Search Box

Thursday, November 23, 2017

The revenge of the shiksas

During this ongoing, ever burgeoning, season of sexual harassment recriminations, there have been a few themes. But one of the ones it's impossible to miss is that the majority of men accused have been Jewish.

Not all, of course. A fair number of those tarred, like Roy Price, John Lasseter, Kevin Spacey, Steve Jurvetson, Ed Westwick, Terry Richardson, Chris Savino, and Charlie Rose, are gentiles.

But over 50% of the prominent men ensnared in the recent wave of scandals have come from the 2.4% of the population which is Jewish: Harvey Weinstein, Brett Rattner, Oliver Stone, Steven Seagal, Dustin Hoffman, Jeremy Piven, Mike Oreskes, Leon Wieseltier, Louis C.K., Mark Helperin, Glenn Thrush, Al Franken, Murray Miller, Andrew Kreisberg, Jeffrey Tambor, and James Toback.

What do we make this? (Other than to pretend we don't notice, which is the socially acceptable thing to do.) Since this upheaval has been about men who've abused their positions of power, one easy conclusion is about who holds the power in this country. Especially in Hollywood and the press, where the scandals have centered.

Does it say something about Jewish attitudes toward the goyim that they considered the gentile women they hit on to be suitable prey? (If we are to take the feminist viewpoint here, "prey" is the right word.)

Most of the women these men targeted were gentiles. Mark Oppenheimer characterized Harvey Weinstein's trespasses as being peculiarly Portnoy-like in Tablet Magazine:

Better than perhaps any other author, Roth captured the particular anxiety of the Jewish American man in the twentieth century, finally coming into power but, having not grown up with it, unsure of what he’s supposed to do now. All those years craving unattainable Gentiles, but never before the means to entice them. The result is Alexander Portnoy of Portnoy’s Complaint, a grown man whose emotional and sexual life is still all one big performance piece, just as it had been when he was a teenager and pleasured himself with a piece of liver....

Harvey is cut from the same cloth. Growing up in Queens, he fantasized of fame and fortune, and, once he got them, he struggled to maintain them by building himself into a larger-than-life figure. He yelled at employees like he was a studio boss from the 1920s—the only thing missing was a riding crop. He ran Oscars campaigns like they used to in Old Hollywood. And he harassed women not necessarily to use them as instruments of his pleasure, but to use them as instruments of his power.


It's a little ironic that for the past half century, feminism has been largely led by Jewish women, yet most of the men caught in its latest iteration have been Jewish. It's doubtful that Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Susan Brownmiller, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Allred, Andrea Dworkin, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Wendy Wasserstein and company started out by saying, "Okay, we're going to tear down the Jewish power structure in this country!"

It was the WASP power structure that many of these ladies had in their sights back in the 60's. But what they set in motion has come back to bite them, or, at least, their sons.

Because just as surely as first wave feminism begat second wave feminism, the latter begat third wave feminism. And it's the third wave that has redefined the ordinary pass as an "unwanted sexual advance," then redefined that as "sexual assault." (This is not to say that actual sexual assaults don't take place, merely that an attempt at a kiss -- or talking dirty -- is not a rape.)

It's also ironic that so many of the men caught in this net have been prominent liberals. It's almost as if the more lip service you pay to feminism, the more lip service you expect from pretty young women.

(It's been speculated that this is all a calculated preamble to impeaching Trump for similar sins; but if so, it's an awfully roundabout way to accomplish that.)

Jewish sexuality is no different from goyim sexuality. (The only possible twist there is that masturbating in front of a woman, at least when not in prison, seems to be a peculiarly Jewish thing.)

But back to the larger question: are Jewish attitudes towards the goyim different from non-Jews' attitudes towards Jews? Is there a certain lack of respect, a certain lack of consideration, that these powerful Jewish men showed towards the good-looking shiksas they surrounded themselves with? ("Shiksa" was originally a Yiddish term meaning, according to Wiki, something impure, or an abomination, or an object of loathing.)

There may be some truth to the difference in attitudes. Although it's not talked about in polite company, Jewish ethnocentrism is a far stronger group ethic than, say, Anglo ethnocentrism. (Anglo ethnocentrism is invariably referred to as "racism.") But, it's also true that powerful men -- of whatever ethnicity -- will always use their power to get more women, one way or another. That happens everywhere, with everyone, all the time, and has always been the case.

This brings us to another question: are the "victims" (some real, some less so) who are now striking back motivated partly by resentment towards the current Jewish power structure?

Possibly.

Another theme it's hard not to notice, which I've mentioned before, is that a lot of the men caught up in this scandal been named have been undeniably ugly. And, a lot of them have been unmistakably Jewish-looking at the same time. It seems unfair that a handsome guy and an ugly guy can behave in exactly same manner, and one is accused of sexual harassment while the other simply enjoys a good time.

What do we make of that?

So what were the shiksas' thought processes, exactly? ("Ugh, I wouldn't have given this ugly dwarf the time of day in high school, and he thinks because he's a powerful producer now I'm gonna blow him? No way!")

Another possibility: even if they weren't anti-Semitic before, might their experiences with Harvey, Brett, and their ilk possibly have nudged them in that direction?

It's hard to say. All these factors are intertwined, and many of the women in the casting couch parade were willing participants. And for a fair number of these women, their own thought processes probably aren't clear even to them. (Consider Rose McGowan.) Actresses generally aren't known for their mental stability and rationality.

In any case, they do seem to be getting their revenge.

And it's the best entertainment Hollywood has given us in a while.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I should point out, Westwick may well be innocent. Indeed the response in the industry was one of disbelief with many suggesting the actress was trying to make a name for herself. But he got done in just after Spacey so he went trending. Westwick is gay.

Anonymous said...

Another possibility: even if they weren't anti-Semitic before, might their experiences with Harvey, Brett, and their ilk possibly have steered them in that direction?

That's the old joke, the greatest generators of anti-semitism are Israel and working in Hollywood. It's impossible to look at the behaviour of the Israeli government and public and as a Westerner not detect a viciousness and lack of empathy that is impossible to relate to. Similarly the stereotypes of Hollywood agents, directors, producers etc is legendary and likely without compare to other film industries, it's the petty meanness that seems to go beyond the lived experience of gentiles.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Ah, I thought he looked gay. So, yeah, likely innocent. Thank you.

John Craig said...

Anon of 3:11PM --
True, but it should also be pointed out that familiarity breeds contempt for practically everyone, with everyone. Hollywood does have a special reputation though.

Steven said...

I imagine its mostly to do with how hugely overrepresented Jews are in Hollywood.

I have no idea about their attitudes to non-Jews. This didn't even occur to me. Could it be?


John Craig said...

Steven --
I agree, it's mostly about their representation in Hollywood.

But I've heard about stuff that's written in the Talmud, not sure whether it's true or not, which would indicate a strong in-group/out-group preference.

Anonymous said...

I think the difference is that other groups which were highly parochial when they arrived in America are no longer, yet Jews still are, despite great wealth and social advancement along with high rates of endorsement and the highest levels of irreligiousness of any group.

And seems to go back to the question of how did Jews endure as a distinct group all that time when other groups, even ones with sectarian identifies (Huguenots, for example) melded in with the host population. They had to be highly ethnocentric and the massive population explosions in relative recent times demonstrate a high degree of genetic relatedness.

You cannot have a group with seems on all levels bohemian-endorsing, anti-authoritian-endorsing, anti-Aparheid-endorsing etc and still have those same 'liberals' go on trips to Israel as if it was Disneyland always there and history began in 1948 and hasn't sought to destabilise and bring to war, all those around it. As if the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians isn't still continuing in East Jerusalem. Only high levels of ingroup morality that sees those things as useful in disarming the dominant group in 'plunderspace' and irrelevant in 'homespace'. Is it good for the Jews? Regina Spektor says her musicality was 'awakened' while hiking in the Negev. (Ie, a place where the native Bedouins have been trapped in smaller and smaller reservations since after the creation of funk and jazz)

John Craig said...

Anon --
The disparity between what they want for Israel and what they want for Europe and the US is striking, and impossible to miss.

Anonymous said...

From a Brother Nathaneal YouTube video:
"My Jewish Past", 2/5/2017
"All my forebearers were Jews, including my father .... Yet upbringing does have an effect on social outlook, pretty hard to escape it - but one can resist.
For instance, in Jewish circles its considered a shame for a Jew to have to live in a mixed neighborhood of blacks and whites, due to low income.
In spite of their enlightened support of Black Lives Matter, in closed circles Jews call blacks schvartze's and shooks (sp?). And for all their support of Black Lives Matter,
they wouldn't be caught dead living under the same roof of one of its members.
I grew up with this kind of racism. Believe me, Jews are the biggest racists walking the face of the earth. I grew up with it.
For instance, if I ever said something stupid in a Jewish setting, I was ridiculed as having a 'goyishacup' (sp?), meaning Jews are smart and the gentiles are stupid."

Israel: ethnonationalism
US: multiculturalism / 'diversity is our strength'

Who benefits?

europeasant said...

I've known a few Jewish people. In army basic training during the week long camping stint I was paired up with this nerdy, glasses wearing Jewish kid. On an individual basis they are some of the most personable people I have ever met. I even dated a Jewish girl one time but I really wanted to date her friend who was hot looking.
The Internationalist Jew however is a whole different story. Don't know why but have a few guesses. I know about the Jewish over-representation in various intellectual matters. I've read "The Culture of Critique" which helped identify their mindset about always being a victim and their need to stick together and work together.
One last thing. I knew this Jewish guy at work who was not that smart but at least average IQ and he told me that in their culture it was shameful to do manual labor. As a computer programmer he was mediocre at best but that this was an acceptable line of work.

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
Yes, there does seem to be a dichotomy between Jewish people you meet personally and the ones who run AIPAC and the JDL etc.

On the few occasions I've spoken to Jewish friends about it, they'll always say something along the lines of, we were never ALLOWED to own land, that's why we don't become farmers etc. But there does seem to be an element of looking down on blue collar jobs. Then again, they're not the only people who do that.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly similar to Indians who find the dignity of labour (From their perspective) in the West so amazing they never fail to comment on it. To them a middle class university student working in a coffee shop is amazing.

And they behave very similar to Jews. (As do Roma and Arabs and Asians and even people from the Caucasus and Balkans...) I think Edward Said was right and wrong about Orientalism. It is true that there is a major difference between the West and the rest of Eurasian societies and that though respect for the individual and (Relative) egalitarianism maybe only one difference, it is so singularly important to make non-European Eurasian societies all seem very similar to a Western observer with no prejudice required.

John Craig said...

Anon --
There are subtle differences. Indians from India come from a caste society, and that mentality never leaves them, at least not in the first generation. Of all the East Asians, the Chinese tend to be the most ethnocentric, in my experience. The mainland Chinese government supposedly knows it can get Chinese-Americans to spy for them, whereas the Japanese government thinks no such thing of Japanese-Americans. (Although, in all honesty, there were some Japanese-Americans who during WWII were ready to fight for Japan, though they never did.) And of all the east Asians, Japanese tend to marry out more (hence my existence), whereas Chinese are much less likely to do so.

I've often noticed the similarity in attitude between the Roma and Jewish people; if you look at Roma as low-IQ Jews, you won't be too far off the mark.