David Mamet on Hollywood Jews. Social Darwinism?

if any social theory has been refuted and denounced in the latter half of the 20th century, it's social darwinism.
and, there are obvious reason for this.
the defeat of the nazis, which led to revelations of the horror of 'racial science'.
when people saw images of the effects of the holocaust, they cringed in horror, and
came to see nazism/racism as the greatest of all horrors.
if nazis had won and had soviet gulags been opened for the world to see(while nazi death camps had remained hidden), classicide--rather than
genocide--might have been regarded by most as the greatest evil.

another reason why social dawinism lost favor was due to the fact that jews, who were overwhelmingly
liberal to leftist, took over many of the intellectual institutions or brain centers of US and europe.
also, as jews--victims of nazism--they were immune from all criticism. after WWII, it was impossible
to criticize jewish influence; any such was deemed 'anti-semitic'. so, jews could shi* on goyim,
but goyim could not shi* on the jews.

liberal and leftwing jews also exploited this issue of racism and put white goyim in america on the
defensive. american white goyim had felt proud of having defeated nazi germany, but jews in
the US said, 'not so fast'; jews pointed out that just as germans had committed genocide against the jews, american whites
had committed genocide and slavery against blacks. so, both european and american white goyim
were scum. they were scum cuz they had practiced racism and social darwinism.
in contrast, jews were all for equality, fairness, diversity, tolerance, etc.
and, this has been, more or less, the social narrative since the end of WWII.

but, there's another narrative which, though politically incorrect, is gaining greater and greater
currency. indeed, even jews are beginning to admit it may be true. consider david mamet's
chapter on the jews in hollywood in his book 'bambi vs. godzilla'. if mamet is right, then social darwinism
not only works but has worked thru history. the jewish advantage over us is not rooted in equality and
diversity but in their superior intellect, originality, and boldness. but, where did this higher intelligence and a
more curious/adventurous personality come from?
if equality and diversity are the real ingredients to success, wealth, and power, how come jews have succeeded
more than other americans? aren't we all living in the land of the free, equal, and diverse?
then, how come an average jewish-american is much richer and more powerful than an average polack american or
mexican american? to be sure, equality and diversity play a role inasmuch as jews have succeeded because
they've been allowed to operate in a free environment which recognized talent. there has been little or
no artificial barriers to keep the jews down. so, jews enjoyed equal access to opportunities in the US.
but, why were jews better able to use equal opportunities to gain such unequal share of the wealth and power?
similarly, all races are equally allowed to participate in sports, but negroes dominate. why?
so, the idea of the blank slate is false. while we uphold equal opportunities, there is a social darwinism at work.
to be sure, in the case of negroes it was more natural darwinism at work. negroes are stronger and faster
not because of social manipulation of evolution but due to climactic and geographical factors.
but, this may not be the case with the jews. as mamet points out, for centuries and centuries, the jewish community
favored and selected smart jew kids who showed early signs of high intelligence; the jewish community
took better care of their health, fed them better, and then allowed them to have more kids with jewish girls.
so, social darwinism was at work among the jews. the jews favored the smart jewkids over the dumb jewkids.
so, jewish advantage over us is due to the history of social darwinism among the jews.
now, the jews may not have consciously seen this as a form of social darwinism. indeed, darwin was a 19th century
figure and herbert spencer followed in his footsteps. so, jews 600 yrs ago didn't know they were
practicing social darwinism. they thought they were just being sensible in favoring the smart jew kids over the dumb ones.
and jews favored the smart ones because (1) they were into talmudic studies which required tremendous memory and
organizational skills and (2) they were into finance and trade which required more brains than harvesting wheat
or milking a cow.
so, think of the irony. jews always talk of the need for diversity and equality, but their superiority over us was
the product of selective superioritism and exclusivism. for most of their history, jews disdained mixing their blood
with dimwit goyim; and among themselves, they favored the smarties over the dummies.
jews genuinely embrace the ideals of equaity and diversity but not because they want to be equal with the rest
of mankind. it's because in a world where equal opportunities apply to all, jews will come out on top.
it's like negroes saying they want equal opportunity in sports cuz it means that negroes will be more equal than others.
since the races are not equal at the biological level, equality of rights and access means that some groups will
gain more power than others.
to be sure, this may change. with jews becoming more successful than ever, admired by goyim, and fully
welcome into the mainstream, a lot of jews cannot resist marrying goyim. so, in time, jews will
prolly become as dumb as the rest of us.
or, thanks to advances in biotechnology, scientists may be able to pinpoint which dna makes people smart and find ways
to socially engineer all of us to become smart like jews(and tough like negroes).
heck, the ideal man of the future may have a face of an 'aryan', brains of a jew, the physique of a negro,
and the soul of a hindu.

anyway, below is the chapter by david mamet in 'Bambi vs. Godzilla: On the Nature, Purpose, and Practice of
the Movie Business'.

-------------------------------------.

JEWS IN SHOW BUSINESS

These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding
the American people and the people of the world and bringing
you down in moral strength. . . . It's the wicked Jews, the false
Jews...
-- Louis Farrakhan, 2006

Let me see if I can offend several well-meaning groups at once.
I will address myself particularly to the racially punctilious
and to the goodwilled but otherwise uninvolved champions of
the developmentally challenged: I think it is not impossible
that Asperger's syndrome helped make the movies.
The symptoms of this developmental disorder include early
precocity, a great ability to maintain masses of information, a
lack of ability to mix with groups in age-appropriate ways,
ignorance of or indifference to social norms, high intelligence,
and difficulty with transitions, married to a preternatural ability
to concentrate on the minutia of the task at hand.
This sounds to me like a job description for a movie direc-
tor. Let me note also that Asperger's syndrome has its highest
prevalence among Ashkenazi Jews and their descendants. For
those who have not been paying attention, this group consti-
tutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of
America's movie directors and studio heads.

Neal Gabler, in his An Empire of Their Own, points
out that the men who made the movies--Goldwyn, Mayer,
Schenck, Laemmie, Fox--all came from a circle with Warsaw
at its center, its radius a mere two hundred miles. (I will here
proudly insert that my four grandparents came from that
circle.)
Widening our circle to all of Eastern European Jewry (the
Ashkenazirn), we find a list of directors beginning with Joe
Sternberg's class and continuing strong through Steven Spiel-
berg's and the youth of today.
(A president of Harvard was, in the seventies, defending
himself. The admissions policies, theretofore uninterested,
started taking cognizance of the place of residence of the
applicant. The president called the new program Geographical
Diversity or some such and pointed out that in prepolicy,
unenlightened days, a statistically anomalous percentage of
the student body had come from "the doughnuts surrounding
the cities." An alert number of the student body responded,
"Those aren't doughnuts, they're bagels.")
As is the movie community.
There was a lot of moosh written in the last two decades
about the "blank slate," the idea that since theoretically each
child is equal under the law, each must, by extension, be equal
in all things and that such a possibility could not obtain unless
each child was, from birth, equally capable--environmental
influences aside--of succeeding in all things.
This is a magnificent and majestic theory and would be
borne out by all save those who had ever had, observed, or
seriously thought about children.
Races, as Steven Pinker wrote in his refutational The Blank
Slate, are just rather large families; families share genes and,
thus, genetic dispositions. Such may influence the gene holders
(or individuals) much, some, or not at all. The possibility
exists, however, that a family passing down the gene for great
hand-eye coordination is likely to turn out more athletes than
that without. The family possessing the genes for visual acuity
will most likely produce good hunters, whose skill will pro-
vide nourishment. The families of the good hunters will pros-
per and intermarry, thus strengthening the genetic disposition
in visual acuity.
Among the sons of Ashkenazi families, nothing was more
prized than genius at study and explication.
Prodigious students were identified early and nurtured--the
gifted child of the poor was adopted by a rich family, which
thus gained status and served the community, the religion, and
the race.
These boys grew and regularly married into the family or
extended family of the wealthy. The precocious ate better, and
thus lived longer, and so were more likely to mate and pass on
their genes.
These students grew into acclaimed rabbis and Hasidic mas-
ters, and founded generations of rabbis; the progeny of these
rabbinic courts intermarried, as does any royalty, and that is
my amateur Mendelian explication of the prevalence of Asper-
ger's syndrome in the Ashkenazi.
What were the traits indicating the nascent prodigy? Ability
to retain and correlate vast amounts of information, a lack of
desire (or ability) for normal social interaction, idiosyncrasy,
preternatural ability for immersion in minutiae; ecco, six hun-
dred years of Polish rabbis and one hundred of their genetic
descendants, American film directors.
Please note that I do not claim for myself and my extended
family the yichus of descent from the rabbis. My own family
history, and, I believe, that of most of the film directors I
know (Jewish and otherwise), is firmly that of the ne'er-do-
well. I suggest, however, a collateral benefit to the Ashkenazi
populace-at-large of the more culturally limited inbreeding of
one of its constituent portions.
One does not, of course, have to be Ashkenazi or, indeed,
Jewish to succeed as a film director; my genetic divertimento
may point out, however, one desideratum of the filmmaker (it
need not be hereditary but had better find itself on the CV):
experience as a ne'er-do-well.
Proverbs tell us that the stone the builders rejected has
become the cornerstone. So it is with anyone in show business,
and particularly so of the director. For how could this posi-
tion, requiring a depraved generalist, attract anyone who had
succeeded or was apt to succeed in a specific field?
Just as U. S. Grant failed at everything save preserving the
Union, the director is probably one who, by birth, training, or
disposition, is gifted and/or driven either to make order out of
chaos or to reverse the process.
Loki, Raven, the Fonz, Falstaff, and Larry David are examples
of this archetype, the trickster-characters who express or intuit
the propensity to upset and so reorder the world on a different
level of abstraction, which is the job of moviemaker.
How might one train to tell a story in pictures; assign vari-
ous crafts and departments their tasks; manage and direct sev-
eral hundred artists, craftspersons, and administrators; and
inspire to meet the exigencies of a grueling production sched-
ule in spite of weather, human nature, chance, et cetera?
It is a job that attracts those who thrive on challenge,
chaos, uncertainty, human interaction; who love improvisa-
tion; who would rather die than revert to the general popula-
tion, et ceterain effect, quasi-criminals.
Note:
1. Yes, there are a lot of Jews in the movie business.
2. No, we did not kill Christ.

------------------------