Imagine a world where the following paragraph was true:
White people are just 2% of the population of South Africa.
And yet, a whopping 31% of South African media companies are owned by white people; 38% are founded by white people; 45% of their presidents are white people; and 47% of their chairmen are white people. 26% of all the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media are white people. 75% of the senior administrators of the best South African colleges are white people, and from 11 to 27 percent of students admitted to those colleges are white. 139 of the top 400 richest people in South Africa are white. Of the top 100 political campaign funders, at least 42 of them are white. 15 out of 30 executives at the major think tanks that determine policy are white. To top it all, 8 of 11 senior advisers to President Zuma are white.
The corollary of these statements is that Blacks are around 98% of the population, and yet make up only 69% of media company owners, 62% of their founders, and 55% of their presidents … Only 25% of senior administrators at the best colleges are black; and only 3 of 11 Presidential advisers are black.
What would leftists’ response to this situation be?
The answer to that question is beyond doubt: they’d be outraged.
And it wouldn’t matter in the slightest that whites were a minority of the South African population—that would just make their domination of the country’s most important offices worse.
In the United States, we have a group calling itself the ‘Reflective Democracy Campaign’ which finds  that white men are 31% of the population—but 66% of those who run for political office, and 65% of those elected. Once these figures are produced, no further investigation is required before leftists start asking  why it is that “in the year 2015, there are roughly double the number of white men in elected office as there ought to be[?]” Another campaign  strives to draw awareness to the fact that white men make up 79% of elected prosecutors.
Or to give another example, when Spike Lee thought black winners at the Oscars were underrepresented compared to white winners, he called for a boycott . It turns out he was wrong : a USC study found  that blacks, who are about 13% of the U.S. population, comprise 12.5% of actors in the top 100 films from 2007; 23 of 192 Oscar nominations (12%), and 9 out of 68 academy awards since 2000 (13.2%)—close to perfect statistical representation. But the mere idea that whites might be overrepresented in the Oscars compared to blacks was all it took to set off a loud and persistent conversation, with many people instantly prepared to believe that whites are overrepresented and that this is a problem in need of urgent address.
So in the case of the Oscars, the over–representation of whites compared to blacks was exactly zero. And in the case of the Reflective Democracy Campaign’s argument, whites are overrepresented amongst political candidates at just 1.4 times their population rate (whites are 63% of the population, and a combined 89% of Republican and Democratic candidates), and amongst elected prosecutors at 1.25 times their population rate.
So we can absolutely rest assured that if our opening paragraphs were true, liberals would be outraged to find whites overrepresented at 5–36 times their rate of the population rather than a mere 1.2.
So what makes liberals different from white supremacists—besides their target?
Everything stated in the opening paragraph of this post is, in fact true—about Jews.
Jews are just 2% of the United States population. And yet, they make up 18 out of 24 senior administrators of Ivy League colleges (75%), 8 out of 11 senior advisors to President Obama (72%), 8 out of 20 Senate Committee chairmen (40%), 33 out of 51 senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies (64%), 23 out of 40 senior executives of the major Wall Street mutual funds, private equity funds, hedge funds, and brokerages (57%), 41 out of 65 senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines (63%), 43 out of 67 senior executives of the major television and radio news networks (64%), 15 out of 30 senior executives of the major think tanks (50%).
And when Jewish organizations reflect  on Jewish representation in Ivy League colleges, they do so not to worry about whether Jews are pushing non–Jews out through their own overrepresentation, but to analyze the puzzle that “Thirteen percent of Princeton’s undergraduate student body is Jewish, the lowest percentage of any Ivy League university besides Dartmouth, which comes in at 11 percent.” Yet, both of these are still more than 4 and 5 times the Jewish percentage of the population.
The media? If we’re looking  at the CEOs of media companies, then they’re 31%  of the total. If we’re looking at founders, then they’re 38%. If we’re looking at presidents, then they’re 45%. If we’re looking at chairmen, then they’re 47%. If we’re talking  about the directors and writers, then Jews represent “26 percent of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series”.
These numbers range from over 12 to over 22 times the Jewish percentage of the population.
Banking? Of the five Federal Reserve board governors  (Daniel K. Tarullo, Jerome H. Powell, Lael Brainard, Stanley Fischer, Janet L. Yellen), three are Jewish. Of the nine executive officers  of Goldman Sachs (Edith W. Cooper, Gregory K. Palm, John F. W. Rogers, Alan M. Cohen, Harvey M. Schwartz, Mark Schwartz, Gary D. Cohn, Lloyd C. Blankfein, Michael S. Sherwood), six are Jewish. Of the ten operating committee members  of JP Morgan Chase (John L. Donnelly, Gordon A. Smith, Jamie Dimon, Mary Callahan Erdoes, Matthew E. Zames, Daniel E. Pinto, Douglas B. Petno, Marianne Lake, Stacey Friedman, Ashley Bacon), six are Jewish. Combining just these three major banks, 62% are Jewish—almost 30 times the Jewish population rate.
“ … the Jews run everything? Well, we do. The Jews run all the banks? Well, we do. The Jews run the media? Well, we do … It’s a fact; this is not in debate. It’s a statistical fact … Jews run most of the banks; Jews completely dominate the media; Jews are vastly disproportionately represented in all of these professions. That’s just a fact. It’s not anti-Semitic to point out statistics … It’s not anti-Semitic to point out that these things are true.” — Milo Yiannopoulos, The Rubin Report, March 2016 
So how can leftists, who immediately take any statistical over–representation of whites in anything at all as a major social problem that needs to be changed—even at just 1.1 or 1.4 times the white population rate—condemn white supremacists for being worried about statistical over–representations several times larger than that? Indeed, how are the racialist left and white supremacists anything but two different sides of the same coin?
Amusingly enough, a large percentage of my audience will probably suspect me immediately of having gone full Nazi just because I went through the effort to pinpoint exactly how overrepresented Jews are at all. Now, that suspicion may be fair—but if so, why is it that going through the effort to pinpoint how overrepresented whites are in various fields or professions is not seen as bigotry in just exactly the same way?
As a matter of fact, the ‘Reflective Democracy Campaign’ itself has apparently failed to notice that it is not “whites” who are overrepresented within the legal profession—it’s Jews, who in fact  make up 26% of the nation’s law professors, and 30% of Supreme Court law clerks. In Jews and the New American Scene, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab point out that Jews make up “40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington.” So Jews are overrepresented in the legal profession at 13 or more times their population rate.
And if you subtract the 26% of lawyers who are Jewish from the 79% of prosecutors the RDC calls “white,” that leaves only 53% of prosecutors who are non–Jewish whites, compared to about 61% of the U.S. population that is non–Jewish white. So it turns out that ‘whites’ are not over-represented at all—they’re under-represented at about 0.86 times the population rate. But what would happen to the RDC’s left–wing credentials if it were to openly admit this and call explicitly for a reduction of the Jewish percentage of elected prosecutors?
Indeed, what would happen to their public image in general once this was known?
Suddenly, they’d go from being a respectable campaign calling attention to a real social issue to being classed with Nazis and white supremacists—the lowest of the low—just because the demographic their numbers targeted happened to turn out to be Jews instead of whites. But why is it that this kind of campaign is valid just so long as it targets whites, and racist bigotry the moment it hits any other demographic?
Why are Jews statistically over-represented? There are essentially two possibilities:
- Jews could be acquiring positions of power and then using them to grant favors to other Jews—say, Jews could take over the senior administrative positions in Ivy League colleges (where they indeed compose about 75% of the total), and then they could favor admitting Jews as new students over others.
- Perhaps Jews are simply more intelligent, or industrious, or intellectual, or otherwise have temperaments more conducive to these arenas—and so they acquire their status in these positions through legitimate success.
The first of these options is the white supremacist answer: Jews aren’t any more intelligent than the rest of us; they’re just more nepotistic, networking with other Jews to take over the world. In order to avoid sounding like bigots, then, we’re supposed to give the second answer: Jews are simply more intelligent or more industrious or more intellectual, or simply have temperaments more conducive to these arenas.
But if we’re talking about whites instead of Jews, then suddenly the first option is exactly what social justice warriors demand that we say: ‘whites aren’t any more intelligent than anyone else; they’re just more nepotistic’! Meanwhile, the second option is suddenly the one that is now inexcusably, irredeemably racist: if you claim that whites are simply more intelligent or more industrious or more intellectual, you’re a bigot.
What the ‘politically correct’ view requires us to say about Jews is exactly what it calls bigotry if we say it about whites. And what it requires us to say about whites is exactly what it calls bigotry if we say it about Jews. The disproportionate success of whites is purely the result of unjust ‘privilege’, and you’re a bigot if you think it has anything to do with greater merit. But the disproportionate success of Jews is the result of greater merit, and you’re a bigot if you try to diminish that by attributing it to ‘privilege’, much less want it to change!
The egregiousness of the naked double standard here is overwhelming. As far as resolving it, it would seem we have exactly two possible options: either we grant the argument in both cases, and encourage the social justice warriors and white supremacists to join forces against their new common foe—or else we deny it in both cases.
So which is it?