Are Jews the new WASPs?

In this powerful piece, The Myth of American Meritocracy, Ron Unz demolishes the notion that American universities are meritocratic .

He shows that Jews are heavily over-represented at universities, relative to their performance, while Asians are effectively subjected to quotas.

Indeed, in modern America, Asians (whether Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans or Chinese) are the new “Jews,” he argues:

As noted earlier, America’s Asian population has been growing rapidly over the last couple of decades, so the substantial decline in reported Ivy League Asian enrollment has actually constituted a huge drop relative to their fraction of the population. Meanwhile, the population of American Jews has been approximately constant in numbers, and aging along with the rest of the white population, leading to a sharp decline in the national proportion of college-age Jews, falling from 2.6 percent in 1972 and 2.2 percent in 1992 to just 1.8 percent in 2012. Nevertheless, total Jewish enrollment at elite universities has held constant or actually increased, indicating a large rise in relative Jewish admissions…….”

With meticulously compiled statistics of ethnic performance levels across the country, Unz proves that Jewish over-representation is not a result of the higher IQs that  intelligence tests have attributed to them. 

Instead, it goes along with substantial Jewish under-performance, relative to Asians and to Jewish past performance.

For example, consider California, second only to New York in the total number of its Jews, and with its Jewish percentage far above the national average. Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and some of his commenters have examined the complete 2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity, and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population, and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.54

Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus, it appears that California Asians are perhaps three times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic tests, and this result remains unchanged if we adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.

One means of corroborating these surprising results is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings made by one of his Jewish readers. For example, across the 2000-odd top scoring California students in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan, and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile, there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according to Census data, the combined number of American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for the four most common names beginning with “Gold.” Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens, Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs, Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to that produced by our general last name estimates. The 2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately the same ratios.”

Lila: The same pattern continues across the USA, even in New York, where Jews are highly concentrated and enjoy a higher economic status than any other group.

Even in New York, Asians outperformed the Jews. In some states, there were four and five times the number of high-scoring Asians as Jews:

 Across six years of Florida results, Asian students are more than twice as likely to be high scorers compared to their Jewish classmates, with the disparity being nearly as great in Pennsylvania. The relative advantage of Asians is a huge factor of 5.0 in Michigan and 4.1 in Ohio, while in Illinois Asians still do 150 percent as well as Jews. …”

Lila: Furthermore, Unz claims that this pattern holds true across the country, even though the school tests themselves favor both Jews and the general population of whites and go against Asian strengths:

Earlier we had noted that the tests used to select NMS semifinalists actually tilted substantially against Asian students by double-weighting verbal skills and excluding visuospatial ability, but in the case of Jews this same testing-bias has exactly the opposite impact. Jewish ability tends to be exceptionally strong in its verbal component and mediocre at best in the visuospatial,57 so the NMS semifinalist selection methodology would seem ideally designed to absolutely maximize the number of high-scoring Jews compared to other whites or (especially) East Asians. Thus, the number of high-ability Jews we are finding should be regarded as an extreme upper bound to a more neutrally-derived total.”

Lila: Given that and given the greater percentage of Asians in the population than Jews, the inescapable conclusion is that American colleges (except for a handful of meritocracies) universally and egregiously discriminate against Asians and practice affirmative action in favor of Jews, even while the media and public believe that it is foreigners and dark-skinned people who benefit from affirmative action the most.

But suppose these estimates are correct, and Asians overall are indeed twice as likely as Jews to rank among America’s highest performing students. We must also consider that America’s Asian population is far larger in size, representing roughly 5 percent of college-age students, compared to just 1.8 percent for Jews. Therefore, assuming an admissions system based on strictest objective meritocracy, we would expect our elite academic institutions to contain nearly five Asians for every Jew; but instead, the Jews are far more numerous, in some important cases by almost a factor of two. This raises obvious suspicions about the fairness of the Ivy League admissions process.”

Lila: In the more meritocratic schools – Cal Tech, the University of Berkeley, and MIT, the real picture emerges, with Asians dominating, while Jews command a small presence much more in keeping with their actual performance:

…. Caltech’s current undergraduates are just 5.5 percent Jewish, and the figure seems to have been around this level for some years; meanwhile, Asian enrollment is 39 percent, or seven times larger.”

And at the fiercely competitive University of Berkeley, the same numbers hold good:

The average Jewish enrollment is just over 8 percent, or roughly one-third that of the 25 percent found at Harvard and most of the Ivy League, whose admissions standards are supposedly far tougher. Meanwhile, some 40 percent of the students on these UC campuses are Asian, a figure almost five times as high.”

And at meritocratic MIT:

But today, MIT’s enrollment is just 9 percent Jewish, a figure lower than that anywhere in the Ivy League, while Asians are nearly three times as numerous, despite the school being located in one of the most heavily Jewish parts of the country.”

Black girl beats up white girl on viral video

A 13-year-old black girl beat up a 10-year-old white girl riding a scooter on a Cleveland side-walk on June 14.

It was an apparently unprovoked assault during which the attacker called the victim, Danielle Fair,  a racial slur,”cracker,” according to an on-looker.

The whole incident was caught on cell-phone camera and posted on Youtube, where it’s gone viral.

The police are treating the attack as a possible hate crime.

I want to be a bit cautious, though, because I notice a few things that are odd:

1. On camera, the black girl waits for the younger girl to come riding along. It is a planned, unprovoked assault on a stranger.

2. The cell-phone camera was rolling before the assault. Either someone knew in advance what was going to happen, or there is more going on here than meets the eye.

3.  The victim told the media (WOIO) that she felt “bullied.”

That language sounds rather stilted to me, from a ten-year-old.

The “anti-bullying” campaign is in full swing globally, promoted to the hilt by the power-elite, as a way to get young people fully involved in snitching on their peers, elders, and family members.

Check out the Bully Police page.

The anti-bullying campaign is driven by the militant gay lobby.

Recall that even in the Trayvon Martin case, the black teen who was killed was demonized as a thug and anti-gay.

How better to get white Christians to embrace the militantly anti-Christian anti-bullying campaign than to tie it to white racial fears of blacks?

In 2011, there were rumors about a an intel/government program of  inciting racial strife.

The assumption and fear was that the intelligence agencies might create spurious  “white- on-black” hate-crimes. (See here).

But there’s no reason why they might not incite people the  other way around too.

[I am not suggesting that these crimes are spurious. I am saying they might well be organized and incited.]

The intelligence agencies have a long history of provoking race riots.

There have been a spate of attacks that fall under the rubric of the  “knock-out” game, in which black youths are said to deliberately target white victims for no reason.

This might actually be the case, but from what I have seen of some of the cases so far, including the beating up of Matthew Owens, there is very much more going on.

In the Owens case, there was a three -year feud between the neighborhood black teens and Owens, in which Owens had previously brandished knives at them. He also had an extensive criminal record.

This does not excuse the attack, but it does mean that we need to look carefully to see if an attack really fits a “black-on-white race-war” narrative or whether, for whatever reason, the media is fanning the flames of racial hatred (as in this depiction of slavery) on both sides, black and white.

If the forces behind  “managed revolution” can pay impoverished Ukrainian girls to use their naked bodies as weapons in a culture war abroad, why wouldn’t they pay impoverished ghetto youth to use their fists in a race war at home?

 

The Guardian Stages Surveillance Theater

Image Credit: Saving the republic

The Guardian is running a piece by Trevor Timm, of the Greenwald-Poitras-Snowden- associated Freedom of the Press foundation. (H/T to Scott Lazarowitz, LRC)

It’s about Stingray, a technology that lets the government locate and track you via cell-phone tower signals.

Timm  is correct to point out the privacy implications of the NSA’s meta-data collection, which has filtered down to local police departments.

Meta-data is data about communications that doesn’t include the actual content.

It’s the date, the address (from and to), the length of time, the location.

Very rich, if collected continuously.

All very well, but, as even Timm does admit in the Guardian, this technology has been around for a couple of years.

Yet, last year, in a piece at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Timm wrote:

A few months ago, EFF warned of a secretive new surveillance tool, commonly referred to as a “Stingray,” being used by the FBI in cases around the country.”

Secretive and new? Really?

The Louisville Law Review says the Feds used the Stingray from 2006 on.

[The Stingray is really a brand that refers to a family of technologies, says the Review.]

Local police departments were using the Stingray as early as 2007 (seven years ago).

“Oakland’s Targeted Enforcement Task Force made 21 ”Electronic Surveillance [StingRay] arrests” in 2007, 19 in 2008, and 19 in 2009 for charges including robbery, kidnapping, attempted murder and homicide. Further records show employees receiving up to 40 hours in training on the technology.”

This was discussed in the major media, at least as far back as 2011.

At the cyber- security blog, Schneier on Security, a commenter in January 2013, called the Stingray “very old technology.”

And the Stingray is now old and very expensive technology, I’d actually be more woried by the likes of pocket picocells that hackers cobble together from COTS equipment for less than 200USD. “

A spy technology for under 200 bucks?

I’d be more worried by picocells too.

So, why isn’t the Guardian?

Or the EFF?

Or the Freedom of the Press Foundation?

Palin, the Prophetess? (Updated) – Part One

Image Credit: Townhall.com reposted at FreeRepublic.com

PALIN, THE PROPHETESS?

Conservatives have been pointing out that Sarah Palin was derided for predicting in 2008 that an Obama presidency might set the stage for a Russian invasion of the Ukraine:

Speaking Tuesday at a rally in a Reno, Nevada, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin had a little fun with her counterpart on the Democratic ticket, thanking Joe Biden for warning Barack Obama’s supporters to “gird your loins” for an international crisis if the Illinois senator wins.

Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

On the other hand,  prophecy might have nothing to do with it.

Palin was not just the running-mate of John McCain in the 2008 elections,  she is his close friend.

MCCAIN HELPED PROVOKE THE UKRAINE CRISIS

This is interesting, since Palin is identified with the more conservative base of the Republican party, while McCain is often praised by Democrats, which makes him either a thoughtful moderate or an undependable RINO (Republican in Name Only), depending on where you stand.

The second interesting angle is that John McCain was one of the chief rabble-rousers on the ground in the Ukraine in December 2013:

Senator John McCain on Sunday told thousands of Ukrainian protesters camped on Kiev’s main square that Ukraine’s destiny lay in Europe and that it would make Europe better”

Numbers of observers like this one have shown up the Western media for its black-out of the real Ukraine story.

MCCAIN’S CONNECTION TO THE MAFIA

(Added, June 16, 2014. H/T to Charles Burris, LRC blog for reminding me)

THE STAGE-MANAGEMENT OF HISTORY

Alternative blogs have called attention to the considerable evidence that the Ukraine situation was engineered, an instance of the much-flogged Hegelian Dialectic by which the Western governments and allied corporations draw greater and greater power to themselves:


Thesis (Proposition)

[A problem is created, encouraged, or exacerbated by the powers-that-be]

It is opposed by an

Antithesis (Counter-proposition) 

[This the reaction by the population, victims, or public opinion, to the problem. It demands a solution or a resolution.]

The conflict is resolved by the

Synthesis

[In turn this becomes a new thesis and the basis of the next triad of conflict.]


  1. The  solution is presented as a novel remedy to the population, but it is pre-planned. It is the intended goal of the powers-that-be.
  2. The new problems that lie in the solution are carefully hidden from the public until the next triad is activated. Then they become the basis for further conflict, which demands more solutions.
  3. The succeeding conflicts lead to greater and greater control by the powers-that-be.
  4. This control can be governmental or extra-governmental.

 

PALIN, THE PROPAGANDIST?

Seen in this light, Putin’s annexation of the Ukraine could be an intended consequence of the provocations staged by the CIA, with politicians like McCain, Nuland, and Kerry to lend them clout.

Palin, as a close friend of McCain’s, might have been privy to the plan, or, at least, to parts of it.

And her “prediction” of 2008 could simply be an accidental slip, exposing something she’d heard.

More likely, it’s an intentional leak to the public, with the intention of creating retrospective gravitas for Palin herself, as well as embarrassment for Obama.

One can of course take the speculation even further. Obama himself might have been selected to play this role in the weakening of the American empire…..

The NY Times’ Propaganda Campaign over Ukraine

Walter Uhler, an independent scholar, has written an exhaustive analysis of the New York Times’ mendacity in its Ukraine coverage.

Here is a short excerpt from Part II:

In contrast to the incompetent or dishonest on-the-spot reporting by the Times, the “White Book,” gathered evidence months after the events and found that “among the participants of the Euromaidan” were “large and permanent groups of militants, numbering several thousand people, who organized the attacks…”

These groups had “military and official body armor…helmets, shields, knee and elbow pads, masks, respirators, [and] gas masks.” They had fire arms and cold arms, radio communication equipment and stun grenades. They dismantled stones, to be thrown at police, from bridges and pavements. And they manufactured Molotov cocktails and other explosive devices. (White Book, p. 37)

Unfortunately, the “White Book” fails to specify precisely when such weapons were used. I suspect that the most deadly weapons were not introduced until mid-January 2014.

These groups were “constantly present,” unlike most of the protesters, and were most active in initiating violence. According to the “White Book,” on December 1 some “protesters” attempted “to break through the Interior Ministry troops and police officer cordon on Bankovaya street in Kiev,” in order to assault the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. (Imagine an attempt to assault our White House.)

In addition, “supporters of Pravyi Sektor entrenched themselves on the fifth floor of the House of Trade Unions. Party activists in AUU Svoboda actually took control of the Kiev City State Administration building.” (p. 9-10)

The see-no-evil Times did not even mention Right Sector (Pravyi Sektor) until 1 February 2014 and paid no serious attention to the group until 16 February. Imagine that! The Times was self-righteously pontificating about events at Maidan – from late November to mid-February — without having a clue about Right Sector violence. In fact, the incompetent or dishonest Times would not take the threat posed by Right Sector seriously, until it began to menace the very provisional government (the coup regime) that it had just brought to power.

As early as 3 December 2013, John Allen Gay (writing in The National Interest) complained that “Western coverage of the protests has ignored or downplayed the role of the crypto-fascist All-Ukrainian Union party, ‘Svoboda.’” “Svoboda’s leaders have associated themselves with the protest’s most radical action, the occupation and barricading of the Kyiv City Hall.” On December 8, a group of extremists, led by Svoboda, demolished the Lenin statue on Shevchenko Boulevard.

Yet, it wasn’t until 16 December 2013, when the Times finally got around to Svoboda. In an article titled “Unease as an Opposition Party Stands Out in Ukraine’s Protest,” Andrew E. Kramer noted that Svoboda “traces its roots to the Ukrainian partisan army of World War II, which was loosely allied with Nazi Germany.” Until 2004 it was known as the Social-Nationalist Party – a word flip away from the National socialism of the Nazis — and that same year its leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, was expelled by the Ukrainian Parliament, due to his speech that extolled “World War II-era partisans bravely fighting Germans, Russians, Jews and ‘other scum.’”

Mr. Kramer noted that “unabashed neo-Nazis still populate its ranks” and that its black and red banner, which was viewed to be a racist symbol and thus banned at soccer matches by FIFA, is ubiquitous at Independence Square.

Having been bussed into Kiev for weeks, “the activists make up much of the street muscle on the square.” “As the protests have unfolded, the party’s role has grown.”

Although Svoboda took full control of City Hall in mid-December, Mr. Kramer reported that “Western diplomats say they respect Mr. Tyagnibok for keeping control of the unruly nationalist wing on the streets.” Indeed, minimizing the role played by right-wing violence fit neatly with the theme that a popular (and thus legitimate) revolution was occurring at Maidan, not an ugly coup spearheaded by nasty people. The theme of popular revolution allowed Western writers, pundits and politicians to overlook who, precisely, was throwing those Molotov cocktails at police and buildings.

But, if incompetence or dishonesty explains why the Times failed to highlight these particular “bad guys,” what explains the similarly egregious failure by Russia’s reporters? Let’s be clear: What the “White Book” reported after the fact was not what the Russian press was reporting on the spot.

The Russian press took its cue from President Putin. For example, on December 4, Russia Direct quoted Mr. Putin’s assertion that “the anti-government protests in Ukraine were organized and planned by the West as an attempt to overthrow the country’s legitimate government.”

Read the rest of Part II here:

“The New York Times Disinformation Campaign over Ukraine: Part II: The Propaganda War over Ukraine

(Dissident Voice, June 12, 2o14)

Read Part I here:

The Propaganda War Over Ukraine:  The New York Times versus Russia’s White Book: Part One

(Dissident Voice, May 9, 2014)