[PLEASUREMAN]

I half-seriously made the following comment on Steve Sailer's site, responding to a general point about Benjamin Franklin:

Me:

"But isn't that my point? That Franklin's culture allowed him a more fun and productive and absurdly successful life?"

Well it's pretty obvious that "fun and productive" isn't the path Jews are driven to take. They are far more concerned with status and the demonstration of amoral intellect than with having fun or being productive. My son the doctor gets at that--what Jews have to endure at the hands of their parents. It does not tend to give them lively personalities like Franklin's.

Of course you can't suggest that there is anything at all less than perfect about Jews without raising a general alarm. The commenter who replied was reasonable but still resistant to just accepting the larger point (gentiles have more fun):

James Kabala:

"They are far more concerned with status and the demonstration of amoral intellect than with having fun"

Huh? Why, then, are Jews so overrepresented among comedians? It is true that in recent years many of these comedians have fallen into the Allen/Shandling/Seinfeld/David line of neurotic comics who never seem to be very happy in their comic personas, but could anyone really argue that the Marx brothers, the Three Stooges, Jack Benny, George Burns, Sid Casear, Don Rickles, Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner, Billy Crystal, and even Adam Sandler were opposed to fun?

On another subject point: Steve may be obsessed with the idea that Ben Franklin lived a life of never-ending pleasure, but it is simply not true. Anyone who ends his life bitterly estranged from his own son (just read his will, for heaven's sake) has had at least one major failure in his life. He also felt underappreciated by his fellow Americans in general.

To link my two points together, I might add that while Franklin certainly did like to have fun, more than any of the other Founders his life could be described as "concerned with... the demonstration of amoral intellect."

P.S. Where (except for the vaguely similar sound) does the idea endorsed by many commenters above that golem = goyim come from? That element hardly seems to be present in the original story or (based on Steve's description; I haven't read it) in Kavalier & Clay either. In both the golem seems more like a super-Jew than a Gentile.

I can only take any of the Jews he mentions in small doses if at all, but notice the prevalence on his list of complainers. Far moreso than you will find among gentile comics, I'll wager. Sandler, despite his clown image, also has far more racial consciousness than he seems to at first glance, and he periodically expresses a strong chauvinism. (Of course Seinfeld has always veered more in a Cosby direction--but Seinfeld has cultivated a very assimilationist strain of Jewish humor.)

I replied:

Me:

Jewish comedy generally rests on criticism and complaint (even the Marx brothers were mainly poking some stiff-necked gentile in the ribs). Compare Steve Martin, Bob Hope, Bob Newhart, Bill Murray, Bill Cosby, et al. (Of course there are exceptions and counterparts--don't bore me with a list.)

Jews have contributed a lot to comedy--but they have a hard time breaking out of their culture of critique. Jewishness is not a fundamentally carpe diem culture. Even when it seeks to entertain, it often sweats and cavils. Just accept the larger point rather than trying to defend your race from any suggestion they are imperfect. (A very Jewish trait, I might add.)

I admit this is mostly playful arguing. I don't have a strong need to prove that gentile comedians are less whiny (though I think they probably are to a significant degree). But Jewish vs. gentile humor might be an interesting topic to the members of this forum.

See https://www.blogger....101388924&pli=1 for more

[PLEASUREMAN]

By the way I think Jews generally see themselves as "owning" comedy right now, because they dominate both sit-com writing and stand-up. Not just in terms of having boots on the ground (so to speak), but in completely controlling the culture of comedy.

Sit-coms have really been driven into the ground by Jewish writers. It's now such a heavily stylized format, with dialog and characterizations that serve only to deliver the next insult (usually out of the blue), that they have once again had to import British material in order to have anything fresh on the menu. Seinfeld and David did take it somewhere, but mainly into a cul-de-sac of self-obsession that had a clear sell-by date stamped on it.

Stand-up is also more formulaic now, when it should be anything but. Jews work hard but they're not as creative as they think they are. Sometimes they're just better at showing up.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Another by the way: What could be more Jewish than the idea that you have to be willing to make some people angry in order to make other people laugh? But it's a very common mentality among a certain type of stand-up who strives for edginess and confrontation. From Andy Kaufman to Sandra Bernhard to Sarah Silverman to Lenny Bruce, there has always been an intensely hostile strain to a lot of Jewish humor (or "humor")--the moreso as its practitioners began to consciously identify as Jews rather than Americans.

Of course, there's a British tradition there as well, and it may just be a mediocre performer's way of getting through his act. As John Cleese once said, when you are bombing before an audience you have a choice between thrashing and dying, and generally speaking thrashing is much less painful.

[a woman's heart]

I fucking hate sitcoms and I can't understand why anyone would waste hours of their spare time on them weekly. Precocious kids are the worst.

I can do without most stand-up as well. So meh.

[Harold Lloyd]

[Jeff Fries]

My biggest pet peeve about modern comedy, Jewish or not, is that the message, attitude, or posture always comes first, often with the comedy doing little more than providing support for the espirit de corps. I once heard someone argue that Bill Hicks was great because he was necessary; because why bother talking about him in other terms. I can't even single out a comedian who isn't "about" something in one way or another.

[PRCalDude]

PLEASUREMAN, 08 May 2010 - 09:25 PM:

Another by the way: What could be more Jewish than the idea that you have to be willing to make some people angry in order to make other people laugh? But it's a very common mentality among a certain type of stand-up who strives for edginess and confrontation. From Andy Kaufman to Sandra Bernhard to Sarah Silverman to Lenny Bruce, there has always been an intensely hostile strain to a lot of Jewish humor (or "humor")--the moreso as its practitioners began to consciously identify as Jews rather than Americans.

Once you begin to notice the culture of critique in much of Jewish comedy, it becomes increasingly hard to find it funny. That said, Seinfeld contained mostly self-deprecating kvetching and situational humor. I didn't find too much CoC in it from what I remember, though Larry David pissed on a crucifix.

Sarah Silverman is of the strain of Jewish CoC comedy that screams, "I need Zyklon-B!" Aside from being completely unfunny, her chutzpah is enormous. I recall one skit she did where she complained about the amount of money the Vatican had. The sheer blindness to Jewish money obsession required for her to make that critique had me reaching for my Maalox. falls into the same category.

Jewish humor these days seems most exemplified by the Jewish comedy troupe helmed by Seth Rogen and his band of fat, weed-smoking degenerates. It relies mostly on the crass and vulgar - taking Sandler's humor to another power of 10. It's ethnocentrism couldn't be more obvious as there are only a few token gentiles added to teh periphery of their group. On top of that, they incorporate the completely unfunny Andy Sandberg - who has a face only a mother could love - from time-to-time.

Jewish humor - it's safe to say - has reached a nadir right along with the culture it critiques.

[PLEASUREMAN]

I don't have a strong dislike for Seth Rogen, but after years of watching Adam Sandler put next to no effort into comedy he seems to think it is acceptable to just show up on set with no energy and no motivation. Rogen cannot act and doesn't seem to be bothered by it. Though to be fair fellow Apatow-head Jason Segel is so apathetic about his career that he's visibly bloating on his sit-com, which by the way is powerfully unfunny right down to Neil Patrick Harris attempting to portray a straight womanizer.

Seinfeld is the exception to the rule, a Jewish comic who as I said has cultivated a highly assimilationist persona and one who is actually funny in an approachable, likeable way. I'm sure there are Jewish comedians out there who seethe at how successful he has been with this approach. (I saw him in Dallas when he toured post-Seinfeld, he is still near the top of his game.)

Larry David is also funny, though honestly seasons 3-6 of Curb can be safely skipped. David is like Seinfeld basically unpolitical and unconfrontational, but he mines a pretty thin vein of comedy based on conflicting social expectations. It's funny but not the nth time you see it. He also shows an uncommon willingness to directly critique Jewish behavior, but that may just be because he spends all his time surrounded by powerful and idiosyncratic Jews.

And I agree, comedy today is mostly about the attitude, especially the stand-up. It is like they are all just trying to establish the brand, and you'll laugh later. I think that kind of thing really exploded in the 80s with comedians like Richard Lewis--I have seen his act a couple of times (it does not change much) and there really aren't any jokes, just Lewis riffing onstage in full neurotic bloom. Lewis more or less pulls it off but he's become one of those aging performers who seems unable to adjust to the fact that he's no longer 35; he's starting to look physically creepy.

When you start thinking about comedians, the Jews just tend to form their own group (with a subgroup of assimilationist Jewish comedians--Carl Reiner is another one--distinguished mostly by their age). The effect of Jewish culture on their humor is pronounced. What's unfortunate is how they've developed this stranglehold on the business, so that everyone else tries to imitate them now and the great gentile comedy of the past has been forgotten in today's all-attitude, all-brand, high concept comedy.

Speaking of Jewish humor, is anyone worse at it than the Coen brothers? They just fundamentally don't understand comic pacing or joke structure.

[PLEASUREMAN]

This response in the iSteve comments is so typical of Jewish argument that I have to include it here:

Fred:

"Jews... have a hard time breaking out of their culture of critique."

Says the gentile as he critiques Jews. Seems like there's a culture of critique among you as well.

"Jewishness is not a fundamentally carpe diem culture."

So a Jew would never write something like Seize the Day, I guess?

"Even when it seeks to entertain, it often sweats and cavils."

This is why those Jewish Zionists never got around to founding Israel. They just sat around making misanthropic quips like Larry David until they lost all initiative.

Thank you for your incisive critique of our race.

You really couldn't moby a better example of Jewish obstinance and sciolistic argument if you tried.

Apparently the guy thinks that no one actually saw Seize the Day and that his case could rest on nothing more than the fact that its title is the English translation of the Latin phrase. Of course the movie is entirely caught up in a critique of 50s WASP culture and is about as fun-loving and positive as a venereal disease symposium, so it in fact perfectly fits my thesis that Jewish culture is studious and nettlesome. It's spectacularly clueless/blinkered to put it forth as proof that Jews know how to have fun. (Amazingly, it has no Wikipedia entry...copy/paste something there, nerds.)

Beyond that, trying to use one Jewish-authored piece of entertainment to disprove a general statement about Jewish culture is Talmudic in its obtuseness. This is, I have observed, a very common argumentative tactic among Jews with certain pretensions to being educated. "Most birds can fly" is to be disproved (in a huff, usually) by the statement "Penguins cannot fly." I conclude that being a poor loser is a defensive posture that Jews have a strong affinity for.

But read that reply again. It has no real point other than to disagree loudly and with the churlishness of the insecure.

[PRCalDude]

PLEASUREMAN, 09 May 2010 - 08:14 AM:

Speaking of Jewish humor, is anyone worse at it than the Coen brothers? They just fundamentally don't understand comic pacing or joke structure.

I can't understand why the Coen brothers are a Big Deal. I haven't seen them make anything that I would watch a second time. They're mostly known for being (pseudo) artsy.

[Jeff Fries]

PRCalDude, 09 May 2010 - 04:25 PM:

PLEASUREMAN, 09 May 2010 - 08:14 AM:

Speaking of Jewish humor, is anyone worse at it than the Coen brothers? They just fundamentally don't understand comic pacing or joke structure.

I can't understand why the Coen brothers are a Big Deal. I haven't seen them make anything that I would watch a second time. They're mostly known for being (pseudo) artsy.

Also for having no sympathy for their characters. If Stanley Kubrick were content with good cinematography and mocking his cast of knuckleheads his movies would be indistinguishable from a Coen bros production.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Jeff Fries, 09 May 2010 - 06:03 PM:

PRCalDude, 09 May 2010 - 04:25 PM:

PLEASUREMAN, 09 May 2010 - 08:14 AM:

Speaking of Jewish humor, is anyone worse at it than the Coen brothers? They just fundamentally don't understand comic pacing or joke structure.

I can't understand why the Coen brothers are a Big Deal. I haven't seen them make anything that I would watch a second time. They're mostly known for being (pseudo) artsy.

Also for having no sympathy for their characters. If Stanley Kubrick were content with good cinematography and mocking his cast of knuckleheads his movies would be indistinguishable from a Coen bros production.

I like No Country For Old Men (it's better than the Coen movie it seems to intentionally resemble, Fargo). The Man Who Wasn't There has dropped off my list, and Barton Fink is such a claustrophobic film that watching it is a pleasureless experience (like so much of their work) despite some sharp performances.

The Coens are hindered by having nothing to say. Kubrick had commentary on the whole of the human condition, and while this commentary eventually got predictable and he should have stopped one and possibly two films short, he never wasted his time on mediocre, underworked crap like Burn After Reading. Style over substance in film after film.

The fact that one of them married Frances McDormand tells you something about their attitude toward pleasure. That woman makes an erection seem like a thankless chore.

[BushrodButtram]

Since we're talking about Jewish creativity, I thought I might mention the surprising paucity of Jewish composers, all the more striking considering how Jews totally dominated classical performance from say 1900-1970 or so, a period including the golden ages of both piano and violin.

Anyone's short list of the greatest performers of the modern era would be headed by names like Oistrakh, Heifetz, Nathan Milstein, and Mischa Elman on violin; Gilels, the Lhevinnes, Godowsky, Rubinstein, and Schnabel on piano; Emmanuel Feuermann, Starker, Piatigorsky, and Popper on cello. Bear in mind that these are merely particular examples drawn from the galaxy of stars who came out of the Jewish world. Even today, most music departments bulge with Jews. For instance, where I studied, of seven full professors in my department, all but two were Jews (there was one American and one non-Jewish Russian.)

All this is by way of preface to the list of great Jewish composers: Mendelssohn, Mahler. That's really it. (If you bend the rules, you can work in Gershwin and various figures like Bernstein, Schoenberg, and so forth. I don't consider those composers to be classical masters worthy of serious comparison to the likes of Beethoven or J.S. Bach, or for that matter Monteverdi or Schumann.)

I don't really have an explanation for this beyond historical circumstance. Classical music was founded in the early 17th century and flourished until the late 19th century. During that period, almost all Jews were completely uninterested in European culture. Maybe they just got into the game too late.

[PLEASUREMAN]

And didn't Mahler convert? Not exactly your model Jew.

[BushrodButtram]

PLEASUREMAN, 09 May 2010 - 07:57 PM:

And didn't Mahler convert? Not exactly your model Jew.

Mendelssohn's dad converted, so Felix was brought up Protestant (cf his 'Reformation' Symphony, which quotes the Dresden Amen throughout and Ein' feste Burg in the last mvmt.) Mahler formally converted for professional reasons and leaned towards fin-de-siecle mysticism in his personal beliefs.

Orthodox Judaism is artistically sterile for obvious reasons, and Reformed Judaism is just liberalism with Hebrew and dual loyalties. I did some work for a Reform temple once and the sermons were risible. Every other sentence was 'our Jewish identity,' but no one ever mentioned God, and rightly so since I doubt most of the congregation believed in Him. Also, since I look plausibly Jewish, have a Jewish-sounding name, and am obviously foreign, sometimes people would make remarks to me that they wouldn't have made to an obvious goy. Quite the experience.

Not to say that there can't be great Jewish composers, just that their greatness is not likely to flow from their Jewishness.

[PLEASUREMAN]

btw Fred doesn't want to come here:

Me:

Fred, you're not even close to having a point. Feel free to take it up on my forum though. There's a link on Udolpho to the corresponding discussion.

Fred:

Nice, Udolpho: a non-response combined with a plug for your own site. Stay classy.

lol

[mrmister]

Ok, I do have to put in a word here to defend "The Big Lebowski". Maybe you have to be of a certain mindset to get it, but I can laugh myself silly just thinking about certain lines from that movie. But maybe the reason it works is that there is no point to it - it really is a shaggy-dog story, told really well.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Lebowski is a cult favorite, but like other cult favorites such as The Evil Dead, it does nothing for me.

By the way, it seems like in the last 20 years critical opinion has narrowed considerably. This is especially interesting since the Internet should, at least in theory, result in greater diversity of views. The opposite appears to be happening. I think it is a predictable effect of cognitive sorting and the heavy Jewish influence on criticism, along with a dramatic (sic) lowering of standards. (The one thing I really missed when I cancelled my National Review subscription many years ago were John Simon's excellent reviews.)

Today critics gab about movies in a senseless circumstantial critical language that might be labeled Ebertese, trying hard to make unusual metaphors and a small amount of trivial knowledge do the work of critical acumen and a command of English. Plus there is a pack mentality--it's not unusual to see movie rankings cluster at the 30% and 80% marks--perhaps a question for Steve Sailer to crunch the numbers on.

Of all the journalists being put out of work by amateur Internet writing, the most deserving are (after local columnists) movie critics. I can't imagine why they get paid for the quality of writing they deliver.

[Stupid]

Internet forums are a waste of time, and I don't really have time to waste except as a self-imposed ritualistic obligation.

Over the course of this thread, the commenters that bother discussing Jewish humor confuse two issues. Gunther starts talking about the Jewish comedian's interest in nervousness and selfishness but then he moves off to talking about the Jewish comedian's interest in identifying as an outsider. I for one think comedy that combines these two is very rich; society is absurd, but people are flawed. Woody Allen and the Marx Brothers are its historical champions.

A second group only focus on nervousness and selfishness without any sense of being on the outside (complaint without criticism). This would include Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen. The fact that the latter two like telling jokes about their Jewishness and are not assimilationist is only part of the interest in nervousness and selfishness, combined with pride in heritage as opposed to any special angle to their comedy that is a criticism of gentile civilization (although it is unsurprising that some people would still object to any ethnic consciousness in Jewish entertainment).

A third group in this over-simplified grouping focuses on being outsiders to the neglect of the interest in nervousness and selfishness (criticism without complaint). I suppose Jon Stewart Liebowitz is included in this group, and I suppose it has its roots, at least for the American context, in Jewish critical comedy. Still the appeal of this brand of comedy has become self-sustaining far beyond any reliance on values found in, and loyalty among, Jews who work in the entertainment community.

The gentile model of comedy is not really explored in this thread, which is unsurprising. I guess it would have to do with how people interact with what is unfamiliar or even nonsensical and we're drawing a line back to Bottom wandering around with the head of an ass in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Eve.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Stupid, 10 May 2010 - 06:05 PM:

Over the course of this thread, the commenters that bother discussing Jewish humor confuse two issues. Gunther starts talking about the Jewish comedian's interest in nervousness and selfishness but then he moves off to talking about the Jewish comedian's interest in identifying as an outsider. I for one think comedy that combines these two is very rich; society is absurd, but people are flawed. Woody Allen and the Marx Brothers are its historical champions.

A second group only focus on nervousness and selfishness without any sense of being on the outside (complaint without criticism). This would include Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen. The fact that the latter two like telling jokes about their Jewishness and are not assimilationist is only part of the interest in nervousness and selfishness, combined with pride in heritage as opposed to any special angle to their comedy that is a criticism of gentile civilization (although it is unsurprising that some people would still object to any ethnic consciousness in Jewish entertainment).

A third group in this over-simplified grouping focuses on being outsiders to the neglect of the interest in nervousness and selfishness (criticism without complaint). I suppose Jon Stewart Liebowitz is included in this group, and I suppose it has its roots, at least for the American context, in Jewish critical comedy. Still the appeal of this brand of comedy has become self-sustaining far beyond any reliance on values found in, and loyalty among, Jews who work in the entertainment community.

The gentile model of comedy is not really explored in this thread, which is unsurprising. I guess it would have to do with how people interact with what is unfamiliar or even nonsensical and we're drawing a line back to Bottom wandering around with the head of an ass in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Eve.

You're completely confused. Maybe it's my fault for writing loosely or maybe it's your fault for reading carelessly.

First, my main complaint is that Jewish humor has become too dominant and like a weed has choked off more interesting and varied strains of comedy. Yes, outsiderness and complaining and neurosis can be interesting comic tools, BUT THEY AREN'T THE ONLY TOOLS IN THE BOX. As I said I can take any of these comedians in limited measure, some more than others. I'm a fan of Sandler's album work, for example, which is shorter so it doesn't invite his worst self-indulgences (and it's all written by him, unlike his movie work in which he gives jobs to friends and cronies who are terrible and don't belong in show business).

But anything can become tiresome when it is all that is being offered. This is what is generally true about Jewish humor--it has become an oppressive influence on comedy, and because Jews run Hollywood (not really up for debate among non-cretins) it's practically the only thing on the menu. In case you didn't notice, it has destroyed the sit-com, at least until Hollywood goes back to the British well for something fresh, as it inevitably does.

And in recent years it has been devolving--rapidly--into this thing called snark, which is the sound of humor being scraped out with a spatula. It's fairly easy to show that the incessant strain of critique in Jewish comedy is where this degenerate humor by-product comes from.

There is of course no gentile model of comedy as such, because "gentile" means "everything not Jewish". (I'm guessing you're a Jew because only a Jew could miss this elementary distinction.) It's ridiculous to say that humor that encompasses everything from Bill Murray to Lucille Ball to Jay Leno to Monty Python to Chevy Chase to Bob Newhart to Bill Cosby to Richard Pryor to Conan O'Brien follows a unifying model of some kind. That said, newer generations of gentile comedians often exhibit strong Jewish influence because that is the prevailing culture of comedy and anything else tends to die for lack of oxygen. (Just one of the reasons is Jewish nepotism--Jews really need to get out more, to in a word assimilate.)

Jewish humor is now hopelessly inbred, with comedians like Larry David minding tiny neurotic gardens the way people used to build HO scale train sets. Or like Seth Rogen, who is satisfied to smoke weed and fumble through his lines as if we are keeping him from doing something vastly more interesting (a sign perhaps that it will all come to an end soon when comedians like this become too enervated to actually write material or show up on set).

Perhaps you think Jewish dominance in the field is swell--if you're a Jew you might well think that. For me it evokes the antithesis of comedy: boredom.