The answer was deleted by a mod. For his reasons I have to refer to his answer. As that answer is a bit terse and only mentions one knock-out reason, it may be beneficial to analyse other potential reasons and evident problems with the post under discussion.
First of all, the answer is largely a private analysis, meaning without references for all the wide-reaching claims it makes. While in PoliticsSE I think everything falls under 'opinion-based' to certain degrees, as such without supporting references the answer falls a bit far into the outfield.
Even more problematic, it largely doesn't answer the question as I understand it. And tragically, the small part that does try to answer the very suboptimal question is at least worded like, perhaps influenced by, or worst a directly intended as such antisemitic statement. I do not diagnose motivation on this. But I do interpret and explain the content and effect as such.
Apart from that, many passages rely on rhetoric devices without convincing arguments. Others display an alarming amount of questionable a prioris.
You may try apply conventional logic, but it's better to analyse the
issue as social phenomena.
Sounds good so far.
Whites are statistically more successful than US social average -> it
proves white privilege. If observed in AD 2019 discrimination is
clearly too weak to explain for difference in outcomes, then the
explanation is historical oppression or some very well veiled and hard
to track systemic racism or internalised racism.
That is your own thought experiment and the apodictic choice of words and alternative explanations seems to be designed to let a reader glance over the lack of references. Or more importantly, in a section starting with "logic", this paragraph doesn't show very much of it. It just looks like a non sequitur. Or is that an actual unreferenced observation?
That means: 'discrimination' is already alluded to as "clearly too weak" in 2019 (is it really, get a ref; 'is it' 'just assumed to be for the sake of this argument', say so more clearly – it very much sounds like the latter). The next part is now trying to get the wind out of the sails of potential detractors for this argument in paraphrasing possible alternative explanations, a few of them presented as the complete list, sounding as 'difficult', if not 'made up' or at least 'exaggerated'. No data, no evidence, no reference, no example. 'Just a thought' that is perhaps often heard somewhere, but unconvincing.
What's left unexplored is in the first place 'what is discrimination', or your understanding of it. What are in reality currently 'thought valid' explanations for different outcomes, and what are these? What does 'historical oppression' mean? That it's over, no longer applies? Or that it had effects that influence the structures of society and behaviour of individuals even now? It seems the latter is excluded firmly from possible interpretations of this passage.
American Jews are statistically more successful even than US whites ->
it does not prove any privilege at all. Any person who dares to look
for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil
Word choice ("hidden explanation"!), 'target group' for this 'thought experiment' (or is this even intended as an actual observation?) falls under antisemtism. Not much debate here. But it is allowed to ask and reason: Is this the right question? Is it the case? What are the explanations? This can and is discussed in plain open conservation or debate. The allegation that there is something "hidden" about that is the primary reason that makes this an antisemitic statement. "Dare" is the second, as it alludes to unwanted consequences of doing just that and it firmly contradicts the superficial meaning of the preceding sentence: namely that there would be such a privilege only that the truth about it would be suppressed.
In that case it is actually a nice illustration for why the question is 'bad', as it is not established in either question or answer whether it's actually 'the case', or not, that there is any form of privilege. Or what exactly 'privilege' means in these cases. But at least this part demonstrates in coded form that 'you see, there obviously is a Jewish privilege, but we don't talk about it'.
That repeats and reinforces a skewed understanding on display in the question about the meaning of privilege, but doesn't explain neither the term used nor 'the phenomenon' (or why it wouldn't be one?.
In case it should be necessary: Saying an author wrote an antisemitic statement is not identical to calling an author an antisemite. But if such statements are repeated and start to form a pattern there is reason for concern.
In the answer it is also even used to show with 'logic' that the term "privilege" has no basis in reality? But we only have a chiastic juxtaposition of two different prejudices presented more as 'what-if's' than observation.
Namely that 'non-whites do in fact not face strong enough discrimination to explain suboptimal societal outcomes' and the claim that 'that Jews are perceived as being privileged and as a group exempt from deserved criticism'.
Another paradox: is it right to implement ethnic quotas for
overachieving ethnic group on universities to help less advantageous?
I would say that in '30s in my country (Poland) that was exactly the
furthest reaching anti-Jewish policy that got implemented by my gov.
When think about it, those two identitarian position may seem a bit
contradictory - the same difference in outcome can be both an evidence
of blatant unfairness and pure coincidence. Same ethnic quotas
limiting the most successful group can be both hallmarks of
progresivism and signs of absolute bigotry. So let's look at it as
That is not answering the question but a general Chewbacca of whataboutism. The question was "There is Jewish privilege, why isn't it talked about", and the answer is apparently: 'the Jews in Poland where so privileged that the government only officially discriminated against them with university quotas and nobody ever talked about it?'
The difference in goals and intention should be readily apparent if a government argued to increase academic rates of group X or whether it wants to decrease rates for group Y. That can be discussed, but perhaps better in a post elsewhere, unless it is better explained how that should relate to the question asked.
Humans, are naturally tribal. If something undesirable is happening,
then it must be fault of some other tribe. That's how it generally
operates and group loyalty makes sense from evolutionary perspective.
Biologistic explanations and naturalistic fallacies to explain a cultural, social and political problem? What was the headline yet for this section?
Nevertheless, people should also express loyalty to tribal beliefs.
Not just God, but tribal myths, stories... Just right now typical
traditional religions are fading but an empty niche appears. During
second half of XXth century (pinpointing it to 1968 would be an
oversimplification) it become trendy in the Western Culture (but only
the part under capitalism, former communist block seem not to be
influenced) to express great how bad Western culture (capitalism,
imperialism, etc) is. It simply become trendy to say in more secular
version of: "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa".
The argument now devolves from biologistic and essentialist explanation to biologistic and essentialist (or in this case also identitarian) prescriptive statements! – That's how it should be?
That's a quite unique development. Suddenly condemning oneself become
the proper thing to do, necessary to maintain social standing and show
one wisdom in form of awareness for misdeeds of ancestors. It's mostly
Who diagnosed the uniqueness? Looking into the intellectual history of the world's groups, peoples and even 'tribes' shows quite many examples to the contrary. That this is an often encountered statement, whether said for real or as an accusation, even baseless. Fun exercise: search for "self-hatred" and see what group your search-engine of choice presents most often to you. Hint: we probably would come back more on topic to the actual question on main about that.
other cultures (including Eastern Europe) did not experience it it's
unique atonement and if any other culture have tried to join saying
that they also have their own privilege it would spoil it
Full of allusions and again a reference for a bold statement is lacking. I would have at least one like this:
We have in Poland nowadays a very widespread phenomenon of the so called "self-hating" Poles (due to our tragic history which is rejected more and more ...
–– Comments on Poland's past: A difficult film | The Economist
There is internal dynamics in to those events. Some people are
convinced that breaking such cycle of atonement could reawake demons
that lead to WW1 and WW2. Quite many must not treat the thing too
seriously, but consider it as good manners and sign of belonging to
intellectual elite. Moreover, the guilt is not transferable on any
other ethnic group. Additionally, regardless of their success, because
of sad history Jews are being considered as protected group that
should not be criticised by Westerners (when Arabs do it is generally
considered as fine).
A really convoluted way of arguing that again devolves into whataboutism "with Arabs" at the end. Why should historic "guilt" play a role here when we talk about actual problems? Why should that guilt, if it exists, be "transferrable to other ethnic groups"? (Perhaps this "transferrable" is just a problem of language use I may overinterpret by this point. But it still is a problem of this post)
To sum up: claiming of having unfair advantage over others, is a
unique and recent feature of Western civilisation or at least of its
elites. It's rather unsurprising that no other ethnic group want to
adopt this mark with us.
That is interesting psychologically. While not explicit it makes more than the other parts of the answer the connection of 'white privilege' being a 'white privilege' –– or in other words than the already used "unique" that again 'ingroup self-hate' would be a sign of weakness that now some 'whites' are victims of and one that the construct of 'Jews' doesn't share. 'Self-hating Jews' being declared non-existent is of course again strange and not answering why – as the question seems to imply – that it's apparently widely accepted that 'whites' and 'non-whites' use the term 'white privilege' as seemingly a fitting description for something while it seems strange or socially/politically unwanted for either 'Jews' or 'non-Jews' to speak of 'Jewish privilege'.
Right-wing populism across Europe and the United States takes different forms depending on nationally specific factors such as political history, system and culture, but there are similarities. Populism’s central and permanent narrative is the juxtaposition of a (corrupt) »political class,« »elite,« or »establishment,« and »the people,« as whose sole authentic voice the populist party bills itself.
Right-wing populism adds a second antagonism of »us versus them.« Based on a definition of the people as culturally homogenous, right-wing populists juxtapose its identity and common interests, with are considered to be based on common sense, with the identity and interests of »others,« usually minorities such as migrants, which are supposedly favored by the (corrupt) elites. Right-wing populists are not necessarily extremists, and extremists are not necessarily populists. The latter, however, is very likely, as extremism lends itself to populism. The more ethno-centric the conception of the people, the more xenophobic the positioning against »the other,« and the clearer the desire to overthrow the democratic system of governance, the more likely it is that a right-wing populist party is also extremist.
Right-wing populists also strategically and tactically use negativity in political communication. Supposed »political correctness« and dominant discourses are at the same time the declared enemies of right-wing populists and their greatest friends. They allow the staging of calculated provocations and scandals, and of the breaking of supposed taboos.
Tools range from the calculated break of supposed taboos and disrespect of formal and informal rules (e.g., »political correctness«) to emotional appeals and personal insults. Conspiracy theories and biologist or violent metaphors have a place.
–– Thomas Greven: "The Rise of Right-wing Populism in Europe and the United States A Comparative Perspective", 2016. (PDF)
Also A reflection on the far-right ideology of the past and now
The question that attracted this answer was indeed substandard. As SE-model theory goes it attracted bad answers. As PolSE has quite a few 'bad' questions, I really like to read those 'bad' question if they generate a very good answer, most likely in the form of a serious frame-challenge. That is not per se impossible.
This answer under discussion falls short of being a moderately good answer. Since most parts of it were tangential to the question and the one part most close to addressing the actual question a Code of Conduct violation, it looms quite difficult to resurrect a form of the answer or any answer with the intentions expressed so far that would be worth undeletion. Sometimes it's better to start afresh.