[perryp]

Jews make up 2 to 3 percent of the US population. Jews make up 0.25% of the world population - a quarter of one percent.

The US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Jews form a majority of the neoconservative ideologues that create Bush's foreign and domestic policy.
Of the four leading Democrat candidates for President (Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Kerry) 100% are either Jews, married to Jews or have Jewish ancestry. Jews contribute half of donations to Democrat candiates (source). According to statistics here, Jews make up
76% of 'Most Influential Intellectuals'
60% of 'Top Hollywood Positions'
60% of Yale Grad Students
30% of Supreme Court Law Clerks

So I think it's fair to say that Jews, in proportion to their numbers, are very powerful. The heightened sensitivity to this fact - i.e people being called antisemitic for talking about this - is ironic proof of the fact.

Why is this? The answer is that Jews, for reasons both genetic and cultural, are far more intelligent than any other ethnic group - particularly in verbal intelligence. Secondly, Jews have for centuries thrived by milking the economic opportunities presented to them by the societies in which they live. In fact they have, since the Middle Ages, been kicked out of many countries for doing this rather too successfully. Thirdly, like any tribe or ethnic group, they stick together.

Now, Affirmative Action, in theory is supposed to give relatively unsuccessful groups more opportunity. Surely then, all gentiles should be recipients of Affirmative Action.

Or should Jews be restricted to a certain percentage. Look at this page. In it, it says, "With Indian-Americans already comprising 10 per cent of medical school students, medical schools have begun raising admission standards for Indian-Americans relative to other ethnic groups." So should Jews be restricted to 2% of population of universities (I believe the current level is about 30%)

[The Ayatollah]

blah blah blah. Welcome to your Weekly Jews-Rule-the-World and 'A Jewish Conspiracy Murdered My Dog' thread.

[Millennium]

Let me guess, they're also a race of EVIL ALIEN SERPENT PEOPLE who've been secretly manipulating world religion and poplitics for the last few millennia?

Geez; next thing you know, these conspiracy nuts will be saying the Pope is Jewish.

[nonhuman]

Wait, so I'm smart because I'm Jewish? Damn, all this time I thought I could be proud of my acheivements when really it's got nothing to do with me and everything to do with my ancestors. My life is suddently devoid of all meaning!

[davesimondotcom]

This thread reminds me of the never-aired "I need a Jew" episode of Family Guy. Where Peter thinks Chris will be smart and wealthy if he is a Jew...

[kindbud]

keep your eyes focused on the Jews


while the hillbillies take over the world.

[perryp]

No serious responses then?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by perryp:
No serious responses then?

Most of us don't consider you deserving of being taken seriously.

Nonetheless, it seems, someone has to do it before you'll Go Away, so I'll bite.

The Jews are arguably one of the most persecuted people in existence. I am not going to say that they should receive any sort of affirmative action because of this. Quite the opposite: I believe that this situation has, ironically, helped to catapult them to the state they are in today.

For example, let us look at the money situation. For well over a thousand years, there were no Christian or Islamic moneylenders. Why? Because both of these religions forbid usury. We now tend to define this as "the charging of unreasonable interest on loans", but in those days, it tended to mean the charging of any interest (many Muslims still follow this interpretation; banks in most Muslim states do not charge interest for this reason). This made moneylending a truly insane business for any Christian or Muslim to get into. The Jews filled a need, since they had no such prohibition. The particular need they filled gave them a virtual monopoly on the business, which gave them considerable influence on the money supply. An auspicious coincidence for them, but nothing more than that.

Oddly enough, show business is in a similar situation. During the time the whole moneylending thing was going on, actors were generally looked down upon in society, because they were seen as 'not contributing'. In many cases they were not afforded rights, much the same as the Jews were. Again, this made acting an insane profession for any non-Jew in Europe, but it left a hole to be filled. Jews had nothing to lose, so they filled those roles, establishing family traditions in the process, some of which continue to this day.

As for the intellectuals and the law clerks? These really fall into the same category: education. Judaism has always placed a high degree of importance on education. There have been times when Christianity and Islam have done this as well, but there have also been times -'Dark Ages' we tend to call them- when they have new. Those times have left intellectual scars on their respective traditions, many of which persist even today. Judaism's last Dark Age was thousands of years ago; they have had the chance to heal without any intervening dark ages. At times they suffered from the same lack of general academic availability as anyone else, but the principle of education as important remained. It had to; in many cases, it gave them a distinct edge over their oppressors.

My point in all this? Many persecuted peoples tend to stay beaten down long after their persecution ends, either out of fear or to take advantage of their former oppressors. Historically, however, the Jews didn't do this; they adapted to fulfill the larger societal needs of the time without losing their own traditions and identity. And as a result, in a time when their adaptations grant them power, they have power. That is no one's fault but that of their oppressors. It is a lesson that other oppressed peoples might do well to learn from.

I have always opposed affirmative action of all types, because I believe that it gives excellence a backseat to inclusivity, which I believe to be comparatively meaningless. I oppose this sort of affirmative action as well, even though I might benefit from it since I'm not Jewish. My cultural ancestors may have gotten me into this situation, but it is my responsibility -and mine alone- to get myself out of it. For me to believe anything else would be hypocritical, since I believe this of others as well. Would such affirmative action be nice? Perhaps, though probably not directly in my chosen field. But why should I or anyone else be entitled to such a thing?

[perryp]

Mr Millennium, that's a very pretty speech. A speech about history. I'm not talking about history - I'm talking about now.
And right now, as I mentioned, that even though Jews are 2% of the US population, they make up:
76% of 'Most Influential Intellectuals'
60% of 'Top Hollywood Positions'
60% of Yale Grad Students
30% of Supreme Court Law Clerks
Of the four leading Democrat candidates for President (Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Kerry) 100% are either Jews, married to Jews or have Jewish ancestry. Jews contribute half of donations to Democrat candidates.

These are not figures I've pulled out of a hat. These figures have sources. Would it be acceptable to have one small minority have such overwhelming power? If your answer is yes, then was the old South Africa acceptable to you? Read what I wrote - "With Indian-Americans already comprising 10 per cent of medical school students, medical schools have begun raising admission standards for Indian-Americans relative to other ethnic groups." Are Jews untouchable where other groups aren't?

[effgee]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Wait, so I'm smart because I'm Jewish?

Or must I be Jewish because I'm so smart? Why didn't anyone ever tell me?



Uh, I'm so confused ...

[effgee]

"Uh, arrrrr, hmpffffft ... must resist the urge..."

"Ah crap ... I can't ..."

Originally posted by perryp:
Jews, for reasons both genetic and cultural, are far more intelligent than any other ethnic group

Well, then I think it's pretty safe to say that neither Bush or Cheney have a single drop of Jewish blood in their venes ...

/apologizes for cheap joke

"It was just too tempting - tried to resist but coudn't help it"

[Millennium]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Millennium, that's a very pretty speech. A speech about history. I'm not talking about history - I'm talking about now.

Yes. And I am showing where now came from.

And right now, as I mentioned, that even though Jews are 2% of the US population, they make up:
76% of 'Most Influential Intellectuals'
60% of 'Top Hollywood Positions'
60% of Yale Grad Students
30% of Supreme Court Law Clerks
Of the four leading Democrat candidates for President (Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Kerry) 100% are either Jews, married to Jews or have Jewish ancestry. Jews contribute half of donations to Democrat candidates.

Nice cut/paste job.

I ask you: must every possible subdivision of society be a perfect microcosm of the whole? Although this may seem intuitive at first, it discounts the fact that humans are individuals, with their own hopes, thoughts, feelings, and dreams. The laws of statistics break down when your samples are sentient.

In this particular case, I try and point out that the reason for this has to do with the fact that the fields in which Jews have disproportionate numbers are fields in which the Jews have traditionally placed much higher importance than many other cultures have. Naturally there would be disproportionate numbers, and when you look at the situations that gave rise to such a culture (as well as those around it), even these proportions make sense.

These are not figures I've pulled out of a hat. These figures have sources.

I don't doubt they have 'sources'. And while I doubt the motives of your sources, the numbers are quite possibly true.

Would it be acceptable to have one small minority have such overwhelming power?

That depends: how did they get such power? If they got it by fair and honest means, then certainly they should have such power: they earned it.

No doubt, there are some Jews who obtained their power through dishonest and/or unfair means. Such people exist in every population; that's why things like law exist in the first place. However, such people -again, as with any population- are usually discovered and punished for their misdeeds, and are not indicative of the population in general. On the whole, however, the Jewish culture in the US earned its power honestly, due perhaps in no small part to the relative stupidity of the cultures around it (I mean, come on; forbidding moneylending?), but that is not anyone's fault but the cultures which made the mistakes.

If your answer is yes, then was the old South Africa acceptable to you?

Certainly not. That was a case where a group came to power through dishonest, illegitimate means: namely, by invading and then oppressing the native population.

Read what I wrote - "With Indian-Americans already comprising 10 per cent of medical school students, medical schools have begun raising admission standards for Indian-Americans relative to other ethnic groups." Are Jews untouchable where other groups aren't?[/B]

No. I don't believe it's fair to raise admission standards for Indian-Americans either, even though (not being Indian-American) I would have benefited from that had I chosen to go into medicine. Would it have been convenient for me? Probably, yes. But I see no reason why I or anyone else ought to be entitled to such a benefit at the expense of another group.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by perryp:
Why is this? The answer is that Jews, for reasons both genetic and cultural, are far more intelligent than any other ethnic group - particularly in verbal intelligence.

I hadn't actually seen this in your original post; thanks to effgee for pointing it out.

Jews do, it seems, more consistently value education as part of their culture than many other ethnic groups. But where the heck are you getting this 'genetic' bit from? Are you trying to say that the Jews are some kind of 'master race' or something (and yes, I used that term intentionally)?

Come to think of it, what ethnicity are you? Given your post it's difficult to tell.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Come to think of it, what ethnicity are you? Given your post it's difficult to tell.

And of what intelligence?

Equally hard to tell.

-s*

[perryp]

Well, then I think it's pretty safe to say that neither Bush or Cheney have a single drop of Jewish blood in their venes ...

Veins. And I agree, Bush is stupid.

In this particular case, I try and point out that the reason for this has to do with the fact that the fields in which Jews have disproportionate numbers are fields in which the Jews have traditionally placed much higher importance than many other cultures have. Naturally there would be disproportionate numbers, and when you look at the situations that gave rise to such a culture (as well as those around it), even these proportions make sense.

Mr Millennium, exactly the same arguments could be used as an excuse for the old South Africa.

I don't doubt they have 'sources'. And while I doubt the motives of your sources, the numbers are quite possibly true.

Mr Millennium, do you doubt the motives of The Jewish Bulletin? Is there something inherently suspicious to you about a Jewish source? Mr Millennium, you will have explain yourself.

I hadn't actually seen this in your original post; thanks to effgee for pointing it out.

Mr Millennium, you have now admitted you haven't read my post. Admission of intellectual dishonesty is a brave thing for you to do, and for that I applaud you.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Millennium, exactly the same arguments could be used as an excuse for the old South Africa.

What was fair, honest, or honorable about what happened in South Africa?

Mr Millennium, do you doubt the motives of The Jewish Bulletin? Is there something inherently suspicious to you about a Jewish source? Mr Millennium, you will have explain yourself.

I suppose there is something inherently suspicious to me about a Jewish source. This is because there is something inherently suspicious to me about any source.

I make it a point to doubt the motives of any source for any statistics; I'm sorry if I failed to make that clear. I've already pointed out why I do this: namely, that I consider the principles of statistics to be suspect when applied to humans, or any other subject which does not act in a random manner.

Mr Millennium, you have now admitted you haven't read my post.

No, what I missed was the 'genetic' part. A simple oversight, though admittedly it did have important implications. However, that doesn't mean I did not read your post.

Admission of intellectual dishonesty is a brave thing for you to do, and for that I applaud you.

There are very few things that I am not prepared to tolerate, but accusations of intellectual dishonesty are high on that list. A single oversight is not equivalent to academic dishonesty.

[davesimondotcom]

perryp -

Because they make up a smaller percentage of the population, should Jewish people try to fail, rather than to succeed?

The argument you seem to make is that they should be punished for being successful. I don't think that's fair. I think that everyone should be encouraged to be successful, no matter what their religion, skin color, etc.

I also have a feeling that Jews would make up a higher percentage of the population of the world if they hadn't suffered a holocaust just about three generations ago, in which millions of them were slaughtered.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by perryp:
Jews make up 2 to 3 percent of the US population. Jews make up 0.25% of the world population - a quarter of one percent.

The US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Jews form a majority of the neoconservative ideologues that create Bush's foreign and domestic policy.
Of the four leading Democrat candidates for President (Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Kerry) 100% are either Jews, married to Jews or have Jewish ancestry. Jews contribute half of donations to Democrat candiates (source). According to statistics here, Jews make up
76% of 'Most Influential Intellectuals'
60% of 'Top Hollywood Positions'
60% of Yale Grad Students
30% of Supreme Court Law Clerks

So I think it's fair to say that Jews, in proportion to their numbers, are very powerful. The heightened sensitivity to this fact - i.e people being called antisemitic for talking about this - is ironic proof of the fact.

Why is this? The answer is that Jews, for reasons both genetic and cultural, are far more intelligent than any other ethnic group - particularly in verbal intelligence. Secondly, Jews have for centuries thrived by milking the economic opportunities presented to them by the societies in which they live. In fact they have, since the Middle Ages, been kicked out of many countries for doing this rather too successfully. Thirdly, like any tribe or ethnic group, they stick together.

Now, Affirmative Action, in theory is supposed to give relatively unsuccessful groups more opportunity. Surely then, all gentiles should be recipients of Affirmative Action.

Or should Jews be restricted to a certain percentage. Look at this page. In it, it says, "With Indian-Americans already comprising 10 per cent of medical school students, medical schools have begun raising admission standards for Indian-Americans relative to other ethnic groups." So should Jews be restricted to 2% of population of universities (I believe the current level is about 30%)

what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Since the Jews are historically the most persectuted of races, you'd imagine they have developed some pretty strong survival instincts and incredible resourcefulness. From my observations, they have a remarkable work ethic, keen instincts, and stronger than average nurturing traits in relation to their young. If you compound those with a very tight racial bond and (typically) strong spiritual bonds, you can plainly see why they seem to control their destinies rather easily. Pound for pound, I'd say they're the "strongest" of human races.

And no, I'm not Jewish. This is just a frank outsider's observation.

[perryp]

What was fair, honest, or honorable about what happened in South Africa?

Exactly Mr Millennium. Exactly. It is terrible for one small group to have such power, and I'm glad you now agree with me.

there is something inherently suspicious to me about a Jewish source.

Mr Millennium, I am appalled by your prejudice. Please try to view things more objectively.

There are very few things that I am not prepared to tolerate, but accusations of intellectual dishonesty are high on that list.

Please, Mr Millennium, be serious. I did not accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, you freely admitted it yourself. And you've also showed your intolerance with your remarks on the suspiciousness of Jewish sources.

From my observations, they have a remarkable work ethic, keen instincts, and stronger than average nurturing traits in relation to their young. If you compound those with a very tight racial bond and (typically) strong spiritual bonds, you can plainly see why they seem to control their destinies rather easily. Pound for pound, I'd say they're the "strongest" of human races.

Mr MacNStein, your view of one set of people as a master race has some well known historical precedents. I hope you are not saying they should be replicated.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by perryp:
Exactly Mr Millennium. Exactly. It is terrible for one small group to have such power, and I'm glad you now agree with me.

Except that I don't agree with you.

Power is, by itself, neither a good nor evil thing. What makes it good or bad depends on two things: how it was obtained, and how it is used.

Let us compare the situations in the US and South Africa, then, in light of these. The group in South Africa got its power through invading, and then suppressing, the local populace. Certainly this cannot be considered a Good Thing. The resulting use of that power -apartheid- was also clearly an evil act. Clearly, it was horrible for them to have such power.

Let us look at the situation with the US Jews (since this seems to be the focus of your investigation). They seem to have gotten their power by forming strong cultural traditions which value education, and by doing jobs which no one else was willing to do. Both of these seem to be good things, rather than evil. In terms of how they have used this power, I have yet to see them oppress anyone. So once again, I see no reason to say that it is a Bad Thing that they have such power.

Now, we could contrast the situation in Israel, which is directly comparable to that in South Africa. However, Israel does not appear to be your focus, and it's worth noting that there are more Jews in the US than there are in Israel, so that situation can't even be called representative of the whole.

Mr Millennium, I am appalled by your prejudice. Please try to view things more objectively.

Thank you for taking my quote out of context. If you notice the rest of the paragraph (a measly one sentence), you would note that this is because there is something inherently suspicious (as far as I am concerned) about all news sources, and I do not treat Jewish ones any differently from that. What could possibly be more objective?

Please, Mr Millennium, be serious. I did not accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, you freely admitted it yourself.

No, I admitted an accidental oversight, which you are claiming was a deliberate lie.

And you've also showed your intolerance with your remarks on the suspiciousness of Jewish sources.

If there is anything I don't tolerate -aside from being accused of intellectual dishonesty- it is statistics applied to humanity. And as I already said, I trest Jewish sources no differently than any other in this regard. I appear to have worded this poorly in my previous post, but I stand by what I have said.

Are you deliberately trying to bait me, by twisting my words?

Mr MacNStein, your view of one set of people as a master race has some well known historical precedents.

Including some very recent ones. For example, I can think of one from just yesterday morning, from this guy who said that other ethnic groups should be coddled because of it. Man oh man, he was a strange one. And then he tried to proclaim that other people were doing the same thing.

I hope you are not saying they should be replicated.

From what I can tell, he isn't. Are you?

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
Why is this? The answer is that Jews, for reasons both genetic and cultural, are far more intelligent than any other ethnic group - particularly in verbal intelligence.

Genetic reasons? I could just let that one speak for itself but like Millennium I'll bite. Besides, given our recent debate over in the "Negroid. Mongoloid. What are white people?" thread and considering the positions you advocated there ... I must say that I find this statement to be most uh, .... illuminating.

Having said that, I thought I'd ask you a few simple questions....

1. Do you have any information regarding the identification of a gene or set of genes that control intelligence? If so, please provide a link.

2. Do you have any information that indicates that this gene or set of genes is present in Jews in higher concentrations than in other ethnic groups? If so, please provide a link.

3. The last time I checked, Judaism was a religion. A religion that is practiced by people of different ancestries. Do you have any information that indicates that a religion can be genetically transmitted from one generation to the next? If so, please provide a link.

4. Do you have any information that indicates that Jews (both male and female) can be accurately distinguished on a genetic level from other humans? Especially considering their very small numbers and extensive intermingling with other ethnic groups throughout their history? If so, please provide a link.

OAW

[christ]

Well - I want nothing to do with perry, or his hobbyhorses, but this

Originally posted by OAW:
3. The last time I checked, Judaism was a religion. A religion that is practiced by people of different ancestries. Do you have any information that indicates that a religion can be genetically transmitted from one generation to the next? If so, please provide a link.

4. Do you have any information that indicates that Jews (both male and female) can be accurately distinguished on a genetic level from other humans? Especially considering their very small numbers and extensive intermingling with other ethnic groups throughout their history? If so, please provide a link.

seems worthy of a response.

Aren't Jews all (or at least mostly) descended from some of the twelve tribes? Isn't that what differentiates them from other Semites (descendents of the others of the twelve)? Judaism is not (generally) 'practiced by people of different ancestries'.

I don't have any evidence, but just from looking at the cultural aspects of the Jewish religion, and the clan nature of the 'chosen people' I would expect that there would be a very strong genetic link among most Jews.

In the same way that all humans should be genetically traceable back to Adam (a postulated real one rather than any religious one), most Jews should be genetically traceable back to one of the original tribes, and even beyond.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by christ:
Aren't Jews all (or at least mostly) descended from some of the twelve tribes?

More or less. There is definitely a belief in a common ancestry, which some have interpreted as a racial component.

The term 'anti-Semitic' actually reflects this, since 'semitic' is the name of the race. It derives from Shem, one of Noah's three sons. According to Jewish lore, Abraham was a descendant of Shem.

I don't have any evidence, but just from looking at the cultural aspects of the Jewish religion, and the clan nature of the 'chosen people' I would expect that there would be a very strong genetic link among most Jews.

Indeed there is. It's not always beneficial, though. Do a Google search for 'Tay-Sachs Disease' for one example: it is a genetic disorder found mostly within a specific group of Jewish people (though it has also been found in unusually large quantities in Louisiana and Quebec, possibly from a ).

In the same way that all humans should be genetically traceable back to Adam (a postulated real one rather than any religious one)...

Indeed, men have been traced back to a 'Y-chromosome Adam'. This is the same basic principle as the mitochondrial Eve, except it uses the Y chromosome instead (like mitochondrial DNA, the Y chromosome transmits from father to son almost entirely unchanged). The problem is that only men can be traced by this method, since women don't have Y-chromosomes.

...most Jews should be genetically traceable back to one of the original tribes, and even beyond.

Possibly. However, Judaism uses a system of matrilineal descent, so it would be more appropriate to use mitochondria to determine this, and trace back to a hypothetical 'mitochondrial Sarah' (Sarah being Abraham's wife).

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:

Aren't Jews all (or at least mostly) descended from some of the twelve tribes? Isn't that what differentiates them from other Semites (descendents of the others of the twelve)? Judaism is not (generally) 'practiced by people of different ancestries'.

If the Jews are "Semites" as is claimed, then there would be very little if anything that would distinguish them from other "Semites" on a genetic level. And that is assuming one could identify a "Semite" on a genetic level in the first place. The primary thing that distinguished the Jews from other "Semites" was their religion.

Originally posted by christ:

In the same way that all humans should be genetically traceable back to Adam (a postulated real one rather than any religious one), most Jews should be genetically traceable back to one of the original tribes, and even beyond.

Perhaps. But one has to keep in mind that when the Jews were dispersed after Israel was destroyed they went to other lands. While the tradition was to marry amongst themselves, this was not always the case. Often Jewish males took wives from the population of the country they were living in. Furthermore, the whole notion of "all Jews having a common ancestry" presupposes that religious conversion was not a significant factor in the growth of the Jewish population.

Originally posted by Millennium:

More or less. There is definitely a belief in a common ancestry, which some have interpreted as a racial component.

There are Jews in a variety of "races" as that term is commonly used. There are "white" Jews with European ancestry. "Semitic" Jews with Middle Eastern ancestry. Even "black" Jews with African ancestry (Ethiopia). "Common ancestry" does not necessarily equate to "common 'racial' background".

Originally posted by Millennium:

The term 'anti-Semitic' actually reflects this, since 'semitic' is the name of the race. It derives from Shem, one of Noah's three sons. According to Jewish lore, Abraham was a descendant of Shem.

Indeed. But one has to bear in mind that the vast majority of the Jewish population today are Ashkenazi Jews of European descent... and according to biblical texts .... Ashkenaz was a descendant of Noah's son Japheth ... not Shem. It's for this reason why I always chuckle when I see a European Jew using the term "anti-semitic". Especially against an Arab!

OAW

[Millennium]

Originally posted by OAW:
Furthermore, the whole notion of "all Jews having a common ancestry" presupposes that religious conversion was not a significant factor in the growth of the Jewish population.

Given Judaism's handling of converts, this could very well be the case. Converting to Judaism is not an easy process; in fact, a rabbi has to try to talk you out of it before you are allowed to convert.

There are Jews in a variety of "races" as that term is commonly used. There are "white" Jews with European ancestry. "Semitic" Jews with Middle Eastern ancestry. Even "black" Jews with African ancestry (Ethiopia). "Common ancestry" does not necessarily equate to "common 'racial' background".

Indeed not, at least according to one interpretation. There are others; note that I said that some interpret it as a racial component. Those who do tend to discount the fact of there being multiple 'races' of Jews.

Indeed. But one has to bear in mind that the vast majority of the Jewish population today are Ashkenazi Jews of European descent... and according to biblical texts .... Ashkenaz was a descendant of Noah's son Japheth ... not Shem. It's for this reason why I always chuckle when I see a European Jew using the term "anti-semitic". Especially against an Arab!

Careful of using the word Ashkenazi; perryp's going to accuse you of subliminal hate speech

[DeathToWindows]

Death resists the urge to teach perryp what it means to be hated for millennia.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

There is no such thing as an unbiased source or an unbiased author|reader|critic.

[ghost_flash]

I'm saving up to be jewish.

There is no way Homer can be Jewish,
he's just too dumb. (drool).

[DeathToWindows]

What was that? A neanderthal with BSE?

[Face Ache]

This is interesting:

http://www.charitywire.com/charity11/00628.html

American Jewish Year Book Projects Large Decline in U.S. Jewish Population

American Jewish Committee
Monday, 11 September 2000
(it's a bit old)

Assuming that current trends continue, total Jewish population in the United States is expected to shrink by one-third, to an estimated total of 3.8 million, by the year 2080, while Israel's Jewish population will likely double, reaching 10 million, contributing to an overall moderate increase in the total number – 15 million – of Jews worldwide.

These demographic projections are part of a pathbreaking, comprehensive study on Jewish population trends printed in the 100th edition of the American Jewish Year Book, published by the American Jewish Committee.

The article offers comprehensive projections for Jewish population in the United States and Israel, as well as in the former Soviet Union, Latin America, South Africa and other regions around the world. The study is in addition to the review of current Jewish population statistics that is an annual feature of the Year Book.

"We have an enormously rich collection of data, with profound implications for the American, Israeli and worldwide Jewish communities," said Lawrence Grossman, editor of the American Jewish Year Book.

The projections are included in the 2000 Year Book article, "Prospecting the Jewish Future: Population Projections, 2000-2080," authored by three respected demographers at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel – Sergio DellaPergola, professor and head of the Division of Jewish Demography and Statistics, Uzi Rebuhn, and Mark Tolts.

Among the projections:

- Jewish population worldwide is expected to grow from 13.1 million in 2000, to 13.8 million by 2020, 14 million in 2030 and 15 million in 2080.

- Israel's Jewish population is expected to double over the next 80 years, increasing to about 6 million in 2020, slightly less than 8 million by 2050, and over 10 million in 2080.

- Current low fertility levels combined with an already old age composition will inevitably lead to shrinkage in the total number of Jews outside Israel. Diaspora Jewry will decline from 8.3 million in 2000, to 7.8 million in 2020, 6.5 million in 2050,and 5.3 million in 2080.

- In the United States, the Jewish population will drop from 5.7 million in 2000 to 5.6 million in 2020, to 4.7 million in 2050 and 3.8 million in 2080.

Thus, by the middle of the century an absolute majority of Jews will be living in Israel, according to the demographic projections. In addition, younger Jews will be increasingly concentrated in Israel, while greater percentages of older Jews will be in the Diaspora, primarily in Europe and the United States.

- Within the next two decades Israel will most likely be home to the absolute majority of the world's Jewish children. By 2080, 77 to 86 percent of all Jews under age 15 will be living in Israel. Today, some 45 percent of all Jews 15 years old or younger live in Israel.

- Because of its large size, the Jewish community of North America (United States and Canada) will remain the home of the absolute majority of Diaspora Jewish children.

- Depending on different fertility assumptions, the percentage of children under 15 is expected to range between 21 and 26 percent of the Jewish population in Israel by 2020, and between 11 and 16 percent of all Diaspora communities.

- The elderly population aged 65 and over, will range between 14 and 16 percent in Israel and between 24 and 27 percent in the Diaspora.

- By 2080, North American Jewry will host the second largest share of elderly Jews, following European Jewry, which will be more than 50 percent elderly.

- By the year 2080 more than 40 percent of the Diaspora will be 65 and over.

These projections, the authors point out, could be affected by changes in fertility rates, and the three demographers offer in their Year Book article other scenarios for population growth based on lower or higher than current average fertility levels. But the general trends of shrinking population in the Diaspora and a pronounced population shift to Israel remain constant.

The Jewish population in European countries and in the former Soviet Union will diminish more significantly due to their older age composition and lower levels of fertility. The once large presence of Jews in Russia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union is headed for extinction during this century.

- Europe, not including the former Soviet Union, is expected to show a total population of between 971,000 and 1,030,000 in 2020, between 659,000 and 954,000 in 2050, and between 409,000 and 883,000 in 2080.

- French Jewry will experience a slow but steady decline from 520,000 in 2000, to 480,000 in 2020, to 380,000 in 2050, and 300,000 in 2080.

- The Jewish population in the United Kingdom will decline to 240,000 in 2020, 180,00 in 2050, and 140,000 in 2080.

- Jews in Germany will experience continuing growth to a peak of about 110,000 in 2020, followed by a decrease which would reflect exhaustion of the migration reservoir in the former Soviet Union and German Jewry's high average age and extremely low fertility.

- Former Soviet Union: Total Jewish population declined from 1.5 million in 1989 to 440,000 in 2000, due primarily to mass emigration. Assuming current fertility and emigration rates continue, Jewish population will continue to decline sharply to between 160,000 and 166,000 in 2010, 60,000 and 64,000 in 2020, 22,000 and 24,000 in 2030; 2,000 and 3,000 in 2050 – and virtually none by 2080.

Implications for Future: The three demographers conclude in their American Jewish Year Book article that the projected population trends will have profound ramifications for Israel-Diaspora relations and for Jewish communal services, such as education and health care, in the Diaspora.

- The imbalance of the Jewish age composition in most countries outside of Israel could become so overwhelming as to endanger the effective functioning of Jewish community services.

- The chief responsibility for ensuring adequate Jewish education and cultural continuity among future generations will gradually pass from the Diaspora to Israel.

- With a growing share of world Jewry residing in Israel, Israeli society will be asked increasingly to rely on its own productive and intellectual resources, and less on the material and moral help that has long come from the Diaspora.

- Israel will increasingly have to take up a supportive role in relation to shrinking and aging Jewish community elsewhere.

- North American Jewry, long the backbone of the world Jewish community system, might find itself more concerned with internal needs and less available to aid other Jewish communities.

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org

I never realised there were so few Jews. How on earth do they find the time to run everything?!

[perryp]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I never realised there were so few Jews. How on earth do they find the time to run everything?!

Delegating

[christ]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
This is interesting:
- With a growing share of world Jewry residing in Israel, Israeli society will be asked increasingly to rely on its own productive and intellectual resources, and less on the material and moral help that has long come from the Diaspora.
...
- North American Jewry, long the backbone of the world Jewish community system, might find itself more concerned with internal needs and less available to aid other Jewish communities.

This is interesting in terms of Israel's long term survival - if Jewry has less influence in America, and less ability to wield that influence, it is fair to assume that America's massively pro-Israel stance may weaken, making Israel need to stand on its own two feet. If the rest of the middle east maintains its anti-Israel stance, this could lead to trouble. Maybe the current activity in the middle east is designed (at least partially) to resolve the situation in favour of Israel before it is too late?

[itai195]

Originally posted by perryp:
So should Jews be restricted to 2% of population of universities (I believe the current level is about 30%)

That's quite a perverse re-interpretation of affirmative action.

Is this guy the new incarnation of ODL?

[hyteckit]

I say Affirmative Action for short and ugly people! Taller and more beautiful people always get higher paying jobs.

[Mithras]

Disclaimer (like it matters): I am not a Jew.

Originally posted by perryp:
So should Jews be restricted to 2% of population of universities (I believe the current level is about 30%)

Interesting suggestion. I've been reading a history of Hungary in the past week. Hungary passed a law restricting admission of Jews in the University to their proportion of the population -- in 1937, to appease the part of the population sympathetic to the neighboring Nazis. They made further concessions along over the next several years, eventually declaring a "neutrality" that was aligned with the Germans.

I visited Hungary over the holidays, and one of the tourist attractions is the central synagogue. You can go and see the photos of the sequestering of the Jews into the ghetto - you know, to keep them from having too much influence in the rest of the country. Then you can see the photos of them being rounded up. Then you can see the photos of them on the trains bound for Dachau. Hungary used to have 500,000 Jews. Thanks to the aid of a few brave souls who spirited many away to Sweden and Switzerland, there are 80,000 still today.

[Mithras]

Asian-Americans make up 4% of the US population (census)

Yet they make up ~ 15% of Ivy League students. (NYT)

The US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Christians (or deists) form 100% of the presidents of that country.

[Mithras]

Let's look at your sources:

Jews contribute half of donations to Democrat candiates (source).

Actually, what is said is:

If Jewish money accounts for an estimated half of big-time Democratic donations during the presidential primary season, then Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) would seem to be at a distinct advantage.

But that may not be the case

Dean got most of his money from under-$50 donations. So I think your vaunted "arch-influence of Jews in politics" is a bit overrated.


I really like your source for this one:

According to statistics here, Jews make up
76% of 'Most Influential Intellectuals'
60% of 'Top Hollywood Positions'
etc.

The site you get those statistics from has some other interesting statistics as well, like:

In short, racial diversity in the classroom reduces white achievement more than it improves black.

But before you blame income and socioeconomic status for the test score gaps, consider this:
Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.

Nationally, the Hispanic-white gap is more variable than the black-white gap. Part of the reason is that the term Hispanic applies to several groups genetically far removed from one another

Is this level-headed rationality, or the dogged pursuit of race-baiting?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by itai195:
That's quite a perverse re-interpretation of affirmative action.

Is it? I'm not so sure. While it certainly does go against the original intent, there are many people -most of them quite liberal- who believe that whenever a subdivision of society is not a perfect microcosm of society as a whole, it must be the result of some kind of oppression and therefore steps must be taken to correct it.

Personally, I think that this theory is ridiculous. But it seems to be what perryp is suggesting, and he is far from alone. It is the classic fallacy that equal opportunity means equal outcome.

[perryp]

No one has been able to tell me why it's OK to:

Restrict Asian-Americans using a quota system:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0312/hentoff.php

Restrict Indian-Americans using a quota system:
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/dec/16us2.htm


And yet, the most successful group of all, Jewish-Americans, is not restricted. Why?

[voyageur]

Some Jewish friends of mine feel the geographic restrictions used by many elite eastern colleges do exactly that. By restricting the number of, say, students from the New York and Long Island area that are accepted to Harvard, they feel it effectively limits the number of Jews. An interesting thought, but I don't know anything more about it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by perryp:
No one has been able to tell me why it's OK to:

Restrict Asian-Americans using a quota system:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0312/hentoff.php

Restrict Indian-Americans using a quota system:
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/dec/16us2.htm


And yet, the most successful group of all, Jewish-Americans, is not restricted. Why?

My take on the whole thing is that it's not OK to restrict anyone using a quota system.

Does this mean that some groups may find themselves disproportionately unsuccessful? Maybe. If so, that is an indication of serious problems which need to be found (if they are not known) and addressed within those groups. But these artificial-diversity campaigns do nothing except cover those problems up, taking away one of the only effective barometers we have of whether or not anything is actually working.

Whose idea was it that inclusivity was more important than excellence, anyway? If someone can do the job well -be that job studying, programming, construction or anything else- then race, gender, religion, and whatever should be held as basically meaningless. Conversely, if someone can't meet the same standards as anyone else, they shouldn't get a break because of these things, which are still meaningless.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by perryp:
No one has been able to tell me why it's OK to:

Restrict Asian-Americans using a quota system:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0312/hentoff.php

Restrict Indian-Americans using a quota system:
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/dec/16us2.htm


And yet, the most successful group of all, Jewish-Americans, is not restricted. Why?

You hate Jews apparently. But the articles you cited don't support your argument.

The Village Voice piece was about how Asian-Americans are not included in the minorities given extra consideration for admission. Jews are in the same boat -- they aren't given any bonus points.

The Rediff.com article is by Indian-Americans, for Indian-Americans, suggesting that they look at professions other than medicine for fulfillment. The line "medical schools have begun raising admission standards for Indian-Americans relative to other ethnic groups" is again a reference to the fact that Asians are generally not given the "bump" of affirmative actions. Again, white Jews are in the same boat.

So Jews are already "restricted" in the senses that you cite, insofar as they are not helped by the programs designed to help lift up disadvantaged minorities, i.e. blacks and Hispanics.

If you're against affirmative action, fine, I'm sympathetic to that position. But that could very well result in more of your hated Jewry in elite universities and professions.


In fact, your own post brings to mind a question -- when Asian-Americans are similarly "overrepresented" in the professions, why are you obsessing over Jews?
My suggestion would be that it goes back to historical anti-Semitism, and the sense (amongst Jews and Gentiles) that the Jews are somehow "special", deserving of either credit or vitriole out of proportion to either their population or their influence.

[nonhuman]

Affirmative Action for gentiles:


Damn goyim, stealing our women!

[itai195]

Originally posted by Millennium:
My take on the whole thing is that it's not OK to restrict anyone using a quota system.

You just answered your own question about why I claimed his interpretation of affirmative action is perverse. The purpose of AA is to provide more opportunities for the disadvantaged - to help them gain access to institutions (eg education and employment) in which they've been historically underrepresented. There's a distinct difference between that and restricting opportunities to those from more priviledged groups. AA isn't a quota system either, it's merely a tiebreaker - though some institutions may abuse it.

It's curious that perryp linked to those articls about Asians, because Jews are in the same boat. Their enrollment isn't restricted, they just aren't considered disadvantaged from an AA standpoint.

Somewhat off topic, but at some point our society is going to just have to get over all this hair splitting regarding college admission. When you've got 20,000 highly qualified students competing for 2,000 enrollment slots, some tough and seemingly unfair decisions will inevitably have to be made. For all this hand-wringing about AA forcing colleges to accept underperformers, college admission across the nation has only become more competitive over the last two decades.

[christ]

Originally posted by itai195:
You just answered your own question about why I claimed his interpretation of affirmative action is perverse. The purpose of AA is to provide more opportunities for the disadvantaged...

from a mathematical standpoint, your logic is perverse.

Say that there are 100 people chasing 10 college places. 90 (of the 100) are WASPs, and 10 aren't.

If 1 college place is reserved for the non-WASPs, but they are allowed to go beyond that on ability, then the most WASPs that can get is 9/90 to college (ie exactly the proportion that should get there), but the most that the non-WASPs can get is 10/10 (ten times their equal share). The least that the WASPs can get is 0/90, whereas the minority have at least one protected place. Thus the minority are guaranteed, ability and suitability not withstanding, at least their 'due', but that is the absolute maximum that the majority can get.

How is this helping the disadvantaged? This is simply disadvantaging the majority in favour of the minority.

When you factor in money, if the non-WASPs represent a relatively wealthy slice of society, and family money helps when going to college, then this tips the balance ludicrously in favour of the minority, and makes members of the majority into the underdog.

If AA is to be used (although I whole heartedly contend that it shouldn't) then to be fair to all, it should be equal AA all round, to the majority as well as the minority. Every college must have an exact reflection of the country's ethnic makeup, gender makeup, sexual orientation makeup, eye colour, ear size, etc. etc. etc.l, and ability is irrelevant. This very effectively shows the error in the application of AA.

[itai195]

Originally posted by christ:
from a mathematical standpoint, your logic is perverse.

Say that there are 100 people chasing 10 college places. 90 (of the 100) are WASPs, and 10 aren't.

If 1 college place is reserved for the non-WASPs

I see, did you ignore the part about AA not being based on quotas?

As a former university admissions director related to me, AA is typically used as a distinguishing factor between groups of students that are otherwise similarly qualified for admission. What would you rather they use? Merit? How does one define merit equitably? Would you rather admit the white kid who scored 5 points more on his SAT, or the black kid who scored the highest SAT in his school's history? Which one has more merit?

[christ]

Originally posted by itai195:
Would you rather admit the white kid who scored 5 points more on his SAT, or the black kid who scored the highest SAT in his school's history? Which one has more merit?

Elegant argument.

But how about:

"Would you rather admit the black kid who scored 5 points more on his SAT, or the white kid who scored the highest SAT in his school's history? Which one has more merit?"

I'm willing to bet that the black kid gets it in your example, because of AA, and the black kid also gets it in my example, because 'he deserves it on merit'.

I would prefer a system where all kids are judged regardless of 'defining attributes', and if there are too many applicants for a college place, or a job, then a 'discriminating factor' can be found, maybe by tossing a coin, or by assessing the candidates for appropriateness in some way, but not by the colour of their skin or their gender. (or whatever other 'inequality' it is that society sees the need to 'correct')

I would like to think that, all things being equal, the question should be "Would you rather admit the kid who scored 5 points more on his SAT, or the kid who scored the highest SAT in his school's history? Which one has more merit?", and in a healthy society the answer would, in all probability, be "the second kid".

Colour should not be taken into account, either positively or negatively.

[itai195]

Originally posted by christ:
I would like to think that, all things being equal, the question should be "Would you rather admit the kid who scored 5 points more on his SAT, or the kid who scored the highest SAT in his school's history? Which one has more merit?", and in a healthy society the answer would, in all probability, be "the second kid".

Colour should not be taken into account, either positively or negatively.

A few points about this... I agree, ideally we wouldn't have to take race into account. Unfortunately, racism is still pervasive in our society and ignoring the problem just makes it worse. An officially colorblind society provides a convenient cover for unofficial racism and prejudice... this in fact was the argument against Ward Connerly's Prop 54 last fall in California. Given that racism still exists, it seems reasonable to assume that without AA race would negatively affect minority admission opportunities. We're not ready to remove race from the equation completely.

The other point is that we can throw that whole argument about SATs out the window if we question how significant an indicator SAT scores are anyway. This is the problem with arguing merit -- there's no standard that's going to be fair for everybody. Merit isn't the be all and end all of admissions decisions because it can't be quanitified in a fair and consistent way.

What's more, almost all the applicants at highly competitive schools have excellent academic credentials anyway. Are these schools to admit all their students based on coin flips? No, you agree that there should be a discriminating factor. The only thing we don't agree about is that I think race is as reasonable a discriminating factor as most others.

[OAW]

Originally posted by itai195:
A few points about this... I agree, ideally we wouldn't have to take race into account. Unfortunately, racism is still pervasive in our society and ignoring the problem just makes it worse. An officially colorblind society provides a convenient cover for unofficial racism and prejudice...

Indeed.

OAW

[saab95]

Originally posted by perryp:
Jews make up 2 to 3 percent of the US population. Jews make up 0.25% of the world population - a quarter of one percent.

The US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Jews form a majority of the neoconservative ideologues that create Bush's foreign and domestic policy.
Of the four leading Democrat candidates for President (Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Kerry) 100% are either Jews, married to Jews or have Jewish ancestry. Jews contribute half of donations to Democrat candiates (source). According to statistics here, Jews make up
76% of 'Most Influential Intellectuals'
60% of 'Top Hollywood Positions'
60% of Yale Grad Students
30% of Supreme Court Law Clerks

So I think it's fair to say that Jews, in proportion to their numbers, are very powerful. The heightened sensitivity to this fact - i.e people being called antisemitic for talking about this - is ironic proof of the fact.

Why is this? The answer is that Jews, for reasons both genetic and cultural, are far more intelligent than any other ethnic group - particularly in verbal intelligence. Secondly, Jews have for centuries thrived by milking the economic opportunities presented to them by the societies in which they live. In fact they have, since the Middle Ages, been kicked out of many countries for doing this rather too successfully. Thirdly, like any tribe or ethnic group, they stick together.

Now, Affirmative Action, in theory is supposed to give relatively unsuccessful groups more opportunity. Surely then, all gentiles should be recipients of Affirmative Action.

Or should Jews be restricted to a certain percentage. Look at this page. In it, it says, "With Indian-Americans already comprising 10 per cent of medical school students, medical schools have begun raising admission standards for Indian-Americans relative to other ethnic groups." So should Jews be restricted to 2% of population of universities (I believe the current level is about 30%)

Yet another Jew-basher.

Stop this **** about affirmative action.

How about achievement action instead?

How about individual rights?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by saab95:
Yet another Jew-basher.

Stop this **** about affirmative action.

How about achievement action instead?

How about individual rights?

Affirmative action is really more of a joke.


Virtually all of the schools that do it, are schools that historically were all while/male schools.

The deal with affirmative action, was add a handful of seats. And remove the "racist" stereotype.

It's not "stolen seats" as many claim... since it's a handful of added seats.


What's interesting is that only a few people actually want to open the schools up and forbid discrimination of any kind.

The rally cry around the debate is to "go back to what it was before"... which for the vast majority of AA schools, is White only, and male only.


Most integrated schools don't have an issue.


The debate isn't about making it fair... it's about going back to white/male schools.


You need to note the wording on those who are for/against AA. They are very carefully prepaired. They don't want to just remove AA and open the school. They specifically avoid saying that. They want to "revert" (the most commonly used word). That's entirely different.



I personally agree with you. Schools should be achivement based... as most are.

Bush, and the anti-AA people, want to "revert".


That's a very different solution.

It's a better system. But that's not an option in this argument. The reason why they don't want to just get rid of AA, would mean they have to make two paths:
- Open the school up to all sex/race
- Close it, and be branded as "racist", "sexist".


Again, I agree 100% with you. But you should be careful not to get mixed into the large anti-aa crowd... because your message, "achivement based", and "revert" are two entirely different things.