daily angry

AUB President agrees with Kim Ghattas: colonial times were the best times in the Middle East
As’ad AbuKhalil, Angry Arab (Blog), Sep 17 2017

The lies and fabrications of the Israeli lobby
As’ad AbuKhalil, Angry Arab (Blog), Sep 17 2017


In addition to extortive taxes and fees levied against the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Shia under its jurisdiction.

A blatant lie. As if Hizbullah is not the people of South Lebanon, or some of them, anyway. The extended members of the AbuKhalil family in Tyre and Qulaylah village live in areas where Hizbullah is dominant, and they don’t pay a penny to Hizbullah.

Is HuffPost renting out space on its website? I am serious.
As’ad AbuKhalil, Angry Arab (Blog), Sep 17 2017

I know that the Arabic version of HuffPost was sold to the Qatari regime, which made it into the sleaziest, most misogynistic Arabic site there is. But now the pindo edition of the HuffPost is putting out stupid propaganda in praise of wealthy Arab. It is hilarious that they called Lebanese billionaire Fouad Makhzoumi “a beloved public figure.” That would crack up most Lebanese if they heard it.

When Pindostan almost invaded Lebanon in 1969
As’ad AbuKhalil, Angry Arab (Blog), Sep 17 2017

My weekly article in al-Akhbar:

When Pindostan almost invaded Lebanon in 1969: a new document.

PS: I am grateful to James Stoker for alerting me to this document that he found in the archives.

trump to UN

As NK threat looms, Trump to address world leaders at UN
Michelle Nichols, Reuters, Sep 18 2017

UN – NK’s nuclear threat looms large this week over the annual gathering of world leaders at the UN in NYC, where diplomats are eager to hear Pres Trump address the 193-member body for the first time. NK diplomats will have a front-row seat in the UNGA for Trump’s speech on Tuesday morning, which will touch on the escalating crisis that has seen Trump and Pyongyang trade threats of military action. Despite his scepticism about the value of international organizations and the UN in particular, Trump will seek support for tough measures against NK, while pressing his “Pindostan First” message to the world body. McMaster said on Friday:

This is not an issue between Pindostan and NK, this is an issue between the world and NK.

UN Sec-Gen Guterres, who like Trump took office in January, plans to meet separately with “concerned parties,” including NK Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho, on the sidelines of the 72nd GA. Guterres warned on Wednesday:

The solution can only be political. Military action could cause devastation on a scale that would take generations to overcome.

A week ago, the UNSC unanimously adopted its ninth sanctions resolution since 2006 over North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Pindo ambassador Haley said UN sanctions had banned 90% of the Asian state’s publicly reported exports, saying of Pyongyang on Friday:

This is totally in their hands on how they respond.

Haley told CNN State of the Union on Sunday that Faschingstein had “pretty much exhausted” its options on NK at the SC. NK Foreign Minister Ri is due to address the UNGA on Friday. Some leaders will press Trump not to give up on the 2015 P5+1 deal with Iran. PM Netanyahu has said it’s time to “fix it or cancel it.” The foreign ministers of Iran and the P5+1 are due to meet on Wednesday, ahead of an October deadline for Trump to tell Congress if he believes Tehran is sticking to what he has described as “the worst deal ever negotiated.” When asked on Friday what Moscow’s message would be for Faschingstein, Russia’s UN ambassador Vassili Nebenzia said:

Stay in the JCPoA.

A senior UNSC diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said:

We are faced with real uncertainties with respect to NK and it’s a bit dangerous to add another source of uncertainty with respect to Iran.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday his country would not be bullied by Pindostan and would react strongly to any “wrong move” by Faschingstein on the nuclear deal. Iran and NK will also feature heavily during a ministerial SC meeting on Thursday, at the request of Pindostan, to discuss the proliferation of WMDs. While leaders and diplomats are also due to meet on longer-running crises including Libya, Syria, South Sudan, Mali, CAR, Yemen and Iraq, a last-minute addition has been Myanmar. Britain is due to host a ministerial meeting on Monday to seek a way to get Myanmar authorities to end a military offensive in the country’s Rakhine state that has sent more than 400,000 minority Rohingya Muslims fleeing to Bangladesh. Following Trump’s announcement that Pindostan would withdraw from the 2015 Climate Change Agreement, several high-level gatherings are planned on the sidelines of the UNGA to bolster the deal. Guterres told reporters:

Climate change is a serious threat. Hurricanes and floods around the world remind us that extreme weather events are expected to become more frequent and severe, due to climate change.

Rex Tillerson appeared to hold the door open for Pindostan to remain in the Paris climate accord “under the right conditions.” Tillerson told CBS Face The Nation on Sunday:

The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.

Trump will seek to boost support for reforming the UN, which he once called “a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.” Pindostan is the largest UN contributor and Trump has complained that Faschingstein pays too much. McMaster said on Friday:

The UN, of course, holds tremendous potential to realise its founding ideals, but only if it’s run more efficiently and effectively.

Criticized by Trump, Iran nuclear deal faces tough scrutiny
John Irish, Parisa Hafezi, Reuters, Sep 18 2017

UN – The 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 faces a stern test at the UN this week as Europeans try to persuade a sceptical Trump administration to keep it, while Israel lobbies to turn up the pressure on Iran. Pres Trump, who must make a decision by mid-October that could undermine the agreement, repeated on Thursday his long-held view that Iran was violating “the spirit” of the deal. He has called the agreement, struck under Obama, “the worst deal ever negotiated.” The prospect of Faschingstein reneging on the agreement has worried some of the key pindo vassals that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with another nuclear crisis, NK’s nuclear and ballistic missile development. A senior European diplomat who was part of the 18-month negotiation process that led to the accord said:

We all share pindo concerns about Iran’s destabilising role in the region, but by mixing everything up, we risk losing everything.

Trump must decide in October whether to certify that Iran is complying with the agreement. If he does not, Congress has 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the deal. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Sunday that Tehran would react strongly to any “wrong move” by Faschingstein on the nuclear deal. At the UNGA on Monday, Trump meets Netanyahu followed by Macron, who like Trump, is making his inaugural appearance at the UNGA. They have very different messages to deliver. Netanyahu said in Argentina last Tuesday as he toured Latin America:

Our position is straightforward. This is a bad deal. Either fix it or cancel it. This is Israel’s position.

Israeli officials said he would also relay concerns over what Israel describes as Tehran’s growing military entrenchment in Syria and its post-civil war role in that country. They said changes that Israel was seeking in the JCPoA included lengthening the 10-year freeze on Iran’s nuclear development programme, or even making that suspension permanent, and destroying centrifuges rather than temporarily halting their operation. The P5+1 will meet with Iran at the ministerial level on Wednesday. Paris took one of the hardest lines against Tehran in the negotiations, but has been quick to restore trade ties, and Macron has said repeatedly there is no alternative to the deal. French officials say Iran is respecting the JCPoA and that were the IAEA, which ensures its implementation, to say otherwise, a mechanism exists to reimpose sanctions. Macron will warn Trump that weakening or scrapping the deal would not only add fuel to a regional powder keg but deter NK from negotiating on its nuclear programme, French diplomats said. It would also signal the beginning of the end of the NNPT, they said. A senior French diplomat said:

We can always find legal arrangements to make it look like the deal is still in place, but if Pindostan no longer supports it politically, then the reality is that it will be in serious jeopardy, and its implementation will be very difficult.

Rex Tillerson argued on Sep 15 that Washington must consider the full threat it says Iran poses to the Middle East when formulating its new policy towards Tehran. The French diplomat underlined that the nuclear deal was achieved in large part because it was not linked to all the other grievances that Pindostan may have had with Iran. Macron will meet Pres Rouhani immediately after Trump to tell him that Tehran must play its role in not stoking pindo anger through its activities in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, a French presidential source said. With Europeans not on the same page as the Trump administration, Iranian officials say they have an opportunity to divide the P5+1. A senior Iranian diplomat and former nuclear negotiator said:

I believe that the European members of the P5+1 have no intention of following Trump’s overtly aggressive Iran policy. They are wise. Look at the region! Crisis everywhere, from Iraq to Lebanon! Iran is a reliable regional partner for Europe, not only a trade partner, but a political one as well. European powers have been committed to the deal. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s commitment to the deal. Trump’s insistence on his hostile policy towards Iran will further deepen the division in the P5+1.

we all go through phases, right?

Top German Politicians Want Pindo Nuclear Weapons Out
John LaForge, Antiwar.com, Sep 13 2017

A series of anti-nuclear weapons actions between March and August at Air Base Büchel in Germany brought widespread media attention to the 20 pindo nuclear weapons still deployed there. Surprising demands for the bombs’ removal soon came from high-ranking political leaders including Germany’s foreign minister. A timeline of events between Jul 12-18, involving a Nukewatch-organized delegation of 11 pindo peace activists, shows how the work may have moved the officials to speak out.

Jul 12 – Upon its arrival, four members of the pindo group held a press conference in Frankfurt accompanied by Marion Küpker, international coordinator for DFG-VK, Germany’s oldest antiwar group and organizer of the five-month peace camp. News of the unprecedented pindo group was reported in the daily Frankfurt Journal (“Activists from Pindostan land in Frankfurt: Campaign against pindo nuclear weapons”), the online magazine Focus (“Nuclear fighters receive support from Pindostan”) and picked up around the country.

Jul 15 – Headlines like “Today in Büchel: Action day against nuclear weapons,” and “Konstantin Wecker sings for peace,” was news across south-west Germany when the well known singer-songwriter drew about 400 to his performance near the base’s main gates. The pindo delegates all spoke briefly to the gathering through interpreters.

Jul 17 – Five activists including four from Pindostan snuck deep into the air base at night, clipping four chain-link fences, and climbed to the top of a large nuclear weapons bunker. The five went undetected on base for more than two hours, before they themselves alerted guards. Detained by military and civilian police, the group was released around 3 am without charges, and none have been leveled.

Jul 26 – News of the “go-in” action reaching a bunker was reported widely. The daily Rhein-Zeitung’s headline used Nukewatch’s moniker:

‘Prison Gang’ Inspects Büchel Air Force Base – Peace movement claims five activists succeeded in penetrating the inner security area.

The reference was to 7 of the pindo delegates who have served a combined total of 36 years in jail and prison for antiwar actions.

Jul 28 – Journalists asked experts and military officials in Berlin whether the go-in group got near the “B61” thermo-nuclear bombs. Air Force headquarters in Berlin assured the press that “security had been maintained,” and this news went nationwide. Yet the information center of the Air Force in Berlin acknowledged the breach of security. One paper reported:

The Luftwaffe confirmed that on the night of Jul 18, five persons were in the military security area of the airport, where they illegally gained access by cutting fences with cutting tools, Rhein-Zeitung reported.

Another widely reported story quoted:

Military expert Nassauer: ‘Prison Gang’ was probably not in the sensitive area of the Büchel airfield.

Jul 29 – The daily paper of Nuremberg, with a circulation of 300,000, interviewed four of the pindo delegates and its article was headlined:

At night on the atom bunker” – Joint protest of peace activists from the region and Pindostan.

Aug 7 – Public criticism of lax security at Büchel went national when the Green Party Bundestag Deputy Tabea Rössner openly lambasted the base for not stopping the fence-cutting action. Rössner’s call for an investigation prompted the headline:

Is Air Base Büchel just as safe as an amusement park?

Accounts of Rössner’s statement, circulated widely on social media, reported:

The Greens demanded information about the safety situation at Büchel air base. The reason is an action by activists who entered the inner security area of the airbase.

Rössner’s statement said in part:

The federal government must fully explain the incident. If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing. The security concept is more than bumbling. This is not a trifle, even if those responsible would try to downplay the incident. It is more than frightening that at a time of significantly increased terror, the safety measures of such a site fall below the level of a theme park.

Aug 22 – The pindo H-bombs then burst into the national election campaign when Martin Schulz, the head of the Social Democrats and candidate for Chancellor in this month’s elections, unexpectedly called for the ouster of the pindo nuclear weapons. Reuters, the LA Times, The NYT, Politico and major German media reported:

German rival of Chancellor Merkel vows to remove pindo nuclear weapons from the country.

Searching for another point of difference, Schulz pledged on Aug 22 to have pindo nuclear weapons withdrawn from German territory if, against the odds, he defeats Merkel.

Germany’s Schulz says he would demand pindo withdraw nuclear arms.

Schulz had said:

As chancellor, I’d push for the ejection of nuclear weapons stored in Germany.

Aug 29 – Conservative politicians and editors attacked Schulz as uninformed or naive, but the criticism was short-lived. Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a surprise endorsement of Schulz’s proposal. At a joint presser with Rex Tillerson in Faschingstein, Gabriel joined Schulz’s call for withdrawal of the pindo weapons. The foreign minister’s surprise announcement included his blunt admission:

I agreed with Mr Schulz’s point that we need to get rid of the nuclear weapons that are in our country.

The news startled media around the world, which reported:

Foreign Minister joins call to withdraw pindo nukes from Germany. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has supported Social Democrat leader Martin Schulz’s pledge that he will push for the removal of pindo nuclear warheads from Germany if elected Chancellor.

The International Business Times and the Financial Tribune online declared on Aug 31, noted:

Top German Politicians Want Pindo Nuclear Weapons Out. Germany’s top diplomat foreign minister has backed the suggestion of SPD leader and Chancellor hopeful Martin Schulz, who has pledged to rid his country of pindo nukes.

To help the Germans see the permanent elimination of pindo nukes, the movement here has to generate enough pushback to cancel Congress’s plan to replace rather than retire the pindo H-bombs in Europe. Nixing the B61-12 plan would save at least $12b.

haley’s twofer

‘Not satisfied’ till Assad gone: Haley pushes for regime change as war in Syria winds down
N A, RT.com, Sep 15 2017

Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed Friday Sep 15 on the fourth and final de-escalation zone in Syria, which is designed to ensure ceasefire between Syrian government forces and rebels for a period of six months in order to pave the way for a political resolution to the six-year war. The deal, which is also aimed at separating terrorist groups including Daesh and Nusra from so-called moderate opposition, was agreed with the approval of the Syrian government, as well as members of Syrian opposition who participated in the talks. This came ten days after the Syrian army with Russia’s help liberated one of Daesh’s last strongholds in Syria, the city of Deir ez-Zor, which had been under the terrorists’ siege for three years. The lifting of the siege finally allowed humanitarian aid to reach the city. When asked at a White House briefing on Friday whether Pindostan was left behind in international efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis, Ambassador Haley said:

We’re not going to be satisfied until we see a strong and stable Syria. And that is not with Assad in place.

Pindo boxtops have said their main goal in Syria is to fight Daesh. Faschingstein backs the operations of SDF which includes the YPG Kurdish fighters and Arab militia groups. The YPG/SDF advanced towards Deir ez-Zor from the eastern side of the Euphrates river this week, in an effort to gain control of the city’s eastern outskirts before the government does. While Deir ez-Zor city was not a YPG/SDF target, they did not rule out the possibility that it may become one. AP cited Abu Khawla, leader of the group advancing towards the newly liberated city, as saying that people in the city wanted to be liberated from “the regime and Daesh at the same time.” On Thursday, they said the YPG/SDF was not planning to enter Deir ez-Zor city.

Abu Khawla told AP that the militia will not let SAA and their allies cross the Euphrates river to gain control of its eastern side. Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova said Friday the SAA had already crossed. According to Zakharova:

After a major victory near Deir al-Zor, the SAA continues to clear Daesh terrorists from the eastern regions of the country. The suburbs of this provincial centre have been liberated. Advance units have successfully crossed the Euphrates and are holding positions on its eastern bank.

On Sep 12, the Russian military said that the SAA had regained control of 85% of the country’s territory.

The first UN humanitarian convoy arrived in Deir ez-Zor on Friday. Russia began delivery of aid to the embattled city last week, almost immediately after the siege was lifted. A local woman told RT, as residents described the horrors of life under siege:

We fed our children with stale bread, cleaning the mould from it. We have long suffered from artillery strikes and shells. They usually hit civilians – children and women in particular.

Haley Meltdown: Assad Must Go … and War With NK!
Daniel McAdams, Antiwar.com, Sep 18 2017

There must be something about being named ambassador to the UN that brings out the inner mass murderer in people. Madeline Albright famously admitted that she thought 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to our sanctions was “worth it.” John Bolton never met a disagreement he didn’t want to turn into a war. Samantha Power barked about human rights while her administration’s drones snuffed out human life in unprecedented numbers. Richard Holbrooke, the real “butcher of the Balkans,” sold the Yugoslavia war on lies. John “Death Squad” Negroponte sold the lie that Saddam Hussein needed to be killed and his country destroyed for democracy to flourish. And so on. Considering how many millions of civilians have been killed on the war propaganda of our ambassadors to the UN, perhaps the equivalent of another Holocaust could have been avoided if Ron Paul’s HR 1146 has passed 30 years ago. But nothing could have prepared us for Nikki “Holocaust” Haley, who has thundered into the Trump Administration as ambassador to the UN despite hating Trump and Trump hating her. Why would Trump pick someone for such an influential position despite her being vocally and publicly opposed to the foreign policy that provided the margin of victory for him? We can only guess. Was Trump lying on the campaign trail? Possibly. Does he not bother to notice that he has surrounded himself with people who are deeply opposed, at the DNA level, to the policies he ran and won on? Seems more likely. As Johnny Rotten famously ended the Sex Pistols run, “ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” In fact, yes. One-time top Trump supporter Ann Coulter today Tweeted the question:

Coulter meant the wall or something else, but she could just as well have been complaining about the foreign policy about-face. Trump ran as a Ron Paul Republican, he governs as a Bush 43 Republican. Cheated? Yes, once again. Which brings us back to the odious Haley. Today she no doubt thought she was being clever, Tweeting in response to the predictable fact that yet another round of sanctions against NK did not result in Kim Jong-Un doing a Gaddafi suicide knife dance, that since the sanctions destroying the NK economy have not resulted in Kim’s surrender, it was time to hand the matter over to Mad Dog Mattis. 

We killed their trade, we destroyed their oil imports and still they have the nerve to defy us and not surrender … so, time for WW3! That’s Haley. No foreign policy experience beyond the fetid breath of the neocon “experts” whispering in her all-too-willing ear. But Haley was not done today. After threatening a war on NK that would likely leave ten or more thousand pindo grunts dead, hundreds of thousands of SK civilians dead, and maybe another million NK dead, she decided to opine on the utterly failed six year regime change operation in Syria. Today, as Deir ez-Zor has finally been liberated by the SAA from the scourge of Daesh, Haley chose to go on record defending Daesh and AQ by repeating Obama’s line that Assad must go. Ponder this for a minute: Assad has just defeated Daesh in Deir ez-Zor. Daesh is the reason that Pindostan has invaded Syrian sovereignty and initiated military action. Yet according to Haley, Assad’s reward for wiping out Daesh is that he must be deposed, presumably in favor of rebels who have been in bed with Daesh for six years! Is Haley pro-Daesh? Is she pro-AQ? Is she evil or just stupid? You decide. But if she is not removed from office soon, she will be leading perhaps a million people to their graves.

another epic tweetstorm

Trump Unleashes Epic Tweetstorm, Calls Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man”
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Sep 17 2017

It looks like Trump’s social media filter, Gen. Kelly, finally lost control (again) of Trump’s twitter feed, because in a barrage of Sunday morning tweets, which including both original content as well as retweets of others, as well as himself, President Trump has tweeted and retweeted at least 15 different things in the span of 2 hours, most notably his summary of his Saturday call with SK Pres Moon Jae-in, in which he called Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man,” and said that long gas lines forming in NK are “too bad!” after new UN sanctions cut oil exports to NK.

Previously, the White House said Trump and SK Pres Moon Jae-in discussed NK’s recent ICBM launches during a call on Saturday. The White House said in a statement:

The two leaders noted that NK continues to defy the international community, even after the UN strongly condemned NK’s repeated provocations twice in the past week. Pres Trump and Pres Moon committed to continuing to take steps to strengthen deterrence and defense capabilities and to maximize economic and diplomatic pressure on NK. The two leaders noted that they will continue their close consultations next week when they meet on the margins of the UNGA.

According to Reuters, an SK boxtop said the leaders agreed on the need for stronger sanctions against NK during their call. Blue House spokesman Park Soo-hyun said in a televised briefing:

The two leaders agreed to strengthen cooperation, and exert stronger and practical sanctions on North Korea so that it realizes provocative actions leads to further diplomatic isolation and economic pressure.

In addition to the “Rocket Man” tweet, Trump also tweeted:

He thanked a supporter on Twitter:

He also retweeted some commentary critical of the NYT:

Then he went full bore in retweeting one particular account, @TeamTrump45, which took certain creative liberties in highlighting his support for the president:

Trump then also retweeted the following tweet:

He retweeted his Friday tweets following the latest London terrorist attack:

Trump concluded by saying:

latest from syria

Russia rejects allegation it bombed YPG/SDF in Syria
Reuters, Sep 17 2017

MOSCOW – Russia’s Defence Ministry on Sunday rejected allegations it had bombed YPG/SDF in Syria, saying its planes only targeted Daesh and that it had warned Pindostan well in advance of its operational plans. YPG/SDF said they came under attack on Saturday from Russian jets and Syrian government forces in Deir al-Zor province, and six of its fighters had been wounded in the strike. But the Russian Defense Ministry’s Maj-Gen Igor Konashenkov dismissed the allegations in a statement on Sunday saying:

Russian planes carried out carefully targeted strikes in the area based upon information that had been confirmed from multiple sources. The strikes hit targets in areas under the control of Daesh. To avoid unnecessary escalation, the commanders of Russian forces in Syria used an existing communications channel to inform our pindo partners in good time about the borders of our military operation in Deir ez-Zor. In the last few days, Russian surveillance and reconnaissance did not detect a single clash between Daesh and armed representatives of any ‘third force’ on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

Separately, Franz Klintsevich, a member of the upper house of parliament’s security committee, said there was no proof to underpin the accusations against Moscow.

SAA cuts Daesh’s Deir ez-Zor supply line – RIA
Reuters, Sep 17 2017

MOSCOW – The SAA has cut Daesh’s main supply line in the city of Deir ez-Zor after taking control of the al-Jafra district, Russia’s RIA cited an unnamed source as saying on Sunday.

Lavrov and Tillerson talk Syria after bombing allegations
Reuters, Sep 17 2017

MOSCOW – Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that Rex Tillerson had phoned Sergei Lavrov on Saturday to discuss the Syria situation and how the “anti-terrorism” battle on the ground was playing out. The call occurred after YPG/SDF in Syria said they had come under attack on Saturday from Russian jets and Syrian government forces in Deir ez-Zor province. The Russian Foreign Ministry did not say in its statement whether the two men had discussed that allegation, and how Moscow had responded if they had.

SAA & allies close in on Daesh in Deir ez-Zor
Reuters, Sep 17 2017

BEIRUT – Syrian troops seized a suburb of the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria on Sunday, tightening the noose around Islamic State militants, a military source said. Oil-rich Deir al-Zor province, which borders Iraq, is Islamic State’s last major foothold in Syria. The Syrian army pushed into Deir al-Zor city this month, with Russian air power and Iran-backed militias, breaking an Islamic State siege of an enclave that had lasted three years. Russia’s RIA cited an unnamed source as saying that the SAA had cut Daesh’s main supply line in the city on Sunday after taking control of the al-Jafra district.

i personally don’t think allah will be merciful towards degeneracy

The West’s Quest to Save the World Through Degeneracy
J G Jatras, Strategic Culture, Sep 15 2017


Analysts of world affairs tend to fall into certain traps concerning the motivations and behavior of political actors. We consistently look at politicians’ electoral support, states’ access to resources, lines of offense or defense, traditional alliances and enmities, the profits of empowered interests, geography, demography, and many other objective factors. But the subjective ideological, spiritual, and moral motivations that loom high in the self-conscious actions of movers and shakers are seldom given the attention they deserve. That is, what do the presidents, government ministers, military officers, bureaucrats, oligarchs, and NGO gurus themselves think they are doing when they advocate for or against a certain set of policies? Sometimes the answers seem to make no sense at all in terms of the usual analyses of objective “interests.” The easiest resolution to such puzzles is usually found in Occam’s razor: just follow the money. Somebody, somewhere, is making a buck. Usually lots of bucks. But even the money trail fails to answer some questions. For example, as part of their foreign policies why are western (North American and western European) governments, NGOs, etc so insistent on demanding action on a “progressive” program to advance “gender” issues such as same-sex “marriage,” “transgenderism” and so forth? After all, if pindos want to pump little kids full of “gender-reassignment” hormones, or if the citizens of (big surprise) California wish to subject kindergarten children to an abomination like “drag queen story hour,” that would be bad enough. Certainly in the fullness of time there will be enough millstones and depths of the sea, figuratively speaking, to give the culpable their just desserts. By the way, can we please dispense with the notion that LGBTQI etc “recruitment” of children is just a paranoid fantasy of “haters”? If “drag queen story hour” isn’t recruitment into a mindset and then in at least some cases, participation, then what is it? Pindostan can be proud we don’t have evil laws like they have in Russia aimed at protecting children from “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” The brutes!

The West’s demand for new, post-Christian social and moral values is a particular danger to some of the countries that emerged from communism in the 1990s. Paradoxically, given Marxism-Leninism’s claim to be the godless science of social progress, post-communist Central and Eastern Europe is generally far more traditional and Christian in its social conscience compared to the West, if not particularly churchgoing. Perhaps that is because communist materialism was such a failure compared to consumerist materialism that the West provided much more fertile ground for transforming an ideology of class struggle into a struggle against the spiritual and moral values upon which society is rooted. The paradox is that today the roots of what was once quaintly known as Christendom are still relatively stronger in the East, and thus must be destroyed. Hence the threats from western governments to some countries (Poland, Hungary, Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, etc) to improve their “human rights” performance on “gender issues.” Hold a gay parade! Recognize same-sex unions! Pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa! Or else, sanctions! Similar pressures are put on majority Christian countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Islamic countries are oddly immune from criticism. As it happens, there is a decades-old blueprint for imperialism based on sexual degeneracy. It is found in an unlikely place, in John Kennedy Toole‘s novel A Confederacy of Dunces. Written in 1963 but not published until 1980, the book takes its title from the epigram of Jonathan Swift’s essay, Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting:

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

In this case, the genius in question is Toole’s fictional protagonist, the brilliant but lazy Ignatius J Reilly, a disciple of the late-Roman philosopher Boethius (a Stoic – RB), who encounters on the streets of his native New Orleans a member of what today would be called a sexual minority. The chance meeting sparks in Reilly a bold, revolutionary burst of insight that fits so well into our contemporary world that it’s hard to believe it’s a depiction from over half a century ago. There’s no proof that this passage was in fact the inspiration for our present-day fanatics of imperialist gender revolution, but the stunning parallels, including a call for regime change in “reactionary countries,” speak for themselves:

As I was wearing the soles of my desert boots down to a mere sliver of crepe rubber on the old flagstone banquettes of the French Quarter in my fevered attempt to wrest a living from an unthinking and uncaring society, I was hailed by a cherished old acquaintance (a deviate). After a few minutes of conversation in which I established most easily my moral superiority over this degenerate, I found myself pondering once more the crises of our times. My mentality, uncontrollable and wanton as always, whispered to me a scheme so magnificent and daring that I shrank from the very thought of what I was hearing. “Stop! This is madness!” I cried imploringly to my godlike mind, but still I listened to the counsel of my brain. It was offering me the opportunity to Save the World Through Degeneracy. There on the worn stones of the Quarter I enlisted the aid of this wilted flower of a human in gathering his associates in foppery together behind a banner of brotherhood.

Our first step will be to elect one of their number to some very high office: the presidency, if Fortuna spins us kindly. Then they will infiltrate the military. As soldiers, they will all be so continually busy in fraternizing with one another, tailoring their uniforms to fit like sausage skins, inventing new and varied battle dress, giving cocktail parties etc, that they will never have time for battle. The one whom we finally make Chief of Staff will want only to attend to his fashionable wardrobe, a wardrobe which alternately will permit him to be either Chief of Staff or debutante, as the desire strikes him. In seeing the success of their unified fellows here, perverts around the world will also band together to capture the military in their respective countries. In those reactionary countries in which the deviates seem to be having some trouble in gaining control, we will send aid to them as rebels to help them in toppling their governments. When we have at last overthrown all existing governments, the world will enjoy not war but global orgies conducted with the utmost protocol and the most truly international spirit, for these people do transcend simple national differences. Their minds are on one goal. They are truly united. They think as one.

None of the pederasts in power, of course, will be practical enough to know about such devices as bombs. These nuclear weapons would lie rotting in their vaults somewhere. From time to time the Chief of Staff, the President and so on, dressed in sequins and feathers, will entertain the leaders of all the other countries, ie the perverts, at balls and parties. Quarrels of any sort could easily be straightened out in the men’s room of the redecorated UN. Ballets and Broadway musicals and entertainments of that sort will flourish everywhere, and will probably make the common folk happier than did the grim hostile fascistic pronouncements of their former leaders. Almost everyone else has had an opportunity to run the world. I cannot see why these people should not be given their chance. They have certainly been the underdog long enough. Their movement into power will be, in a sense, only a part of the global movement toward opportunity, justice, and equality for all; For example, can you name one good, practicing transvestite in the Senate? No! These people have been without representation long enough. Their plight is a national, a global disgrace. Degeneracy, rather than signaling the downfall of a society, as it once did, will now signal peace for a troubled world. We must have new solutions to new problems.

the fake progressivism of ‘power feminism’ illustrated

Hillary Happened
Jeffrey St Clair, Counterpunch, Sep 15 2017

So someone has ghost-written another Hillary Clinton memoir. My biggest question when I picked it up was: Did Hillary stiff the writer out of the final payment as she did Barbara Feinman, the real author of It Takes a Village? You don’t have to read any further than the cover of the book to answer the question posed by its title: What Happened: Hillary Clinton. Glutton for punishment, I took a masochistic dive into its dark pages anyway. It soon became apparent that Hillary shouldn’t have treated Feinman so churlishly. What Happened would have greatly benefited from her stylistic enhancements. The prose in this book is as brittle as the mind behind it. Notice the lack of a question mark in the title. This is a telling punctuational elision. It signals that this text will not be an investigation into the dynamics behind the most perplexing election in pindo history. Don’t skim these pages in search of a self-lacerating confession or an apologia. What Happened reads more like a drive-by shooting rampage. The book is a score-settling scattershot rant, enfilading anyone who stood in Clinton’s way, from Bernie Sanders to James Comey. Amid Hillary’s hitlist of villains, even toothless Joe Biden gets gut-shot. There are, naturally, two ways of interpreting the results of the 2016 elections pitting the two most unappetizing candidates in pindo history against each other. Either Trump found some way to defeat Hillary or (more probably) Hillary managed to lose to Trump. But Hillary’s psyche can’t swallow either scenario, so she endeavors to create a mystery where there is none. The outcome was so inexplicable, she reasons, that there must be some hidden mechanism at work: Russian hacking, press bias, left betrayal, FBI sabotage. Clinton summons a lineup of the possible suspects: Bernie Sanders, Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Jill Stein, the NYT, CNN, and James Comey. But Hillary and her ghost-writer are not John LeCarré. She can’t spin a coherent and plausible cyber-spy yarn, in part because she keeps getting sidetracked by a compulsion to wash her own hands of any culpability in blowing the election. The closest Hillary comes to any admission of personal liability is when she discloses that she may have blundered when she smeared Trump’s supporters as “deplorables.” Then she suddenly pulls back, recalibrates and defends her denunciation of white working class voters as an act of courage, speaking truth to the powerless, even though it may have harmed her, writing:

I regret handing Trump a political gift with my ‘deplorables’ comment, though too many of Trump’s core supporters do hold views that I find, there’s no other word for it, deplorable.

What started as a confession ended in a boast. Of course, Hillary Clinton has never been able to conceal her contempt for her enemies, real and imagined. It’s one reason she’s never been a successful politician. Where others are supple, she is taut. Unlike Bill, Hillary is a prolific, but graceless and transparent liar. She is also probably the nastiest political figure in Pindostan since Nixon. Yet she lacked Nixon’s Machiavellian genius for political manipulation. Hillary wears her menace on her face. She could never hide her aspiration for power; her desire to become a war criminal in the ranks of her mentor Henry Kissinger, symbolized by the laurels of a Nobel Peace Prize, naturally. Pindos don’t mind politicians with a lust to spill blood, but they prefer them not to advertise it. Thus, Clinton was miscast from the beginning as a political candidate for elected office. Her skills and temperament were more suited to the role of political enforcer in the mode of Thomas Cromwell or John Erhlichman. But her ambition wouldn’t let her settle for the role of a backstage player. She fumes with Nixonian fury:

One thing I’ve learned over the years is how easy it is for some people to say horrible things about me when I’m not around, but how hard it is for them to look me in the eye and say it to my face.

Hillary has tried to reinvent herself many times and does so yet again in this meretricious coda to her failed campaign. She made herself more domesticated for the southern electorate in Arkansas. She shifted the blame to her advisors after the disaster of her healthcare bill. She washed off the blood-spatter from the Ken Starr investigations by portraying herself as the target of a witch hunt. She exploited an addled Daniel Patrick Moynihan to justify running as an interloper for Senator in New York. She rationalized her votes for the Iraq War by saying she was duped by Colin Powell and Dick Cheney. She manufactured a timely tear for the cameras after her loss to Obama. She assumed the mantle of unrepentant warmonger during her belligerent tenure as Sec State and transubstantiated into a white dove during her debates with Bernie Sanders. She has weeded and blurred inconvenient episodes from her resumé. She has gone on talking tours. She has appeared in town halls. She has reintroduced herself, again and again. She’s changed her name, hairstyles and fashion designers. She exchanged dresses for pantsuits. She shifted from drinking pinot noir to craft beers. She’s backed wars both before she opposed them and after she condemned them. But she remains the same HRC that pindos have known since 1992. Everybody sees this except her. Pindos know her better than she knows herself.  All of her manufactured mirages are translucent to the very the people she wants to deceive.  When Hillary looks in the mirror, she must see what might have been, or in her mind, should have been, not what is. And that schism enrages her. She mopes:

Why am I seen as such a divisive figure and, say, Joe Biden and John Kerry aren’t? They’ve cast votes of all kinds, including some they regret, just like me? What makes me such a lightning rod for fury? I’m really asking. I’m at a loss.

Hillary rarely offers anything remotely revealing about herself, other than plastic platitudes and self-flattering fables. But what seeps through this memoir page after page is an animus that seethes beneath her very thin skin against anyone she believes has slighted her. Brooding on her fate, she writes mordantly:

It wasn’t healthy or productive to dwell on the ways I felt I’d been shivved.

Yet that’s precisely what she does, incessantly. The deployment of the prison slang “shivved” with its faint whiff of black criminality and cunning use of racist trope is a familiar trick in the Clinton playbook. It implies that she has been stabbed in the back by a friend or someone she thought she owned. Hillary’s politics never really matured much beyond the inbred conservativism that drew her to Barry Goldwater in the mid-60s. She’s a moral prude, a hawk and an unrepentant capitalist, who is deeply suspicious of black people. Eventually, the Demagog Party devolved toward her austere political views, abetted by her husband, Al Gore and the other neolib “New Demagogs.” What she had, the ace of up her sleeve, was her feminism. But it was a unique brand of feminism. Call it power feminism, which asserted individual ambition rather than a militant political agenda. She also weaponized the feminism of victimhood. Hillary charges that her chance to rule was undone by a nation of misogynists, who thrilled at her torments.

I wish so badly we were a country where a candidate who said, ‘My story is the story of a life shaped by and devoted to the movement for women’s liberation’ would be cheered, not jeered. But that’s not who we are.

As for the 53% of white women who voted against her, they too are portrayed as victims. We are led to believe that these women weren’t acting on their own agency in the voting booth. Rather they were captives, little more than automatons controlled by their husbands, fathers, bosses and preachers. Throughout her career, HRC regularly scolded poor black and Hispanic families about taking “personal responsibility” for their dire circumstances. Indeed, Clinton cast welfare reform as the penance the poor must pay for not getting their shit together. But personal responsibility is a quality that Hillary never adopts for her own failures and screw-ups, including grave ones such as the invasion of Libya or sliming black teens as “super-predators” in her lobbying blitz to enact her husband’s vicious Crime Bill. She can’t forgive Bernie Sanders for having the temerity to challenge her preordained coronation and shining a spotlight on the more ignoble chapters of her political career, and cynically blames Sanders for her losses in Ohio and Pennsylvania, with apparently no assist from Putin, raving:

Bernie routinely portrayed me as a corrupt corporatist who couldn’t be trusted. Bernie was outraged about everything. He thundered on at every event about the sins of the ‘millionaires and billionaires.’ I was more focused on offering practical solutions that would address real problems and make life better for people. What did matter, and had a lasting impact, was that Bernie’s presence in the race meant that I had less space and credibility to run the kind of progressive campaign that had helped me win Ohio and Pennsylvania in 2008.

Tell Putin the news, Bernie! Hillary Clinton has been obsessed with power her entire adult life. Now it has finally slipped from her hands, and, like some deposed monarch or disgraced CEO, she can only see a conspiracy behind her downfall. Of course, the Clintons have always been professional paranoids. Every roadbump in their political careers has been covertly placed in their path by some shadowy, malign force. In What Happened the “vast right-wing conspiracy” Hillary inveighed against in the 1990s has morphed into a vast “left-right conspiracy of men” who in her portentous words “want to blow up the system and undermine it and all the rest of the stuff they talk about.” The system, of course, is a stand-in for herself. Her defeat at the hands of a ruthless and scheming patriarchy, we are encouraged to believe, is a trembling testament to pindo political decline. This egotistical gibberish comes from the woman who seemed eager to bring the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust over Syria and Ukraine. What Happened is a sordid book, petulant and spiteful. It made me feel queasy and dirty while reading it, like the whole 25-year-long experience of Clintonism itself. By the end, I got the sense that its sleazy torrent of invective and blame-mongering was more an attempt to console the frail psyche of the author rather than to repair her shattered image to any readership the book might find. In the years to come, What Happened will prove much more valuable as documentary evidence for psycho-historians than political scientists.

charm school

Soldiers assault woman who resists as they weld her door shut
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, Sep 15 2017

This video shows IOF violently assaulting and attempting to handcuff 55-year-old Zleikhah al-Muhtaseb in a family-owned building in Hebron. IOF invaded the home in order weld shut one of its two entrances, and Zleikhah tried to stop them. Zleikhah’s niece Rania al-Muhtaseb lives in the building with her husband Bassem and their three children. The building has a back door towards Hebron’s market, and a front entrance towards the Ibrahimi mosque. The front entrance goes out into an area heavily controlled by IOF, which family members cannot easily cross except by passing through military checkpoints. When the IOF showed up at the house on Aug 13, Rania called her aunt, one of the building’s owners, who lives in Hebron’s Old City. Rania told B’Tselem:

She arrived within half an hour. The officers were trying to screw the door shut just as she came in. She went up to them and tried to stop them. She pressed herself against the door and held on to it. The female soldier tried to get her away from the door, but couldn’t.

What happened next can be seen in the video above, filmed by Rania. IOF did eventually weld the door shut, causing the family considerable hardship. Bassem explained:

Before they welded the back door shut, I would go in and out of the house through the market. Now, I have to get home by walking on the rooftops of the houses near the market. It’s dangerous at night, because the military watches the rooftops in the area.

The alternative is to go through one of the military checkpoints where Palestinians face long delays and routine harassment. Bassem added:

On top of this, my wife is pregnant, and I’m worried she’ll go into labor at night and we’ll have to get to hospital, (and they) rarely agree to open the emergency gate in the checkpoint.

B’Tselem said:

The excuse provided by the security forces that the measure was needed to prevent ‘suspects’ from going through the house is unfounded and has no basis in reality. Even if there were any truth to it, it could not justify such severe harm to the al-Muhtaseb family. This case is another example of Israel’s policy of segregation and restrictions on Palestinian movement in central Hebron, coupled with abuse, violence and daily harassment by security forces and settlers.

As a result, life in the Old City of Hebron has become intolerable for Palestinians, and thousands have left the area, which is presumably the intended goal of Israel’s policies. On Friday, Palestinians in Hebron marched after noon prayers to protest Israel’s expansion of municipal services to the settlers in the Old City, a move Palestinians fear will further consolidate their grip. According to the Ma’an News Agency, IOF attacked the peaceful marchers with tear gas.

practically book-length 5-yr-old article about jewish privilege at ivy league universities

Prompted by the above tweets. Here is the middle part, at least:

The Myth of Pindo Meritocracy (Extract)
Ron Unz, Unz Review, Nov 28 2012

[…] We are therefore faced with the clear conundrum that Jewish students seem to constitute roughly 6% of Pindostan’s highest-ability high school graduates and non-Jewish whites around 65% to 70%, but these relative ratios differ by perhaps 1000% from the enrollments we actually find at Harvard and the other academic institutions which select Pindostan’s future elites. Meanwhile, an ethnic distribution much closer to this apparent ability-ratio is found at Caltech, whose admissions are purely meritocratic, unlike the completely opaque, subjective, and discretionary Ivy League system so effectively described by Karabel, Golden, and others. One obvious explanatory factor is that the Ivy League is located in the north-east, a region of the country in which the Jewish fraction of the population is more than twice the national average. However, these schools also constitute Pindostan’s leading national universities, so their geographical intake is quite broad, with Harvard drawing less than 40% of its pindo students from its own region, and the others similarly tending to have a nationally distributed enrollment. So this factor would probably explain only a small portion of the discrepancy. Furthermore, MIT utilizes a considerably more meritocratic and objective admissions system than Harvard, and although located just a few miles away has a ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish whites which differs by nearly a factor of four in favor of the latter compared to its crosstown rival. By the late 1960s, Jewish students had become a substantial fraction of most Ivy League schools and today, some of their children may be benefiting from legacies. But until about 25 years ago, white Gentiles outnumbered their Jewish classmates perhaps as much as 3 to 1, so if anything we might expect the admissions impact of legacies to still favor the former group. Anyway, the research of Espenshade and his colleagues have shown that being a legacy provides an admissions advantage in the range of 19% to 26%, while we are attempting to explain enrollment differences of roughly 1000%.

Pindo Jews are certainly more affluent than most other groups, but all Ivy League universities admit their pindo students on a “need-blind” basis, so perceptions of ability to pay cannot be a factor, even if any evidence existed that Jewish applicants were actually wealthier than their non-Jewish counterparts. Many Jewish alumni are very generous to their alma maters, but so are non-Jews, and indeed nine of the ten largest university donations in history have come from non-Jewish individuals, nearly all in the last fifteen years. Thus, mercenary hopes of large future bequests would probably not be influencing these skewed admissions. Perhaps Jews simply apply to these schools in far greater relative numbers, with successful, educationally-ambitious Jewish families being much more likely to encourage their bright children to aim at the Ivies than the parents of equally bright non-Jews. However, since these elite schools release no information regarding the ethnic or racial skew of their applications, we have no evidence for this hypothesis. And why would high-ability non-Jews be 600% or 800% more likely to apply to Caltech and MIT than to those other elite schools, which tend to have a far higher national profile? The numbers alone render this explanation implausible. Each year, the Ivy League colleges enroll almost 10,000 pindo whites and Asians, of whom over 3000 are Jewish. Meanwhile, each year the NMS Corporation selects and publicly names America’s highest-ability 16,000 graduating seniors; of these, fewer than 1000 are Jewish, while almost 15,000 are non-Jewish whites and Asians. Even if every single one of these high-ability Jewish students applied to and enrolled at the Ivy League, with none going to any of Pindosta’s other 3000 colleges, Ivy League admissions officers are obviously still dipping rather deep into the lower reaches of the Jewish ability-pool, instead of easily drawing from some 15,000 other publicly identified candidates of far greater ability but different ethnicity. Why would these universities not simply send out inexpensive mailings to these 15,000 top students, encouraging them to apply, especially since their geographical, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds might help to considerably “diversify” undergraduate enrollments, while greatly raising the average student test scores by which these universities supposedly live or die in the competitive college-rankings.

The situation becomes even stranger when we focus on Harvard, which this year accepted fewer than 6% of over 34,000 applicants and whose offers of admission are seldom refused. Each Harvard class includes roughly 400 Jews and 800 Asians and non-Jewish whites; this total represents over 40% of Pindostan’s highest-ability Jewish students, but merely 5% of their equally high-ability non-Jewish peers. It is quite possible that a larger percentage of these top Jewish students apply and decide to attend than similar members from these other groups, but it seems wildly implausible that such causes could account for roughly an eight-fold difference in apparent admissions outcome. Harvard’s stated “holistic” admissions policy explicitly takes into account numerous personal characteristics other than straight academic ability, including sports and musical talent. But it seems very unlikely that any remotely neutral application of these principles could produce admissions results whose ethnic skew differs so widely from the underlying meritocratic ratios. One datapoint strengthening this suspicion of admissions bias has been the plunge in the number of Harvard’s entering National Merit Scholars, a particularly select ability group, which dropped by almost 40% between 2002 and 2011, falling from 396 to 248. This exact period saw a collapse in Jewish academic achievement combined with a sharp rise in Jewish Harvard admissions, which together might easily help to explain Harvard’s strange decline in this important measure of highest student quality. Harvard could obviously fill its entire class with high-scoring valedictorians or National Merit Scholars but chooses not to do so. In 2003, Harvard rejected well over half of all applicants with perfect SAT scores, up from rejecting a quarter a few years earlier, and in 2010 Princeton acknowledged it also admitted only about half. According to Harvard’s dean of admissions:

With the SAT, small differences of 50 or 100 points or more have no significant effect on admissions decisions.

In fact, a former Senior Admissions Officer at Harvard has claimed that by the mid-2000s, as few as 5% of the students at highly selective universities such as his own were admitted purely based on academic merit. It is important to note that these current rejection rates of top scoring applicants are vastly higher than during the 1950s or 1960s, when Harvard admitted six of every seven such students and Princeton adopted a 1959 policy in which no high scoring applicant could be refused admission without a detailed review by a faculty committee.78 An obvious indication of Karabel’s obtuseness is that he describes and condemns the anti-meritocratic policies of the past without apparently noticing that they have actually become far worse today. An admissions framework in which academic merit is not the prime consideration may be directly related to the mystery of why Harvard’s ethnic skew differs in such extreme fashion from that of Pindostan’s brightest graduating seniors. In fact, Harvard’s apparent preference for academically weak Jewish applicants seems to be reflected in their performance once they arrive on campus.

Having considered and largely eliminated these several possible explanatory factors, we can only speculate as to the true causes of such seemingly anomalous enrollment statistics at our Ivy League universities. However, we cannot completely exclude the possible explanation that these other top students are simply not wanted at such elite institutions, perhaps because their entrance in large numbers might drastically transform the current ethnic and cultural mix. After all, Karabel devoted hundreds of pages of his text to documenting exactly this pattern of Ivy League admissions behavior during the 1920s and 1930s, so why should we be surprised if it continues today, at least at an unconscious level, but simply with the polarities reversed? It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides with an equally massive ethnic skew at the topmost administrative ranks of the universities in question, a situation which once again exactly parallels Karabel’s account from the 1920s. Indeed, Karabel points out that by 1993 Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all had presidents of Jewish ancestry, and the same is true for the current presidents of Yale, Penn, Cornell, and possibly Columbia, as well as Princeton’s president throughout during the 1990s and Yale’s new incoming president, while all three of Harvard’s most recent presidents have either had Jewish origins or a Jewish spouse. At most universities, a provost is the second-ranking official, being responsible for day-to-day academic operations. Although Princeton’s current president is not Jewish, all seven of the most recent Princeton provosts stretching back to 1977 have had such ancestry, with several of the other Ivies not being far behind. A similar degree of massive overrepresentation is found throughout the other top administrative ranks of the rest of the Ivy League, and across pindo leading educational institutions in general, and these are the institutions which select our future national elites.

I have not the slightest reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority of these individuals are honest and sincere, and attempt to do their best for their institutions and their students. But as our liberal intellectual elites regularly emphasize, unconscious biases or shared assumptions can become a huge but unnoticed problem when decision-making occurs within a very narrow circle, whose extreme “non-diversity” may lead to lack of introspection, and what else can be said when for the last two decades almost all of the leaders of our most elite universities have been drawn from an ethnic community constituting just 2% of Pindostan’s population? As a perfect example of such a situation, consider an amusing incident from the mid-1980s, when Asian groups first noticed a sharp decline in Asian admissions rates to Harvard and accused the university of having begun a quiet effort to restrict Asian numbers, criticism which was vigorously resisted by senior Harvard officials. During this period, Henry Rosovsky, Harvard’s Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and later Acting President, referred to pindo-Asian students as “no doubt the most over-represented group in the university.” At that point, Harvard’s Asian students were enrolled at 300% of parity, while those of Rosovsky’s own ethnicity were probably at 900% or more of parity. Unconscious biases may become especially serious when combined with an admissions system based on the extreme flexibility and subjectivity that exists at these colleges. As mentioned, three of Caltech’s last six presidents have been of Jewish origins, but the objective admissions system has produced no sign of ethnic favoritism, and largely meritocratic MIT also seems unaffected by having had two Jewish presidents of the last five. But when machinery already exists for admitting or rejecting whomever a university wishes, on any grounds whatsoever, that machinery may be unconsciously steered in a particular direction by the shared group biases of the individuals controlling it.

Perhaps the most detailed statistical research into the actual admissions practices of pindo universities has been conducted by Princeton sociology professor Thomas Espenshade and his colleagues, whose results were summarized in his 2009 book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, co-authored with Alexandria Walton Radford. Their findings provide an empirical look at the individual factors that dramatically raise or lower the likelihood of acceptance into the leading pindo universities which select the next generation of our national elites. The research certainly supports the widespread perception that non-academic factors play a major role in the process, including athletic ability and “legacy” status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant are racial factors, with black ancestry being worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian students being penalized by 140 points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale. Universities always emphasize the importance of non-academic (and subjective) “leadership traits” as a central reason why they do not rely upon grades and academic test scores to select at least their white students, arguing that evidence of such personal initiative and leadership should often outweigh somewhat lower academic performance in predicting future success and value to our society. And on the face of it, these claims may seem plausible. But the difficulty comes from the fact that such subjective factors must necessarily be assessed subjectively, by the particular individuals sitting in the Yale or Columbia admissions offices, and their cultural or ideological background may heavily taint their decision-making. One of Ephanshade’s most striking findings was that excelling in certain types of completely mainstream high school activities actually reduced a student’s admission chances by 60% to 65%, apparently because teenagers with such interests were regarded with considerable disfavor by the sort of people employed in admissions, These were ROTC, 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of Pindostan, and various similar organizations. Consider that these reported activities were totally mainstream, innocuous and non-ideological, yet might easily get an applicant rejected, presumably for being cultural markers. When we recognize the overwhelmingly liberal orientation of nearly all our elite universities and the large communities of academics and administrators they employ, we can easily imagine what might become of any applicants who proudly proclaimed their successful leadership roles in an activity associated with conservative Christianity or right0wing politics as their extracurricular claim to fame.

Our imagination is given substance by The Gatekeepers, a fascinating and very disturbing inside look at the admissions system of Wesleyan, an elite liberal arts college in Middleton, Conn. The author was Jacques Steinberg, a veteran National Education Correspondent at the NYT, and now its editor focusing on college admissions issues. Although Wesleyan definitely ranks a notch or so below the Ivies in selectivity, Steinberg strongly suggests that the admissions decision-making process is very similar, and while his 2002 book described the selection of the Fall 2000 entering class, his afterword to the 2012 edition states that the overall process has remained largely unchanged down to the present day. Whether or not Steinberg himself recognizes it, the most striking fact, which would surely shock students almost anywhere else in the Developed World, is the enormous focus on ideology and ethnic background compared to academic achievement or evidence of intellectual ability, as well as the powerful role of “connections” and clout. Consider the case of Tiffany Wang, a Chinese immigrant student raised in the Silicon Valley area, where her father worked as an engineer. Although English was not her first language, her SAT scores were over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National Merit Scholarship semifinalist, putting her in the top 0.5% of high school students, not the top 2% as Steinberg mistakenly claims. Nevertheless, the admissions officer rated her just so-so in academics, and seemed far more positively impressed by her ethnic activism in the local school’s pindo-Asian club. Ultimately, he stamped her with a “Reject,” but later admitted to Steinberg that she might have been admitted if he had been aware of the enormous time and effort she had spent campaigning against the death penalty, a political cause near and dear to his own heart. Somehow I suspect that a student who boasted of leadership in pro-death penalty activism among his extracurriculars might have fared rather worse in this process. And presumably for similar reasons, Tiffany was also rejected by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn, Duke, and Wellesley, an outcome which greatly surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.

There was also the case of half-Brazilian Julianna Bentes, with slight black ancestry, who came from a middle-class family and attended on a partial scholarship one of Pindostan’s most elite prep schools, whose annual tuition now tops $30k. Her SAT scores were somewhat higher than Tiffany’s, and she was an excellent dancer. The combination of her academic ability, dancing talent and “multiracial” background ranked her as one of Pindostan’s top college recruitment prospects, gaining her admission and generous financial packages from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and every other elite university to which she applied, including the University of Chicago’s most prestigious academic scholarship award and a personal opportunity to meet Chelsea Clinton while visiting Stanford, which she did, before ultimately selecting Yale.

Finally, there was the case of Becca Jannol, a girl from a very affluent Jewish family near Beverly Hills, who attended the same elite prep school as Julianna, but with her parents paying the full annual tuition. Despite her every possible advantage, including test-prep courses and retaking the exam, her SAT scores were some 240 points lower on the 1600-point scale, placing her toward the bottom of the Wesleyan range, while her application essay focused on the philosophical challenges she encountered when she was suspended for illegal drug use. But she was a great favorite of her prep school counselor, who was an old college friend of the Wesleyan admissions officer, and using his discretion, he stamped her “Admit.” Her dismal academic record then caused this initial decision to be overturned by a unanimous vote of the other members of the full admissions committee, but he refused to give up and moved heaven and earth to gain her a spot, even offering to rescind the admissions of one or more already selected applicants to create a place for her. Eventually he got her shifted from the Reject category to Waiting List status, after which he secretly moved her folder to the very top of the large Waiting List pile. In the end, “connections” triumphed and she received admission to Wesleyan, although she turned it down in favor of an offer from more prestigious Cornell, which she had obtained through similar means. But at Cornell, she found herself “miserable,” hating the classes and saying she “didn’t see the usefulness of being there.” However, her poor academic ability proved no hindrance, since the same administrator who had arranged her admission also wrangled her a quick entrance into a special “honors program” he personally ran, containing just 40 of the 3,500 students in her year. This exempted her from all academic graduation requirements, apparently including classes or tests, allowing her to spend her four college years mostly traveling around the world while working on a so-called “special project.” After graduation, she eventually took a job at her father’s successful law firm, thereby realizing her obvious potential as a member of Pindostan’s ruling Ivy League elite, or in her own words, as being one of “the best of the best.”

Steinberg’s description of the remaining handful of Wesleyan applicants seems to fall into a very similar pattern, indicating that our elite admissions process operates under the principle of “Ideology and Diversity tempered by Corruption.” Certainly the majority of the decisions made seem to demonstrate that although the Maoist doctrine of favoring “Red over Expert” was abandoned decades ago in China, it is still alive and well in Pindostan’s elite university admissions process, though sometimes mitigated by factors of wealth and influence. The overwhelmingly liberal orientation of the elite university community, the apparent willingness of many liberals to actively discriminate against non-liberals, and the fact that pindo Jews remain perhaps the most liberal ethnic community may together help explain a significant portion of our skewed enrollment statistics. We should also note that although admissions officers are poorly paid, earning less than public school teachers, they nevertheless control a very valuable resource. According to Steinberg’s account, when individual officers are particularly forceful in their advocacy for an obviously under-qualified applicant, their colleagues regularly ask them, perhaps jokingly, “how much are they paying you to get that student admitted?” Indeed, Golden states that admissions officers at top universities are constantly being offered explicit bribes, sometimes even including promises of houses or cruises. And although Steinberg’s presentation of Wesleyan’s admissions practices was glowingly favorable, it may have been more than pure coincidence that the particular admissions officer who was the focus of his reporting decided to seek employment elsewhere just before the book was scheduled to appear in print.

Steinberg’s narrative is engagingly written and he makes no effort to conceal his own ideological orientation, but some of his major lapses are troubling. For example, he accepts without question the notion that Asian-American applicants receive a racial “diversity” boost in elite admissions, though it has been obvious for decades that the exact opposite is true. And in his introduction, he describes the disturbingly exclusionary world of the past, explaining that until the late 1950s Jews “need not have bothered trying” to enroll at Harvard or the other Ivies. Yet in fact Jews were heavily, often massively over-represented in the Ivy League throughout the entire twentieth century, and by 1952 constituted 25% of Harvard undergraduates, a rate some 700% higher than their share of the general population. Steinberg is an award-winning journalist who has spent most of the last 15 years covering education for the NYT, and surely ranks near the very top of his profession. His book was widely reviewed and almost universally praised. For such huge factual errors to pass unnoticed is a very disturbing indication of the knowledge and assumptions of the individuals who shape our public perceptions on the realities of higher education in our society. In fact, it seems likely that some of these obvious admissions biases we have noticed may be related to the poor human quality and weak academic credentials of many of the university employees making these momentous decisions. As mentioned above, the job of admissions officer is poorly paid, requires no professional training, and offers few opportunities for career advancement. It is often filled by individuals with haphazard employment records. As one of the “Little Ivies,” Wesleyan is among Pindostan’s most prestigious liberal arts colleges, and Steinberg’s description of the career paths of its handful of admissions officers is eye-opening: the interim Director of Admissions had most recently screened food-stamp recipients and run a psychiatric half-way house. Another had worked as an animal control officer and managed a camera store, A third unsuccessfully sought a job as a United Airlines flight attendant. Others were recent college graduates, whose main college interests had been sports or ethnic studies. The vast majority seem to possess minimal academic expertise and few intellectual interests, raising serious questions about their ability to reasonably evaluate their higher-quality applicants.

As additional evidence, we can consider What It Really Takes to Get into the Ivy League, a 2003 advice book written by Chuck Hughes, who spent five years as a Senior Admissions Officer at Harvard, after having himself graduated from that university. Although he strongly emphasizes his own college participation in varsity sports, he never says a word about any personal academic interests, and near the end of his book on elite college admissions, he appears to describe Duke, Northwestern, and Rice as being members of the Ivy League. A more explicit statement of this exact problem is found in A for Admission, a very candid 1997 description of the admissions process at elite private universities written by Michele Hernandez, who had spent four years as Dartmouth’s Assistant Director of Admissions. Near the beginning of her book, Hernandez explains that over half of Ivy League admissions officers are individuals who had not attended such academically challenging universities, nor probably had the intellectual capability to do so, and were sometimes confused about the relative ranking of SAT scores and other basic academic credentials. She also cautions students to avoid any subtlety in their essays, lest their words be misunderstood by their readers in the admissions office, whose degrees are more likely to have been in education than in any serious academic discipline.

It seems quite possible that poorly-paid liberal arts or ethnic-studies majors, probably with few quantitative skills and a vaguely “progressive” ideological focus, could implement highly unfair admissions decisions without even realizing their actions. According to Steinberg, admissions officers seem to assume that an important part of their duty is maximizing non-white enrollment, and this is especially true if they themselves are non-white, while there is no indication that they are actually aware of America’s overall population distribution. The last point is not a trivial one, since although our country is only about 13% black, according to a 2001 Gallup survey most people thought the figure was 33%, with the average non-white putting it at 40%. This was roughly confirmed by the GSS respondents in 2000, who also believed that nearly 18% of pindos were Jewish, a figure more than eight times too large. A very recent 2012 survey found that pindos believe Protestants outnumber Jews in this country by only 2.5 to 1, when the actual ratio is ten times greater. Such shocking demographic ignorance is hardly confined solely to the uneducated. For example, soon after Karabel’s book appeared, a prominent Massachusetts law school dean with a major interest in ethnic discrimination issues devoted two hours of his televised public affairs program to a detailed discussion of the topic with the author, but at the end let slip that he believed California’s population was 50% Asian, an utter absurdity. So perhaps many college administrators may have little idea about which ethnic groups are already enrolled above parity and which are below, instead taking their marching orders from an amorphous academic narrative which valorizes “racial diversity.”

Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions is regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any significant reduction in Jewish enrollment may often be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish enrollment had declined to just 500% of parity, down from more than 700% in the mid-1980s, and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or Yale. This quickly resulted in four front-page stories in the Daily Princetonian, a major article in the NY Observer, and extensive national coverage in both the NYT and the Chronicle of Higher Education. These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30% rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50%, reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of Pindostan’s elite education system. I suspect that the combined effect of these separate pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias, is the primary cause of the striking enrollment statistics that we have examined above. In effect, somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either “anti-Semitism” or “racism.” But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of non-Jewish whites.