There is an easy way to restore meritocracy in the US. One should change the administration personnel of the exams mentioned in the article (Putnam exam, etc.) to include more Jewish bias. In this case, the exam scores of Jewish applicants will increase, and there will not be a discrepancy between the admissions and academic achievement.

Actually, I do not understand why no one talks about the Non-Jewish White issue (apart from people approaching Ron Unz in private after his talk), when according to the results presented Non-Jewish Whites are orders of magnitude more underrepresented than Asians. Should we not be asking whether there is a Non-Jewish White quota?

Other than that I have one observation regarding the Asian issue. In the more traditional Western education model a particular balance was encouraged between humanities and sciences. In the Asian education system, science was orders of magnitude more important than the humanities. So this may be one reason for Asian dominance in the sciences. One should note, however, that many big steps in science were made by people whose education was in the German “gymnasium” or the Italian “liceo classico” type of systems, which were definitely in the former category (Einstein, Heisenberg, Fermi, Schrodinger).

So what is likely to happen is that as the West tries to keep up, humanities will diminish and our intellectual class will become increasingly more technocratic (actually this is already the case).

The philosopher John Searle has written an article in the 90s about how political correctness is undermining rational discourse in academia (back then this was true mainly for the humanities), because objective reality becomes irrelevant. Here is a link to this early warning, whose title is “The mission of the university: Intellectual discovery or social transformation”:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02682921?LI=true#page-1

I think the question Searle raises goes further. If universities are institutions of social transformation, then they are not moreally entitled to tax money or public funds, since social transformations are based on ideological bias, and some taxpayers may not agree with that bias. Thus universities should be financed with those who agree with the particular ideological slants. A better option would be, of course, to restore the university as an institution of intellectual discovery.

Actually, on this point Unz’s statements may be questionable. But it seems to me that he is just saying that the conclusion of Mertz certainly does not follow from the data, and arriving at the conclusions depends on whether one accepts what in the end are only hypotheses. Moreover, the press who used Mertz’s study as “proof” was wrong and ideologically biased. It also should not have been a sufficient reason to dismiss Summers from his position. Especially because there were much better reasons for that.

But the original article dealt with another problem….

But, unfortunately, a very important point of the article on meritocracy goes entirely unnoticed, namely, that Ivy Leagues are bastions of Jewish privilege. Unfortunate, because the consequences of this fact are also significant. Would America be going to war for Israeli interest if the political elite at home was not so skewed ethnically? Would the economy be run by Goldman Sachs? Would the white working class matter to whoever runs the Fed? One can only wonder…

I think the Saker suffers from a phobia of Catholicism. And it is worthwhile to analyze this a bit.

He regularly dismisses the Roman Catholic Church as not Roman, nor Christian. He calls it Latin Church.

Let me argue that this may partly be motivated by a cultural inferiority complex. After the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches the world in which the Roman Catholic Church was dominant went into an era of intellectual achievement that rivals that of the ancient Greeks. As St. Augustine built on Plato, it was St. Thomas of Aquinas who took off where Aristotle left off. There were Islamic scholars and Maimonides who studied Aristotle, but they were not able to absorb his thoughts and build on them like St. Thomas of Aquinas was. This is because in Christianity logos (reason) is fundamental, the Christian God is bound by reason, or rules like non-contradiction, in Islam this is not the case. In fact, the Islamic scholars tried to use Aristotle to bolster Islam, but this was not possible, which is why this effort was abandoned in the Islamic world. Christians, of course, had the advantage that the Gospels were written in Greek, so they had immediate access to Aristotle.

Some of Aristotle’s ideas were later refuted by Galileo, Newton, etc., but the fact is that the work of Aquinas built the foundations for rational, scientific thinking in Europe which was dormant since the times of Plato and Aristotle. The era from the Middle-Ages to the Renaissance was comparable to the Ancient Hellenic period in artistic, scientific, achievement, and it was the Roman Catholic Church, which cultivated a culture of reason which gave rise to these developments. Let us also stress that between the Ancient Greeks and the Middle-Ages-to-Renaissance era there was no comparable period of intellectual achievement. Even the Roman Empire does not hold a candle to the Ancient Greeks.

The other such era took place mostly in Germany in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Especially philosophy from Kant until Heidegger, but also bolstered by mathematicians like Gauss, Hilbert, Riemann, and the culmination of science in quantum mechanics and general relativity, is the other era which rivals ancient Greek achievement.

At the same time, the Byzantine Empire went into irreversible decay, and disappeared. For many in the Orthodox world this sequence of events is a root of a cultural inferiority complex. I do not think it should be, after all, the achievements of the scholastics or the Renaissance are universal, we can all enjoy them (OK, the Uffizi cost around 15 euros the last time I was there…).

For the Saker, presumably an educated person, to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church as “Latin Church” and such, is extremely primitive, actually barbaric.

On the other hand, it may be that the Saker writes this with an alterior motive. The British Empire, as well as the AngloZionists today, fear any kind of rapprochement between Europe and Russia, and they go to any length to keep them as divided as possible. Anyway, on this issue his views coincide with those of the “AngloZionists”, especially, since in the US, the WASP elite and the Jewish elite tend to unite against the Catholics.

I had several responses, so let me respond in one posting.

I think both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church descend directly from the Saviour, the Apostles, and subsequently the Church fathers who hammered out through long debates the best religious system known to man. They won all their intellectual duels of the time, be it against the Manicheans, Donatists, etc. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are holy apostolic Churches.

While I think that it was definitely the cultivation of logos by the Roman Catholic Church in the west which lead to such a thorough flourishing of the arts, sciences, philosophy (like I wrote in my previous posting), I do not mean to belittle Russian, Greek, and other contributions. Russia always had notable contributions which mirrored those of Europe: for example the main theorem of Gauss was also discovered by Ostrogradsky, non-Euclidean geometry go to Gauss, as well as Lobachevsky and Bólyai. And there was the literary and musical giants already mentioned.

I think though that the grudge, hatred that flows out of people like the Saker is, aside from all the adjectives I used above, counterproductive. Actually, the first time I encountered the bullshit idea that the Roman Catholic Church should neither be called Roman, nor Catholic, was on a Pro-Israeli website. The lobby hates Roman Catholicism the most, so Eastern Orthodox who go along with this are doing a favour for the lobby, whether they know it or not.

Regarding always harping on the IVth Crusade and the like, I suggest to read the chapter on the meaning of history in Jewish thought in the book the Wandering Who by Gilad Atzmon. I emphasize that what Gilad talks about there is not unique to jews. Gilad makes two points. One, history in Jewish thought always starts at a point in time at which it is alleged that someone did something bad to the Jews. Two, only the offense to the jews matters, i.e. jews were the victims, the others were evil. The account of history should be adjusted according to these two principles, regardless of any factual findings, actual studies of the circumstances, etc. As a result there is no necessity to think about the real meaning of the event itself, or history in broad, objective terms, and the real meaning of the study of history, which should bring about genuine human solidarity evaporates. I believe this is not at all unique to jews, we all have it in us to do it if we associate too strongly with an identity, and the Saker, and Epigon are following these lines. (One of Epigon’s responses to the fact that it was the Roman Catholic world in which the Renaissance took place is: well the Latins stole all the books from Constantinople…)

I should also say, that I am not so impressed by what is going on in the west today, and the Catholic Church, while I believe has the potential to become a solid rock of opposition, has not unambiguously risen to fulfill this historical responsibility. In fact, Russia seems to be in a much better position…

I think the current European leadership should be forced into early retirement, and Europe should form some sort of economic and other union with Russia.

I think Coke is way better than Pepsi. Pepsi is undrinkable.

Recently, some Jews have started attacking Critical Race Theory.

Is this because, they are starting to understand that if we take Critical Race Theory to its logical conclusion, it would expose Jews as über-privileged, and all non-Jews (regardless of whether they are white, black, or Asian) would have to get persecuted victim status?

Many understand that talking about “white privilege” is misleading, but a logically consistent Critical Race Theory would have to talk mainly about “jewish privilege”.

Both Derbyshire and Bannon are wrong. Russian serfs had it way better than millenials. They lived in a Chrisitian country, they were treated decently.

We live in a “Judeo-Christian” country, which means the Christians suffer.

If Monty Python was around today, they could do the following:

“I was not expecting the Jewish Inquisition.”

“No body expects the Jewish Inquisition.”

One comment: in a democracy people have the right to believe and express what they want. Holocaust denial laws are the end of democracy and freedom!!!