Dick Morris:
#14 jewish is a race, not a religion. One cannot give it up through any conversion, unless such conversion alters one’s genetics.
TabuLa Raza: The Jews are an ethnic group, not a race.
I will rub your Roman Catholic nose in it every chance I get until your Roman Catholic political alliance with the Jews is broken.
I’m not a Catholic.
I play real politics sonny. LOL.
You play retard troll politics. LOL!
I’d actually like you better if I did disagree with the general thrust of your message, as you’re a terrible advocate for it.
From the point of view of white nationalism, legal abortion is a wonderful thing. Let the other tribes and the feminists kill their own offspring.
How in God’s name did we let Christian Superstition become the bulwark of the “resistance”?
Watson, this protestant-catholic stuff about our useless politicians is a waste of time and energy. Organized Jewry owns them all, whatever
“church” they attend/don’t attend. Woodrow Wilson, WASP, allowed Bankster Warburg to inflict the Fed on us; WASP Roosevelt allowed Zion to inflict WW II on us; WASP LBJ allowed the Jews to take down our immigration system. And, Steve, Jews are not just a self-conscious “ethnic group”, they are a distinct race definable by differential DNA. It’s the Tribe’s genetic Will-to-Power plus their equally genetic ability to turn air into money (for themselves) that makes them so lethal.
Compassionate Fascist: Ethnic groups also have differential DNA. Just because Jews have genetic differences with the Syrians and Lebanese, it does not mean the Jews are a full racial classification-unless the English and Germans are different races. Are the English and Russians their own races?
They are genetically separated, much like the Jews and other Near Easterners are!
@9 Kulak
You may want to be a Kulak—I don’t. LOL. Real world politics, is real world politics.
Here’s one a Russian/Eastern Europe expert might want to specualte on. Is Senator Snow of Maine a Greek Catholic, or an ethnic Jew? I’ve seen some pretty strong stuff that Snow who is from the Greek Island of Lesbos is an ethnic Jewess.
I count Kerry & Kaufman as Roman Catholics, even though Kerry is a half ethnic Jew, and Kaufman is an ethnic Jew. Both are Roman Catholics. – Tom Watson
—
Tom,
Do you really think that White Protestant politicians are realistically any different from their congressional and senatorial Catholic colleages?
Please provide examples of any that you feel are different from the Capitol Hill norm.
*I give you credit for pointing out the Jewish ancestry of many so-called ‘Catholic’ politicians like Kerry and Snowe.
There’s not a single “Catholic” or “Protestant” politician in DC that actually “believes” anything their religion teaches. While I do agree with many of Watson’s posts, “Catholic” and “Protestant” may as well be “Democrat” and “Republican” or “Nordic” and “Med” – legitimate divisions among White people that matter zero when it comes to outsiders.
Watson is a known quantity having done the “Catholic” vs. “Protestant” thing here and at other blogs/Linder’s and while it’s true, it’s just as irrelevant as Dems vs GOP vs contards vs libtards.
Even all the Catholics here would agree that the post VII “Catholics” are the enemy, and all the Protestants would agree that the nutso “Christian” Zionists are the enemy.
So Prots vs Catholics is pretty much the same as GOP vs Dem.
Tom Watson, do you agree?
There’s not a single “Catholic” or “Protestant” politician in DC that actually “believes” anything their religion teaches. While I do agree with many of Watson’s posts, “Catholic” and “Protestant” may as well be “Democrat” and “Republican” or “Nordic” and “Med” – legitimate divisions among White people that matter zero when it comes to outsiders. – VVV
—
Veni,
Excellent points!
Let’s never forget as well that most politicians, especially at the national level, are not really Protestant or Catholic (or even Jewish) in any fundamental way — but are far, far more Freemasonic in ways that really matter and count.
Tom Watson — “I’ve seen some pretty strong stuff that Snow who is from the Greek Island of Lesbos is an ethnic Jewess.”
Tom, of what do you speak? This is what is in her Senate biography:
“Formerly Olympia Jean Bouchles, she was born on February 21, 1947, in Augusta, Maine. She is the daughter of the late George Bouchles, a native of Mytilene, Greece, and the late Georgia Goranites Bouchles, whose parents immigrated to America from Sparta. After the death of her parents, she was raised by her aunt and uncle, the late Mary and James Goranites of Auburn, Maine.”
And somewhere else that I can’t find right now, Tom says that Colorado senator Bob Bennett is a Jew. But his father was the former Senator from Utah, and his mother was the daughter of one of the Presidents of the Mormon Church!
Tom, do you just make your shit up for the fun of it?
And somewhere else that I can’t find right now, Tom says that Colorado senator Bob Bennett is a Jew. But his father was the former Senator from Utah, and his mother was the daughter of one of the Presidents of the Mormon Church!
Tom, do you just make your shit up for the fun of it?
Michael Bennet from Colorado, not Bob Bennett from Utah.
CA:”Somebody must have hit her with an ugly stick.”
As a person who takes the ancient art/science of physiognomy very seriously, I can definitively tell you that the Jewish physiognomy is very often repulsive; their looks betray them every time.
Some might say there is even a demonic look about them, especially this Jewess Kagan; see:
– http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Solicitor+General+Elena+Kagan+Addresses+Georgetown+EPIL9ol6sZkl.jpg
– http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/elena-kagan-2010-4-9-15-38-31.jpg
– http://www.lifenews.com/kagan.jpg
– http://www.mainjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/solicitorgeneral04-355×468.jpg
She has the look of a demoniac Soviet maniac drunk with power whose deepest desire is to persecute White male middle class kulaks.
When you see people with faces like that, all you need to know is that they cannot be trusted, that they are liars and cheats – in short, they are Jews.
When they keep running their mouths in that oh-so-Jewish lawyerly way, a firm White fist to their repulsive face will shut them up – that strategy worked for many centuries…not sure why we started being nice to them when they hate us so much, they steal our wealth, they flood our countries with non-Whites, and ultimately they want us extinct.
She has the look of a demoniac Soviet maniac drunk with power whose deepest desire is to persecute White male middle class kulaks. – W.P.
Did someone mention Kulaks??? ;}
She looks like Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love-
http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/007/frwl-1-0912-rosa-klebb.jpg
Rosa Klebb….as I recall, played by Jewess Lotte Lenya. Good casting. And, reply to Steve #31: OK, point taken. Except that Russians (and, until recently, English) were also integral NATIONS. Jews, on the other hand, have been trans-national for thousands of years, yet still maintain that genetic core…based on RACE, not nation. In fact, there is only race that perpetually sees itself as at war with the rest of the human race: Jews.
CompassionateFascist: So, the Yellows of Russia are the same race as the Slavic Russians? And, an English-American is of a different race from and Englishman back in England?
Just because a genetic population was in a disapora, it does not make it a full race. The Jews are an ethnic group, not a complete sub-category of a sub-species. They evolved in the Middle East, along with other Semites.
“In fact, there is only race that perpetually sees itself as at war with the rest of the human race: Jews.”
And you can confirm this statement, how?
I became Jew-wise from the theoretically purest of all sources – a Jewess with whom I was acquainted for years, who was as brutally honest and aware(Jewishly speaking) as one could ever imagine. I believe alienation from her VERY Jewish family was the catalyst for her “self-hating-Jew” position, but regardless, it made her a fascinating study in how Jews think, work and operate from the inside.
Essentially, she confirmed that everything we WN’s think is not only true, but openly discussed and acknowledged among Jews. All Jews, she noted, are basically brought up to be “two-faced” in all walks of life – there is one persona for the goy, and one for the Tribe. While obviously not all Jews observe such ethno-cultural norms, most do and certainly all “good Jews” do so religiously.
The above article just proves it all again. Jews view other Jews as “chosen” alright, but not in the silly, theological sense that Christians do. No, they view ALL other Jews as an ally – no matter how ideologically, culturally or politically opposed they may be, another Jew is ALWAYS closer to them than any Goy will ever be – ever! Jewish Supremacy is so ingrained in most Jews, there is no need to ever speak of it explicitly, or even acknowledge it implicitly – it is just understood and accepted as fact unassailable.
If only we “Gentiles” were half as ethno-racially conscious, we wouldn’t even having this discussion!
“Michael Bennet from Colorado, not Bob Bennett from Utah.”
OK, apologies to Tom. Eagerly await word on Olympia Snowe.
“Essentially, she confirmed that everything we WN’s think is not only true, but openly discussed and acknowledged among Jews.”
Well it is a little more complicated than that, because they also seem to be genuinely mystified by anti-Semitism. The Jewcy feature on Kevin MacDonald’s work is a good example of how some of the more curious Jews react to the more intelligent forms of anti-Semitism.
http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/02-27/is_kevin_macdonald_right
Update: Kagan’s (mostly jewish) media friends:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0510/Kagans_journo_friends.html?showall
For Elena Kagan, this much is true: She has friends in journo circles. Seems like everybody has a “Kagan Connection.”
Most assessments of Kagan begin like this:
“I first met Kagan in the mid-’90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,” wrote The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen.
“Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once,” wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.
“I had her for two classes” at Harvard Law School, said CBS’ Jan Crawford Greenberg. “But she was very challenging, while at the same time very engaging and lively.”
And those are just her periphery acquaintances.
“Elena danced at our wedding in 1986,” wrote The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin. “When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer.”
David Brooks wrote: “Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer.”
CQ’s Seth Stern told MSNBC: “I was her student in administrative law class” at Harvard.
And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.
All of this, of course, makes it weird that the White House would choose this controversial approach in its media unveiling of Kagan.
The one non-jew in the list, Jonathan Capehart, is black.
44 crypto aryan: “…they also seem to be genuinely mystifitd by anti-Semitism”. I went to your link. The Jews there seem to be utterly clueless.
For a more insightful member of a market dominant minority, look up Amy Chua’s “World on Fire”. She was curious why the cops in the Philippines didn’t care about her rich aunt’s brutal murder, and actually had the guts to investigate why the Chinese are so hated.
She looks like Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love-
I beg to differ. Rosa Klebb may be no specimen of female beauty but at least you can tell she’s a woman. Look at that picture of Kagan. In the words of Austin Powers, “That’s a man, baby.”
“In the words of Austin Powers, ‘That’s a man, baby.'” LOL! 🙂
TabuLa Raza: The Jews are an ethnic group, not a race.
Correct. Non-gentilery has a religion, a culture, a history, a language, a racial stock, etc. They’re a nation, an ethnic group, not a race.
Are Jews a Race?…What They Themselves Say!
An excerpt from David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism.
One of the first things I discovered is that while Gentiles who call the Jews a “race” are condemned, Jewish leaders have for centuries routinely called themselves a race. The leader of American Jewry in the 1930s, Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, said it succinctly in this dramatic statement,
“Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”
Right up to the present day, there are many statements illustrating how Jewish leaders matter-of-factly view themselves not just as a religion, but as an identifiable race, genetically distinguishable from other peoples.
Nahum Goldman, one of the leading Jews of the 20th Century and former president of the World Zionist Organization, said it very bluntly:
…The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The
latter are open to the charge of dishonesty.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/are-jews-a-race_473.html
As Eugene Volokh as noted, her small number of publications is unsurprising as she was not working as a scholar for very long (a Dean is part of academia, but in management). The citation count for papers she has published is quite high.
Duncan Kennedy got tenure at Harvard Law on the basis of basically one paper which was only published recently. As you might guess from the name, he’s not Jewish. He’s a radical lefty divestment supporter and has a few debates on video with Noah Feldman over foreign policy that you lot might be interested in.