The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Harvard to Justice Alito: To be Honest, We Use Race to Triage the Lame Asians from the Cool Blacks
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Supreme Court’s oral arguments this week over affirmative action, we see that America can’t have an intelligent discussion anymore about race:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, all right. I’ll try one more time. The district court found “a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers.”

MR. WAXMAN [Harvard counsel]: That’s correct. And what she said is the record will not allow a full explanation of that because, if the — the — this — this — there is — there was no evidence with respect to what teachers said, what guidance counselors said, what these students wrote — wrote about. But what we can say with respect to the allegation of discrimination in this case, which was the — the — the definition of discrimination that was at issue in Bakke and Grutter and Fisher and which their expert, which their lawyer got up at opening statement and said: When we talk about discrimination in this case, we’re talking about discrimination in admissions outcomes. And here again, the district court found and the court of appeals also concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination in admissions outcomes against Asian Americans —

Sure, this may sound like Fetterman-level gibberish, but you have to understand that Harvard is a poor institution that can’t afford one of those expensive articulate lawyers to explain their very clear and simple argument to the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE ALITO: If you — if you —

MR. WAXMAN: — whatever you think about the personal rating, which is, after all, simply a number that —

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice — Justice Alito would like to ask a question.

MR. WAXMAN: I’m sorry.

JUSTICE ALITO: Go ahead.

MR. WAXMAN: I’m not trying to filibuster you.

JUSTICE ALITO: Finish your — finish your sentence.

MR. WAXMAN: Okay.

JUSTICE ALITO: Then I will ask one more question on this.

MR. WAXMAN: I just — I — I want to make one other thing clear to the extent that it’s not clear from the record. The personal rating, like the academic rating and the extracurricular rating and the athletic rating, is a number that is put down by a “first reader.” That is, the file comes in, it’s not usually complete, and just as a matter of triage, one of the 40 admissions officers goes through and gives these numerical numbers.

“Triage” gives the game away. From Wikipedia: “In medicine, triage is a practice invoked when acute care cannot be provided for lack of resources. The process rations care …” In other words, it means letting many applications die a quick death in sizable part due to the race of the applicant.

Triage involving race is the opposite of the purported image of “holistic admissions” in which we are supposed to believe that admissions staffers are some combination of Solomon, Socrates, Jesus, and Chekhov who come to incredibly subtle discernments about the true worth of each applicant.

Instead, Harvard is admitting that one staffer reads through applications, paying particular attention to race, and directs them to the “Another Lame Asian-REJECT” or “A Cool Black-CONSIDER” piles.

It is — the testimony was it is not considered in any way once the subcommittees and committees meet. It “fades into the background.” It is not the basis of admissions decisions. And so not only did the court find as fact that those — that that slight disparity was not evidence of discrimination even in the personal rating, it had no effect with respect to outcomes.

JUSTICE ALITO: It makes no difference whatsoever?

MR. WAXMAN: It’s —

JUSTICE ALITO: It doesn’t affect —

MR. WAXMAN: — it’s not that it makes no difference whatsoever. Look at what the expert testimony was, and I realize we’re —

JUSTICE ALITO: Does it make a difference or doesn’t it make a difference?

MR. WAXMAN: It doesn’t make a statistical difference in admissions outcomes —

JUSTICE ALITO: Then why do you do it?

MR. WAXMAN: — as both courts found.

JUSTICE ALITO: Then why do you do it?

MR. WAXMAN: We said — I mean, as —

JUSTICE ALITO: If it doesn’t matter, why do you do it?

MR. WAXMAN: We do it as a matter of triage. Right now, Harvard is getting — last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots. And it is an entirely rational way of figuring out where — how you’re going to allocate your attention to ask an admissions officer, as the file is being developed, just go through in a very rough way and rate a particular application based on what you can see on these four metrics. The fact that Asian Americans got a marginally, on average, a marginally lower personal rating score is no more evidence of discrimination against them than the fact that they got a marginally higher rating than any
data can show on academics and extracurriculars. It doesn’t mean that they’re either smarter or people think they’re smarter.

God forbid that anyone believes that Harvard thinks that Asians are smarter on average than blacks! It’s just some statistical nonsense that we should all ignore. After all, what are statistics? They’re just social constructs!

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

Harvard’s lawyer should have told the Supreme Court the truth: “OK, OK, I know my arguments sound stupid. But trust me, we’re Harvard, we’re not stupid. We’ve been famous for 386 years because we understand marketing. Do you want to know the real reason we are discriminating against Asians and in favor of blacks? It’s because everybody loves blacks! My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”

 
Hide 195 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sure, this may sound like Fetterman-level gibberish, but you have to understand that Harvard is a poor institution that can’t afford one of those expensive articulate lawyers to explain their very clear and simple argument to the Supreme Court.

    Harvard’s lawyer should tell the truth: “Don’t you watch any TV commercials? We are discriminating in favor of blacks because everybody loves blacks!”

    God forbid that anyone believes that Harvard thinks that Asians are smarter on average than blacks! It’s just some statistical nonsense that we should all ignore.

    I have to say, I laughed at these passages. Very funny, Mr. Sailer.

    I put this comment on another thread, but repeat it here since it’s more appropriate:

    The Victimest People EverTM continues: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/yes-harvard-discriminated-against-jews-no-that-s-not-what-it-s-doing-to-asian-americans/ar-AA13D3Vl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4f515517aabb4473b3effdccd0fc418d

    Yes, Harvard Discriminated Against Jews. No, That’s Not What It’s Doing to Asian Americans.

    The author is Jerome Karabel (who wrote the book “The Chosen”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Karabel

    He actually has the Chutzpah to say that one evidence of Harvard’s discrimination of Jews and non-discrimination against Asians is that Jews complained a lot, but Asians don’t:

    This fundamental distinction between both the purposes and practices of exclusion (vs. inclusion) is vital to understanding the radically different responses of the Jewish community of the early 20th century compared with the ways in which Asian American communities have responded in the first decades of this century. The Jewish response to the change in Harvard’s admissions policies in the 1920s was unanimous—and fierce—opposition. Prominent Jews, including ACLU founder and later Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as well as famed political journalist Walter Lippmann, did not hesitate to express their outrage. In an editorial in the New York World, for instance, Lippmann criticized the bigoted Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell, who had installed the new policy. Lippmann wrote that at Harvard there had been “a change of soul at the top … in the place of [the previous president], who embodied the stern but liberal virtues of New England, there sits a man who has lost his grip on the great tradition which made Harvard one of the true spiritual centers of American life. Harvard, with the prejudices of summer hotel; Harvard, with the standards of a country club, is not the Harvard of her greatest sons.” There has been no such similarly unanimous response among the Asian American community to rally against Harvard’s admissions policies as clearly bigoted, because they are not even close to equivalent to the 1920s policies. [Boldfaces mine.]

    In other words, there was real heinous discrimination against Jews, because we Jews all vociferously complained about it, but there isn’t really discrimination against Asians, because they are not all making a scene as we did.

    Then he plays a con game with numbers, perhaps hoping that the readers are too innumerate to realize the sleight-of-hand:

    The claim that Harvard has imposed a secret “quota,” though, is at the center of the SFFA’s portrayal of Asian Americans as the “New Jews.” But the claim of a quota is not supported by the facts; the proportion of Asian American freshman at Harvard has risen gradually from 3.6 percent in 1976 to 10.8 percent in 1985, to 17.9 percent in 2010, to 27.8 percent in 2022. The contrast with Jewish quotas could not be more stark; at Harvard, Jewish enrollment, which had surpassed one-quarter of the freshman class in 1925, quickly plummeted to 15 percent with the imposition of the quota, while even more draconian quotas limited Jewish enrollments at Yale and Princeton to 10 and 3 percent, respectively. Nothing remotely like this happened in recent years in any of these institutions, rendering deeply problematic the portrayal of Asian Americans as the “New Jews.” In the fall of 2022, the entering class at both Yale and Princeton was 25 percent Asian American. [Boldface mine.]

    The Jewish population in the U.S. increased from about 1.5 million in 1900 to about 4.3 million in 1942 (then to about 5.2 million in 1970). Asians in America went from 1.5 million in 1970 to 3.5 million in 1980 to about 12 million in 2000 and finally to 24 million in 2020. Meaning, in 50 years, the Asian population increase 16-fold in the U.S., so even if the Asian enrollment at an elite institution increased from 15% to 25%, effectively there is a large per capita decline in representation and a substantial evidence for a quota (and that’s not even factoring the fact that the more recent Asian immigrants are more selected educationally).

    Judging from his elite credentials (Exeter, Harvard B.A. and Ph.D., and grad work at Oxford and EPHE in Paris), Karabel isn’t exactly a dummy, so I must conclude that this is just straight up lying in defense of Jews as the Victimest People EverTM.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Twinkie


    I must conclude that this is just straight up lying in defense of Jews as the Victimest People Ever.
     
    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It's full of this sort of legerdemain.

    The Chosenites went from preposterously, embarrassingly over-represented in the 1920s to just extremely over‐represented in the 1930s. Someone with the initials J.D. will be along soon, to explain why this was like the Holocaust, in advance of that other one.

    Which will lead to his next point, which is that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (actually, the WASP society they represented) are truly Worse Than Hitler, because they came first. Karabel has doubtless combed the historical record to see if Dear Old Adolf either attended the Ivy League, or at least read up on their nefarious practices.

    Given that they supposedly hated them so much, why, again, did these evil WASPs permit these termites to enter the country, much less gain control of all its important institutions? Question not rhetorical.

    Replies: @anonymous, @kaganovitch

  2. One thing that’s coming across clearly is that this isn’t about Harvard, or UNC, or even college. It’s about the social (and racial) engineering of our New Society and that’s why “important people” are worked up over it. The forces of reaction are going to protect their pets at all costs (integrity is fairly irrelevant) and they don’t care who is injured in the process.

    Except for white people, of course. They care very deeply about injuring white people, and that’s what this is really all about. They’ve admitted this explicitly.

    • Agree: J.Ross, Inverness
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Polistra

    Polistra wrote:


    Except for white people, of course. They care very deeply about injuring white people, and that’s what this is really all about. They’ve admitted this explicitly.
     
    One of the points I keep hammering at is that what our current society is really all about is elite White people (yes, some Jewish, but many non-Jewish) maintaining their positions of dominance over the White masses. At the top, this is people like Bill and Hillary and Biden and Pelosi not only maintaining their own power bu also making pretty damn sure things work our really great for their own offspring (Chelsea, Hunter, Christine Pelosi, etc.)

    At a lower level (our friends Jack D and Corvinus), it may just boil down to not being canceled and not having to actually work in what Joel Kotkin has dubbed the "material economy." And with a little bit of luck, maybe their offspring also will also be able to work with words, rather than those ugly material things!

    Polistra also wrote:

    One thing that’s coming across clearly is that this isn’t about Harvard, or UNC, or even college. It’s about the social (and racial) engineering of our New Society and that’s why “important people” are worked up over it.
     
    It's all really a smokescreen; the real question should be: why is there any advantage in goring to Harvard, Stanford, or even Berkeley or UCLA? In a world in which knowledge is essentially free (public libraries and the Internet), why should there be gatekeepers for skills and knowledge? Why should there be an issue of anything except what do you know and what can you do?

    Because, of course, if the world worked that way, Pelosi, and Hillary and Bill, and the whole Biden clan would have spent their lives cleaning toilets.

    All political systems exist to preserve and maintain positions of power and comfort for the ruling elite at the expense of the productive masses.

    And, quite arguably, our system is one of the most exploitative in human history.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Polistra

    The thing that comes across to me most clearly:

    We've really gone down the wrong track to have the Supreme Court finely parsing through the admissions criteria of a private university. That is not what a free society looks like.

    Toss all this "Civil Rights" bullshit. Let Americans figure out how and who they want to live and work and associate with on their own.

    And actual Americans should grow some self-respect and stop paying attention to what the numbnuts from Harvard are claiming and telling us to do. Cause ... they are always wrong.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

  3. @Twinkie

    Sure, this may sound like Fetterman-level gibberish, but you have to understand that Harvard is a poor institution that can’t afford one of those expensive articulate lawyers to explain their very clear and simple argument to the Supreme Court.
     

    Harvard’s lawyer should tell the truth: “Don’t you watch any TV commercials? We are discriminating in favor of blacks because everybody loves blacks!”
     

    God forbid that anyone believes that Harvard thinks that Asians are smarter on average than blacks! It’s just some statistical nonsense that we should all ignore.
     
    I have to say, I laughed at these passages. Very funny, Mr. Sailer.

    I put this comment on another thread, but repeat it here since it's more appropriate:

    The Victimest People EverTM continues: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/yes-harvard-discriminated-against-jews-no-that-s-not-what-it-s-doing-to-asian-americans/ar-AA13D3Vl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4f515517aabb4473b3effdccd0fc418d

    Yes, Harvard Discriminated Against Jews. No, That’s Not What It’s Doing to Asian Americans.
     
    The author is Jerome Karabel (who wrote the book “The Chosen”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Karabel

    He actually has the Chutzpah to say that one evidence of Harvard’s discrimination of Jews and non-discrimination against Asians is that Jews complained a lot, but Asians don’t:

    This fundamental distinction between both the purposes and practices of exclusion (vs. inclusion) is vital to understanding the radically different responses of the Jewish community of the early 20th century compared with the ways in which Asian American communities have responded in the first decades of this century. The Jewish response to the change in Harvard’s admissions policies in the 1920s was unanimous—and fierce—opposition. Prominent Jews, including ACLU founder and later Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as well as famed political journalist Walter Lippmann, did not hesitate to express their outrage. In an editorial in the New York World, for instance, Lippmann criticized the bigoted Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell, who had installed the new policy. Lippmann wrote that at Harvard there had been “a change of soul at the top … in the place of [the previous president], who embodied the stern but liberal virtues of New England, there sits a man who has lost his grip on the great tradition which made Harvard one of the true spiritual centers of American life. Harvard, with the prejudices of summer hotel; Harvard, with the standards of a country club, is not the Harvard of her greatest sons.” There has been no such similarly unanimous response among the Asian American community to rally against Harvard’s admissions policies as clearly bigoted, because they are not even close to equivalent to the 1920s policies. [Boldfaces mine.]
     
    In other words, there was real heinous discrimination against Jews, because we Jews all vociferously complained about it, but there isn’t really discrimination against Asians, because they are not all making a scene as we did.

    Then he plays a con game with numbers, perhaps hoping that the readers are too innumerate to realize the sleight-of-hand:

    The claim that Harvard has imposed a secret “quota,” though, is at the center of the SFFA’s portrayal of Asian Americans as the “New Jews.” But the claim of a quota is not supported by the facts; the proportion of Asian American freshman at Harvard has risen gradually from 3.6 percent in 1976 to 10.8 percent in 1985, to 17.9 percent in 2010, to 27.8 percent in 2022. The contrast with Jewish quotas could not be more stark; at Harvard, Jewish enrollment, which had surpassed one-quarter of the freshman class in 1925, quickly plummeted to 15 percent with the imposition of the quota, while even more draconian quotas limited Jewish enrollments at Yale and Princeton to 10 and 3 percent, respectively. Nothing remotely like this happened in recent years in any of these institutions, rendering deeply problematic the portrayal of Asian Americans as the “New Jews.” In the fall of 2022, the entering class at both Yale and Princeton was 25 percent Asian American. [Boldface mine.]
     
    The Jewish population in the U.S. increased from about 1.5 million in 1900 to about 4.3 million in 1942 (then to about 5.2 million in 1970). Asians in America went from 1.5 million in 1970 to 3.5 million in 1980 to about 12 million in 2000 and finally to 24 million in 2020. Meaning, in 50 years, the Asian population increase 16-fold in the U.S., so even if the Asian enrollment at an elite institution increased from 15% to 25%, effectively there is a large per capita decline in representation and a substantial evidence for a quota (and that’s not even factoring the fact that the more recent Asian immigrants are more selected educationally).

    Judging from his elite credentials (Exeter, Harvard B.A. and Ph.D., and grad work at Oxford and EPHE in Paris), Karabel isn’t exactly a dummy, so I must conclude that this is just straight up lying in defense of Jews as the Victimest People EverTM.

    Replies: @Polistra

    I must conclude that this is just straight up lying in defense of Jews as the Victimest People Ever.

    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It’s full of this sort of legerdemain.

    The Chosenites went from preposterously, embarrassingly over-represented in the 1920s to just extremely over‐represented in the 1930s. Someone with the initials J.D. will be along soon, to explain why this was like the Holocaust, in advance of that other one.

    Which will lead to his next point, which is that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (actually, the WASP society they represented) are truly Worse Than Hitler, because they came first. Karabel has doubtless combed the historical record to see if Dear Old Adolf either attended the Ivy League, or at least read up on their nefarious practices.

    Given that they supposedly hated them so much, why, again, did these evil WASPs permit these termites to enter the country, much less gain control of all its important institutions? Question not rhetorical.

    • Agree: Inverness
    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Polistra

    What's strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn't seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel. In another discussion he said.


    The chances that 10 conservative Congressmen will call for limiting Jewish influence in America are nil. Wake me when that happens – it will be right around the time that the Ukrainian Army is encircled in a “cauldron”. All the predictions of you 5 cent Nostradamusi aren’t worth a plug nickel.
     

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @Twinkie

    , @kaganovitch
    @Polistra

    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It’s full of this sort of legerdemain.

    Indeed, a terrible book. He is what we call in Yiddish "an Afferist".

    Replies: @Jack D

  4. The fact that Asian Americans got a marginally, on average, a marginally lower personal rating score is no more evidence of discrimination against them than the fact that they got a marginally higher rating than any data can show on academics and extracurriculars.

    In other words, that Asians score better on tests, get better grades, and engage in more extracurricular activities is offset by the fact that Asians have lousy personalities, but that’s not discrimination; it’s triage.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @James Speaks

    My suspicion is that we're actually seeing is discrimination against introverts. Harvard loves extroverts because they tend to be movers and shakers in life. Introverts, by contrast, just discover things, and Harvard has no use for that. Harvard is not into innovation but power. Harvard wants to graduate a power elite, not a bunch of scientists.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  5. My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”

    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Polistra

    They all look the same to me.
    Until you get to the super-size nine economy ones.

    Replies: @Polistra

    , @Carol
    @Polistra

    White ad producers really like her kwazy hair! Like Hendrix or Chaka Khan!

    IRL, most black chicks prefer straight hair, blond hair, extensions, French braids, or the Ginormous Fake Bun.

    , @Technite78
    @Polistra

    If you really want to get credit for the diversity of your advertisements, you go with fierce BLACK! women with "natural" hair, usually dressed as though they're about to host their own talk show, or walk the red carpet at some fabulous event.

    , @Moe Gibbs
    @Polistra

    It's the hair. The sacred, untouchable hair that all of us deplorable, awkward, rhythm-challenged YTs are told we want so desperately to fondle. Frankly, I find their skull-pubes to be rather disgusting. You KNOW that rat's nest ain't bein' washed very often.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Polistra

    My favorite commercial is the one where they have a 20-30 something babe like this driving a high end Mercedes. You don't see that even in Super ZIPs.

    I have been unable to gin up any interest in the NFL so far this year. The fall has been beautiful, the games are way too long, the announcers never STFU, and the endless commercials are much like the above.

    , @VivaLaMigra
    @Polistra

    I gotta laugh at that 3rd pic, 'cuz what black...ooops, of course I meant "Black" with a capital "B!" doesn't want to own a M/B without that company having to spend millions on advertising? Daimler Benz's only worry is keeping any black ...er, BLACK! - I better capitalize the whole darn thing! - with enough money he's borrowed, stolen, or made in the drug trade from buying a Bimmer instead. Said Bimmer having been manufactured in the Red Neck state of South Carolina, BTW.

  6. This case is becoming one of the most interesting in memory.

    For once, the antiwhite racists are being forced to actually have the ‘conversation’ they keep insisting we have to have but don’t really want.

  7. All this double talk stems from the dishonesty of both affirmative action law generally and Harvard’s anti-Asian discrimination in particular.

    Current judge-made law (which contradicts the plain language of the anti-discrimination statutes themselves) says it’s A-OK to discriminate in favor of non-whites because “diversity.” So it was uncontroversial for Harvard to use (informal) quotas to get about 20% blacks and Hispanics, respectively, in its class despite their vast gap in qualifications. Now on to the tricky part – Whites vs Asians.

    Everyone in the world knows that for the remaining 60% of the spots Harvard discriminates against Asians and in favor of whites. The reason is that otherwise Asian test scores and GPAs would give Harvard a class that was like 20% black, 20% Hispanic, 40% Asian, and just 20% white. Harvard thinks those numbers aren’t going to maximize its prestige or future alumni donations.

    So Harvard needs to get the Asians down to about 20%. Fine. But then they need to justify why this racial discrimination — like the pro black and brown discrimination they freely admit to — is kosher.

    The obvious solution would be to simply use the same rationale — i.e., “diversity” requires discrimination in favor of whites vs. Asians so that whites aren’t vastly underrepresented as a percentage of the population. But the Taboo against ever giving affirmative action to a white person is so overwhelmingly that this justification is out of the question.

    So Harvard has to lie by claiming that they apply exactly the same race neutral criteria to both whites and Asians. Asians, however, currently have a massive advantage in the quantifiable categories of test scores and GPA. So the only way Harvard can get to its desired admission numbers, while still claiming it applies the same criteria to both groups, is to give Asians massively lower scores on intangible character traits like personality, integrity, etc. In other words, they’ve trapped themselves into saying “we don’t racially discriminate against Asians, they are just objectively far inferior to whites in personality and character.” LOL.

    Ironically, this now gives the Supreme Court the ideal test case to finally put a stake in legalized anti-white racism generally by helping Asians against whites in the particular case before them. They theoretically could have some problems getting around the lower court’s factual findings. But they always find a way to make the law they want when they are in the mood.

    And they can’t pass this one up. The conservatives finally have a majority without needing the vote of a squish like O’Connor or Kennedy.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Hypnotoad666

    9


    Everyone in the world knows that for the remaining 60% of the spots Harvard discriminates against Asians and in favor of whites.
     
    When you say whites, do you mean FWP?

    Because if so, your observation is accurate.

    Except for the fact that hardly anyone knows it.

  8. anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:

    Any thoughts on the Jewish angle in the court battle? The ADL submitted an amicus to the Supreme Court in this case. The conclusion of the amicus borrows the cultural misappropriation language of black studies, calling the Asian lawsuit akin to cultural misappropriation from Jews.

    It trivializes the tremendous hate, bigotry, and antisemitism faced by many Americans, including American Jews, in the 1920s and 1930s to suggest or imply that race-conscious admissions practices used by colleges and universities today are akin to the odious practices that were rampant at Harvard and other institutions of higher learning a century ago. Rather than learning the lessons of that historical discrimination, plaintiff-appellant’s attempt to create such a false equivalency misappropriates that history.

    Will Jewish applicants become the biggest losers if Harvard doesn’t discriminate against Asian applicants? There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out. I assume no matter what the Supreme Court says, Harvard will try to maintain the number of black undergrads but need to increase the number of Asian American undegrads. If most white undergrads are Jews then it means Jews will lose seats.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous

    While we all tend to notice Jewish ethnic networking and clannishness, we forget the Chinese have had "Chinatowns" in this country for over 150 years and the areas remain Chinese and have, in many places, grown and taken over other ethnic neighborhoods (e.g. Chinatown v. Little Italy in NYC).

    That's quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Hibernian, @petit bourgeois, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    , @J.Ross
    @anonymous

    Yes, Jews are by far the worst case of unqualified privileged beneficiaries (ie, what whites are accused of), and in a free market they would be naturally forced out of place by East Asians. That's exactly why this is happening.

    , @slumber_j
    @anonymous


    There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out.
     
    It's more like 1,600--a number that's been constant for a long time now, while the population has doubled or whatever, and Harvard and its ilk have meanwhile also emphasized the admission of lots of foreign students, so the applicant pool is immense.

    As the lawyer says in the argument excerpted above: "Harvard is getting — last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots." That's an admission rate of ~2.6%, which means that about one in every 38 applicants is admitted.

    I'd argue that a big problem for Harvard and similar institutions dwells in these numbers: even if you can immediately dismiss half the applicants because of test scores or grades or whatever, you still have 19 people for every slot. How do you go about discriminating among them? I have no idea.

    But one thing you could do would be to focus your attention on applicants who are US citizens: it's a start anyway.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ralph L

  9. @Hypnotoad666
    All this double talk stems from the dishonesty of both affirmative action law generally and Harvard's anti-Asian discrimination in particular.

    Current judge-made law (which contradicts the plain language of the anti-discrimination statutes themselves) says it's A-OK to discriminate in favor of non-whites because "diversity." So it was uncontroversial for Harvard to use (informal) quotas to get about 20% blacks and Hispanics, respectively, in its class despite their vast gap in qualifications. Now on to the tricky part - Whites vs Asians.

    Everyone in the world knows that for the remaining 60% of the spots Harvard discriminates against Asians and in favor of whites. The reason is that otherwise Asian test scores and GPAs would give Harvard a class that was like 20% black, 20% Hispanic, 40% Asian, and just 20% white. Harvard thinks those numbers aren't going to maximize its prestige or future alumni donations.

    So Harvard needs to get the Asians down to about 20%. Fine. But then they need to justify why this racial discrimination -- like the pro black and brown discrimination they freely admit to -- is kosher.

    The obvious solution would be to simply use the same rationale -- i.e., "diversity" requires discrimination in favor of whites vs. Asians so that whites aren't vastly underrepresented as a percentage of the population. But the Taboo against ever giving affirmative action to a white person is so overwhelmingly that this justification is out of the question.

    So Harvard has to lie by claiming that they apply exactly the same race neutral criteria to both whites and Asians. Asians, however, currently have a massive advantage in the quantifiable categories of test scores and GPA. So the only way Harvard can get to its desired admission numbers, while still claiming it applies the same criteria to both groups, is to give Asians massively lower scores on intangible character traits like personality, integrity, etc. In other words, they've trapped themselves into saying "we don't racially discriminate against Asians, they are just objectively far inferior to whites in personality and character." LOL.

    Ironically, this now gives the Supreme Court the ideal test case to finally put a stake in legalized anti-white racism generally by helping Asians against whites in the particular case before them. They theoretically could have some problems getting around the lower court's factual findings. But they always find a way to make the law they want when they are in the mood.

    And they can't pass this one up. The conservatives finally have a majority without needing the vote of a squish like O'Connor or Kennedy.

    Replies: @Polistra

    9

    Everyone in the world knows that for the remaining 60% of the spots Harvard discriminates against Asians and in favor of whites.

    When you say whites, do you mean FWP?

    Because if so, your observation is accurate.

    Except for the fact that hardly anyone knows it.

    • Agree: Renard, Inverness
  10. Or Harvard’s defense could be, “We’re Harvard, not some uppity community college like MIT, which is fine for Asians”.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  11. anonymous[118] • Disclaimer says:
    @Polistra
    @Twinkie


    I must conclude that this is just straight up lying in defense of Jews as the Victimest People Ever.
     
    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It's full of this sort of legerdemain.

    The Chosenites went from preposterously, embarrassingly over-represented in the 1920s to just extremely over‐represented in the 1930s. Someone with the initials J.D. will be along soon, to explain why this was like the Holocaust, in advance of that other one.

    Which will lead to his next point, which is that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (actually, the WASP society they represented) are truly Worse Than Hitler, because they came first. Karabel has doubtless combed the historical record to see if Dear Old Adolf either attended the Ivy League, or at least read up on their nefarious practices.

    Given that they supposedly hated them so much, why, again, did these evil WASPs permit these termites to enter the country, much less gain control of all its important institutions? Question not rhetorical.

    Replies: @anonymous, @kaganovitch

    What’s strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn’t seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel. In another discussion he said.

    The chances that 10 conservative Congressmen will call for limiting Jewish influence in America are nil. Wake me when that happens – it will be right around the time that the Ukrainian Army is encircled in a “cauldron”. All the predictions of you 5 cent Nostradamusi aren’t worth a plug nickel.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous


    What’s strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn’t seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel.
     
    That can be said of Jews in general. The inbreds as a group have these terrible blind spots that their exploitation of the local population in banking and extreme ethnic solidarity causes all of the "oppression" that they experience later. While obviously Hack D the fed will argue for exceptions, the vast majority of Jews in history have been very unreflective that their own actions lead to the ultimate suffering they endure. The ethnocentricism enhanced by their severe inbreeding causes Jews to so protect their tribe that their minds are incapable of thinking themselves to ever have done anything wrong.

    As someone once pointed out: Genesis, the first book in the Bible, ends with the Jews moving to Egypt under Joseph, where they become rich and wealthy. But Exodus, the very next book, begins with the Jews enslaved en masse to the Egyptians. An obvious explanation to this swerve is that the Jews exploited the Egyptians as they would many later peoples, and the Egyptians got so fed up they took away their power and enslaved them as punishment, but that all occurred offstage between Genesis and Exodus. Yet Jews never mention this as a possibility.

    A prideful, stiff-necked people, indeed.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Mike Tre, @Graveldips

    , @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians - hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the "fellow whites" game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @anonymous, @anonymous, @William Badwhite

  12. You overstate the Black! “cool” factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.

    The problem isn’t Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.

    Asians are scary smart, alien and taking over. The Blacks! are reliably mediocre and aren’t going to genuinely take over anything. They are the familiar, reassuring problem we kn0w–and we’ve invested so much already in it: we humor them, we cough up the gibs, we find them “cool” no matter how deplorable their collective behavior. They’re not going anywhere (unfortunately).

    Asians, on the other hand, are the only distinct group left to challenge the elite (and that means the Tribe) and there’s no narrative shock collar regulating their behavior.

    As whites are all saps now who can’t get over how “cool” Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Dennis Dale


    The problem isn’t Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.
     

    As whites are all saps now who can’t get over how “cool” Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.
     
    No to both.

    Asians, being relative newcomers and risk-averse, tend to assimilate to the dominant social paradigm well. If that's being America-loving patriots (say, 1980's), that's what they will do. If it's being Woke, that's what they will follow, especially for the younger cohorts looking to rise in social status. Moreover, "Asians" in America are increasingly Indians who are the most left-leaning and arguably Woke-pleasing among the Asians. They recently became the largest of the Asian sub-groups in America.

    That's why I advocate immigration-restriction. We have to win the Kulturkampf and establish rightist cultural dominance before we can even think about letting in more new people. Otherwise, we are just going to be adding more foederati for the other side. And if you remember the late Roman history, you might recall what the foederati eventually became.

    I should add, though, that not all is lost. When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.

    Replies: @Renard, @Dennis Dale

    , @LP5
    @Dennis Dale

    Dennis Dale writes:


    Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already...
     
    Those beleaguered admissions officers.
    Who are they, what are their social media profiles and other handy identifying characteristics?
    How did those change over time, say for the last century?
    Are there adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the right people make the cut admissions are according to plan?
    Do the admissions offices resemble society at large or are there notable over- or under-representations?

    Those offers aren't gonna make themselves.
    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Dennis Dale


    You overstate the Black! “cool” factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.
     
    True, except we're talking about Harvard which can limit its admissions to many of the very best in the nation and world. I doubt very many if any will be acing Math 55, but they'll do OK as undergraduates, or so is my impression.

    My viewpoint is from the "community college" MIT next door where a combination of intense self-selection and the floor of being able to do the core science and math curriculum means we admit blacks who are very much not mediocre nor to my observations troublesome. Again I doubt many if any will become math or physics majors, but I observes as CS majors they do just fine.

    Besides a previous iSteve discussion that mentioned a brief Harvard experiment with ghetto types who were so violently troublesome I think they were expelled, the problem starts at some level not much below Harvard for generalist institutions. See Thomas Sowell for the details on this which he first observed teaching at Cornell; the big picture is a cascading pattern of admitting unqualified blacks who can't do the work at the institutions the go to.

    Which is a tragedy because if they'd gone to a lower tier school a lot of them would be matched to its slower pace and lower level of rigor. Our host probably has the numbers or could whip them up quickly, but I'd guess we're trashing most of the "Talented Tenth" in the country. The determined ones probably transfer and get a degree somewhere and then get hired by the usual suspects, but needlessly get embittered in the process.
    , @AceDeuce
    @Dennis Dale


    I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.
     
    Kinda like having "Rooftop Koreans" on the front lines doing the dirty work, amirite?

    The thing with YT (the relative few who aren't anti-White, that is) using the ghookers as a kind of cat's paw to try and put out the nationwide dumpster fire we're enduring is that, having done the heavy lifting, why TF shouldn't they say "This is our country now"? Especially as they pour in every year by the millions.

    The reason they succeed-and the reason their representatives are before the Supreme Court in the first place right now, is that they are united, self-regarding, and purposeful, unlike Whites. Their kids succeed because Asians in America live like American Whites used to 50-60 or more years ago. They aren't a bunch of shambling, drugged, fat, nihilistic, self-hating capons like so many young Whites of today.

    If we can't even take our own side in the fight--a fight that we are fighting only because we've collectively turned to schitt and given everything away to hostile aliens and ferals, what do we even think that we deserve?

  13. @anonymous
    Any thoughts on the Jewish angle in the court battle? The ADL submitted an amicus to the Supreme Court in this case. The conclusion of the amicus borrows the cultural misappropriation language of black studies, calling the Asian lawsuit akin to cultural misappropriation from Jews.

    It trivializes the tremendous hate, bigotry, and antisemitism faced by many Americans, including American Jews, in the 1920s and 1930s to suggest or imply that race-conscious admissions practices used by colleges and universities today are akin to the odious practices that were rampant at Harvard and other institutions of higher learning a century ago. Rather than learning the lessons of that historical discrimination, plaintiff-appellant’s attempt to create such a false equivalency misappropriates that history.
     
    Will Jewish applicants become the biggest losers if Harvard doesn't discriminate against Asian applicants? There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out. I assume no matter what the Supreme Court says, Harvard will try to maintain the number of black undergrads but need to increase the number of Asian American undegrads. If most white undergrads are Jews then it means Jews will lose seats.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @J.Ross, @slumber_j

    While we all tend to notice Jewish ethnic networking and clannishness, we forget the Chinese have had “Chinatowns” in this country for over 150 years and the areas remain Chinese and have, in many places, grown and taken over other ethnic neighborhoods (e.g. Chinatown v. Little Italy in NYC).

    That’s quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @R.G. Camara


    That’s quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.
     
    Most Chinese in America no longer live in Chinatowns. That said, here is something I post here often:

    https://siddiqueblogs.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/2/9/40298843/938237969_orig.gif
    , @Hibernian
    @R.G. Camara

    Chinatown, at least in Chicago, is a port of entry neighborhood. People of Chinese descent live almost everywhere.

    , @petit bourgeois
    @R.G. Camara

    There is a history of Chinese assimilation in other countries. My friend Tony Chin is from Jamaica ( half black and half Chinese) and taught me many nuances of playing reggae live on stage. I owe him a debt of gratitude for telling me to switch to 12 gauge strings 30 years ago.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_Chin

    https://youtu.be/ztHTOL_EJWM

    Tony's weapon of choice is a Gibson Les Paul black beauty with gold plated hardware. Mine is a proletariat 1966 fender mustang. Who's the elite now? Jamaica has a long history of Chinese immigration. He helped me out over many years to find my sound and paycheck. A really good guy.

    But I digress. Baja California Mexico has a long history of Chinese immigration too. Last year my friend took me to a Chinese Masonic Temple in Tijuana. Who would have thought that exists?

    A few weeks ago, I spent a couple of nights in Mexicali. After the Chinese exclusion act in 1882, many Chinese railroad workers fled the states to escape persecution to Mexicali. The 1915 census in Mexico recorded 85% Chinese.

    I've been to chinatowns in Vancouver, Seattle and SF. The food in Mexicali was probably the best I've ever had. The Chinese in Mexicali really have an underground subculture worthy of exploration.

    https://youtu.be/2mLS9UD4AI8

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @R.G. Camara

    There are actually now three Chinatowns in New York, the other two being Flushing in Queens and Sunset Park in Brooklyn.

    There is a kitschy cheap look to the Chinatowns in contrast to trendy K-town in Midtown and posh Little Tokyo in East Village. But they are not representative of PRC architecture in general, which range from Venice-like elegance in Suzhou to Nazi-grandiose (Albert Speer Jr. was the designer of Beijing Olympic stadium.)

    Chinatown residents are mostly Fujian and Guangdong prole immigrants; their kids usually move on to suburbs in Westchester, LI and New Jersey. Where upper middle class Chinese congregate.

    Majority of this class follow along sheepishly to coalition-of-fringes slogans. But there is a significant minority who are die-hard Trump supporters.

    The upper class Chinese (origin from either PRC, HK or Taiwan) live in Manhattan and put their kids in Dalton and Collegiate. They assimilate very well into our elite trash.

    Replies: @slumber_j

  14. @Polistra
    One thing that's coming across clearly is that this isn't about Harvard, or UNC, or even college. It's about the social (and racial) engineering of our New Society and that's why "important people" are worked up over it. The forces of reaction are going to protect their pets at all costs (integrity is fairly irrelevant) and they don't care who is injured in the process.

    Except for white people, of course. They care very deeply about injuring white people, and that's what this is really all about. They've admitted this explicitly.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @AnotherDad

    Polistra wrote:

    Except for white people, of course. They care very deeply about injuring white people, and that’s what this is really all about. They’ve admitted this explicitly.

    One of the points I keep hammering at is that what our current society is really all about is elite White people (yes, some Jewish, but many non-Jewish) maintaining their positions of dominance over the White masses. At the top, this is people like Bill and Hillary and Biden and Pelosi not only maintaining their own power bu also making pretty damn sure things work our really great for their own offspring (Chelsea, Hunter, Christine Pelosi, etc.)

    At a lower level (our friends Jack D and Corvinus), it may just boil down to not being canceled and not having to actually work in what Joel Kotkin has dubbed the “material economy.” And with a little bit of luck, maybe their offspring also will also be able to work with words, rather than those ugly material things!

    Polistra also wrote:

    One thing that’s coming across clearly is that this isn’t about Harvard, or UNC, or even college. It’s about the social (and racial) engineering of our New Society and that’s why “important people” are worked up over it.

    It’s all really a smokescreen; the real question should be: why is there any advantage in goring to Harvard, Stanford, or even Berkeley or UCLA? In a world in which knowledge is essentially free (public libraries and the Internet), why should there be gatekeepers for skills and knowledge? Why should there be an issue of anything except what do you know and what can you do?

    Because, of course, if the world worked that way, Pelosi, and Hillary and Bill, and the whole Biden clan would have spent their lives cleaning toilets.

    All political systems exist to preserve and maintain positions of power and comfort for the ruling elite at the expense of the productive masses.

    And, quite arguably, our system is one of the most exploitative in human history.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin, Thrallman
  15. How do they justify discriminating against whites in favour of jews, which is the really pertinent question?

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @LondonBob

    damn good question. Question #2: Why should elite institutions care 1 whit about the % of Bantus in their universities/organizations IF THEY ARE UNQUALIFIED?

    , @Anonymous Jew
    @LondonBob

    Not disagreeing (I agree with Unz that there’re way too many Jews), but how much of the Jewish overrepresentation (based on test scores) stems from prominent alumni and legacy admissions? (See Jared Kushner as the prime example). Maybe many of these under qualified Jews are merely the regressed to the mean children of prominent and big money Jews and/or Jewish alumni? Maybe it’s not the Jewishness of their parents but instead their parents’ deep pockets and Harvard degrees? I don’t have the answer and am not taking sides.

    Personally I would like to see the Ivies go strictly on numbers if for no other reason than to see Black enrollment fall and liberal heads explode.

  16. @anonymous
    @Polistra

    What's strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn't seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel. In another discussion he said.


    The chances that 10 conservative Congressmen will call for limiting Jewish influence in America are nil. Wake me when that happens – it will be right around the time that the Ukrainian Army is encircled in a “cauldron”. All the predictions of you 5 cent Nostradamusi aren’t worth a plug nickel.
     

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @Twinkie

    What’s strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn’t seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel.

    That can be said of Jews in general. The inbreds as a group have these terrible blind spots that their exploitation of the local population in banking and extreme ethnic solidarity causes all of the “oppression” that they experience later. While obviously Hack D the fed will argue for exceptions, the vast majority of Jews in history have been very unreflective that their own actions lead to the ultimate suffering they endure. The ethnocentricism enhanced by their severe inbreeding causes Jews to so protect their tribe that their minds are incapable of thinking themselves to ever have done anything wrong.

    As someone once pointed out: Genesis, the first book in the Bible, ends with the Jews moving to Egypt under Joseph, where they become rich and wealthy. But Exodus, the very next book, begins with the Jews enslaved en masse to the Egyptians. An obvious explanation to this swerve is that the Jews exploited the Egyptians as they would many later peoples, and the Egyptians got so fed up they took away their power and enslaved them as punishment, but that all occurred offstage between Genesis and Exodus. Yet Jews never mention this as a possibility.

    A prideful, stiff-necked people, indeed.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @R.G. Camara

    According to Egyptian records, they were invaded by desert barbarians from the Eastern wastelands, who controlled part of the country. Oddly, that's not how the Hebrews remembered it...

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @Mike Tre
    @R.G. Camara

    Or possibly the jews were just thrown out of Egypt once their financial grifting became intolerable, and they were never actually slaves at all.

    , @Graveldips
    @R.G. Camara

    Genesis Chp 47 tells how the Jews, on behalf of Pharaoh, enslaved the Egyptian masses. It's very clear. Market dominant minority, 101. I was shocked when I first actually read it. Of course they were repaid with slavery.

  17. @anonymous
    @Polistra

    What's strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn't seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel. In another discussion he said.


    The chances that 10 conservative Congressmen will call for limiting Jewish influence in America are nil. Wake me when that happens – it will be right around the time that the Ukrainian Army is encircled in a “cauldron”. All the predictions of you 5 cent Nostradamusi aren’t worth a plug nickel.
     

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @Twinkie

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians – hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the “fellow whites” game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Twinkie

    Jack D =

    "Hello fellow KKK members. God, I hate blacks. Let's go lynch some right now. By the way, have you guys heard about how Hitler was evil and totally wrong about Jews?"

    , @anonymous
    @Twinkie

    "he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians"

    It would be odd for Jews to favor Indians because Indians are very verbal and pro-ethnic network. The two groups will end up clashing. My general sense is Indian women are very high percentage liberal and will follow the progressive agenda. Indian men are ideologically a mixed lot. And I notice they seem to work against Jewish interests. Liberal Congressman Ro Khanna is at the forefront of pulling back military pressure against Iran. Vivek Ramaswamy is a conservative activist and another Yale Law School grad who is running an anti-ESG pro-oil drilling fund.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @anonymous
    @Twinkie

    [blanked]

    , @anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Why doesn't Jack D realize Jews derive moral currency from blacks? It's part of the foundation of Jewish power in America.

    , @William Badwhite
    @Twinkie


    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.
     
    I bash Jack as much as anyone, but mostly for his Jewish blindspots as well as his Russian obsession (e.g. Russia is a broken down craphole/gas station with nukes but also they'll invade Germany then Britain any minute if "we" don't beat up Putin).

    But vis-a-vis the bLaCks I think he just acknowledges reality and hate has very little do with it.

  18. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous

    While we all tend to notice Jewish ethnic networking and clannishness, we forget the Chinese have had "Chinatowns" in this country for over 150 years and the areas remain Chinese and have, in many places, grown and taken over other ethnic neighborhoods (e.g. Chinatown v. Little Italy in NYC).

    That's quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Hibernian, @petit bourgeois, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    That’s quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    Most Chinese in America no longer live in Chinatowns. That said, here is something I post here often:

  19. @Dennis Dale
    You overstate the Black! "cool" factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.

    The problem isn't Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.

    Asians are scary smart, alien and taking over. The Blacks! are reliably mediocre and aren't going to genuinely take over anything. They are the familiar, reassuring problem we kn0w--and we've invested so much already in it: we humor them, we cough up the gibs, we find them "cool" no matter how deplorable their collective behavior. They're not going anywhere (unfortunately).

    Asians, on the other hand, are the only distinct group left to challenge the elite (and that means the Tribe) and there's no narrative shock collar regulating their behavior.

    As whites are all saps now who can't get over how "cool" Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I'm investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @LP5, @That Would Be Telling, @AceDeuce

    The problem isn’t Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.

    As whites are all saps now who can’t get over how “cool” Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    No to both.

    Asians, being relative newcomers and risk-averse, tend to assimilate to the dominant social paradigm well. If that’s being America-loving patriots (say, 1980’s), that’s what they will do. If it’s being Woke, that’s what they will follow, especially for the younger cohorts looking to rise in social status. Moreover, “Asians” in America are increasingly Indians who are the most left-leaning and arguably Woke-pleasing among the Asians. They recently became the largest of the Asian sub-groups in America.

    That’s why I advocate immigration-restriction. We have to win the Kulturkampf and establish rightist cultural dominance before we can even think about letting in more new people. Otherwise, we are just going to be adding more foederati for the other side. And if you remember the late Roman history, you might recall what the foederati eventually became.

    I should add, though, that not all is lost. When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @Renard
    @Twinkie


    When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.
     
    Your points are all good but I'm not sure if I understand your various tenses and conditional moods here. When this happens, then even Asians will take notice? Were you around for the summer of 2020?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Dennis Dale
    @Twinkie

    This is America. Sub-continentals aren't Asian here. Don't be daft.

    Their place among the Coalition of the Fringes makes my point--if my impression is correct and they're over-represented in its leadership. I think they are and it's partly for the appropriately idiotic reason that they have darker skin and thus better stand in for all the dull-witted Blacks! who keep failing to rise to genuine leadership roles. They also appear to be more inherently political than Asians--as are Blacks! What we often mean when we say "conformist" is "apolitical".

    It doesn't matter if and when Asians will "have had enough"--just as you see it hasn't mattered at what point we've had enough. Believe me son, I've been watching this prediction recur continually over the last two decades of steady decline--your cope is born back ceaselessly into the Narrative's advance a la Fitzgerald.

    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe. The Tribe has them in a probationary status right now, non-white and thus Good, but suspect due to their "model minority" umbrage. How dare they. Jews like their Gentiles dull and poor.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Desiderius

  20. This must be the least verbally proficient guy named Waxman whom I have ever heard. It’s like finding a vegetarian tiger. A slow cheetah. I could understand this pattern of speech if say, Mrs. Waxman found a pair of panties in his glove compartment, and a surprise confrontation ensued. But he had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.(But I am not saying Alito is a dope.)

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    , @G. Poulin
    @SafeNow

    He was verbally bobbing and weaving, trying to keep Alito off-balance. Or, to use a non-boxing metaphor, he was squirting ink. Or, to mix up the metaphors even more, the pair of panties that Alito found in Waxman's glove compartment was the Truth.

    , @AnotherDad
    @SafeNow

    Thanks SafeNow. I had the same thought. If you transcribed my spoken arguments--say at last Sunday's brunch we had for our neighbors--they probably wouldn't sound that great. But even given that ... this is just sad. And on precisely the core question, so what this guy has prepped for. He comes across as the Waxman that actually would leave panties in his glove box.

    "Vegetarian tiger", "Slow cheetah" .. terrific stuff, thanks man.

    , @Sparkylyle92
    @SafeNow

    Great comment, thanks.
    It's true, a stupid Jewish lawyer is rare enough, but a stupid Jewish lawyer in front of the Supreme Court? Ron Unz found statistical evidence that Jewish academic performance has cratered, maybe the same phenomenom is at work here. As for deliberately trying to bullshit the Supreme Court, that itself is a stupid idea.
    Maybe the public arguments are a cover and the real arguments take place secretly?

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @SafeNow

    Waxman is in the position of arguing a case in which he has to dance around the truth. And he has to do this dance in front of a skeptical and perceptive audience. It can't be done well.

    It reminds me of the bind White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is in. Dan Bongino and Mark Simone describe her as the stupidest press secretary we've ever had, on the basis of her answers to questions about actions and statements by the president. For example, when she was asked to explain why, at a bill signing, Biden called on a Rep. Jackie Walorski to stand up, though she had died a month previously, Jean-Pierre said, "She was top of mind for the president."

    What was she supposed to say? "As we are all aware, the president has dementia"?

  21. @Polistra

    My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”
     
    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?


    https://i.ibb.co/3sQ9fqG/Screenshot-20221101-175945-mailcom.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/GxgPdB3/20221103-024131.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/9ZJ2stS/Screenshot-20221103-025838-Chrome.jpg

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Carol, @Technite78, @Moe Gibbs, @Jim Don Bob, @VivaLaMigra

    They all look the same to me.
    Until you get to the super-size nine economy ones.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Bill Jones

    Funny you should mention, because Janelle pay only $16 a month for her and her keeyid


    Which work out to just 3.6 cents per pound for the pair of them.

    (I did the calculation! Keep eating, erryone! Cheaper that way!)


    https://i.ibb.co/fX6q9M1/Screenshot-20221104-004059-Chrome.jpg

    Were [sic] daddie at? STFU racists. (Hey! That hair again!)

  22. @SafeNow
    This must be the least verbally proficient guy named Waxman whom I have ever heard. It’s like finding a vegetarian tiger. A slow cheetah. I could understand this pattern of speech if say, Mrs. Waxman found a pair of panties in his glove compartment, and a surprise confrontation ensued. But he had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.(But I am not saying Alito is a dope.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @G. Poulin, @AnotherDad, @Sparkylyle92, @Harry Baldwin

    SafeNow wrote:

    But [Harvard’s lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.

    Most lawyers are dumber — a lot dumber! — than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character… when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Troll: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @Renard
    @PhysicistDave


    Most lawyers are dumber — a lot dumber! — than people think.
     
    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.

    The part that surprised me was how rude he was. But I suppose someone has to be, with RBG no longer on the court.

    Replies: @tyrone, @PhysicistDave

    , @Peter Johnson
    @PhysicistDave

    Top lawyers, e.g. Yale educated ones from the 1980s, are extremely bright. You are meeting the wrong lawyers to judge them all uniformly as a group. Most lawyers do not argue before SCOTUS.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Jon
    @PhysicistDave


    And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.
     
    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I've had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
    And this is from a lawyer who is pretty realistic about the general IQ power of lawyers - I always say that we are either the smartest of the dumb people, or the dumbest of the smart. We mostly draw from that middle ground of people who were smart but lazy, or hard-working but a bit dim.
    Law isn't hard, but it seems to be unique and counterintuitive enough in some of its applications that it sure throws smart people for a loop.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @R.G. Camara, @Anonymous Jew, @PhysicistDave

    , @R.G. Camara
    @PhysicistDave

    Was that before or after Caesar paid his armies, chump?

    , @Prester John
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to be in the casualty claims business so I had a great deal of interaction with lawyers. Overall I would say that they were of above average intelligence. By "above average" I mean north of 100 on the IQ scale but how far north I could never tell for sure. Most of them seemed to be quite excellent in their chosen field. Outside the law? Mehh... .

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Same thing with doctors - why pay a doctor when you can just Google your symptoms and diagnose yourself better than any doctor? Next time you go to a doctor, make sure to tell him the diagnosis first, which you found on Google. He will really appreciate your help, I promise.

    PD has meta-obliviousness regarding human interactions. He is may be some sort of idiot savant when it comes to physics but when it comes to dealing with human relations, not only is he oblivious but he is oblivious that he is oblivious. I would have paid money to be a fly on the wall and watch as PD told his lawyer that he knew more about the law than he did and that he was gonna "educate" him on the law (based on Googling). Who's the stupid one if you are paying someone several hundred $/hr to do something that you could do better yourself?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Art Deco

  23. SCOTUS will, I guess, deliver some wishy washy compromise.

    Instead of affirming AA, but along the lines I’ve suggested:
    Affirmative action should continue, simply because of social stability. It should depend of size of ethnic/racial groups, factoring in ability of some visible in-groups:

    White Gentiles- 50-60%
    Jewish Jews – 5-10%
    Asians- 10-15%
    Blacks- 5-10%
    Mestizo Hispanics- 10-15%

  24. @Twinkie
    @Dennis Dale


    The problem isn’t Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.
     

    As whites are all saps now who can’t get over how “cool” Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.
     
    No to both.

    Asians, being relative newcomers and risk-averse, tend to assimilate to the dominant social paradigm well. If that's being America-loving patriots (say, 1980's), that's what they will do. If it's being Woke, that's what they will follow, especially for the younger cohorts looking to rise in social status. Moreover, "Asians" in America are increasingly Indians who are the most left-leaning and arguably Woke-pleasing among the Asians. They recently became the largest of the Asian sub-groups in America.

    That's why I advocate immigration-restriction. We have to win the Kulturkampf and establish rightist cultural dominance before we can even think about letting in more new people. Otherwise, we are just going to be adding more foederati for the other side. And if you remember the late Roman history, you might recall what the foederati eventually became.

    I should add, though, that not all is lost. When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.

    Replies: @Renard, @Dennis Dale

    When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.

    Your points are all good but I’m not sure if I understand your various tenses and conditional moods here. When this happens, then even Asians will take notice? Were you around for the summer of 2020?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Renard


    When this happens, then even Asians will take notice? Were you around for the summer of 2020?
     
    Yes. Did you see what happened in Northern Virginia in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election?

    https://youtu.be/Q8FsrpAV17c

    https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/10/26/1049266808/how-loudoun-county-schools-ended-up-at-the-center-of-virginia-s-election

    You mess with schools and Asians turn on you.
  25. @SafeNow
    This must be the least verbally proficient guy named Waxman whom I have ever heard. It’s like finding a vegetarian tiger. A slow cheetah. I could understand this pattern of speech if say, Mrs. Waxman found a pair of panties in his glove compartment, and a surprise confrontation ensued. But he had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.(But I am not saying Alito is a dope.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @G. Poulin, @AnotherDad, @Sparkylyle92, @Harry Baldwin

    He was verbally bobbing and weaving, trying to keep Alito off-balance. Or, to use a non-boxing metaphor, he was squirting ink. Or, to mix up the metaphors even more, the pair of panties that Alito found in Waxman’s glove compartment was the Truth.

  26. @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    Most lawyers are dumber — a lot dumber! — than people think.

    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.

    The part that surprised me was how rude he was. But I suppose someone has to be, with RBG no longer on the court.

    • Replies: @tyrone
    @Renard


    The part that surprised me was how rude he was.
     
    ........well he was one of the justices that struck down the lefts holiest sacrament.....murdering unborn babies .
    , @PhysicistDave
    @Renard

    Renard wrote to me:


    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.
     
    That's my point -- I was really shocked at how dumb the lawyers we have interacted with turned out to be -- and some had sterling reputations within the Northern California legal community.

    I think it is all a sham. It's not true that most everyone is as dumb as the lawyers I have known -- I think that it is quite possible that most lawyers are not as smart as the general manager at the local Walmart.

    They have one talent -- they know how to bullshit. Though as Waxman proved before the High Court, they are not even very good at that.

    Look at Sotomayor -- yeah, she is an affirmative-action babe. But she does not get the distinction between "de facto" and "de jure," even when Alito tries to teach her. I knew that before I got out of high school.

    If lawyers as a whole are not morons, why didn't the legal community as a whole rise up and say she was in the bottom percentile when she was nominated for the Court?

    Because she is not -- morons are the norm.

    It's all a sham.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Greta Handel, @Meretricious

  27. @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    Top lawyers, e.g. Yale educated ones from the 1980s, are extremely bright. You are meeting the wrong lawyers to judge them all uniformly as a group. Most lawyers do not argue before SCOTUS.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Johnson

    Peter Johnson wrote to me:


    Top lawyers, e.g. Yale educated ones from the 1980s, are extremely bright. You are meeting the wrong lawyers to judge them all uniformly as a group. Most lawyers do not argue before SCOTUS.
     
    When I was at Stanford, I knew some guys in the law school -- I was not that impressed.

    What's the basis of your information? Maybe you are just being misled by the propaganda put out by the Bar.

    After all, this guy representing Harvard does seem to be awfully stupid -- and he is practicing before the Supreme Court and Harvard can hire the best.

    This is evidence that my own experience actually does generalize.

    Replies: @TWS

  28. Long ago I taught at an Aussie university and was struck that one of my Chinese students was a bit thick. Then the penny dropped: if you admit Asian students on the same terms as everyone else of course the occasional one will be thick, just as with any other group.

    So here’s how I’d challenge Harvard: show me your measures of academic success in your courses, analysed by ethnic group. If the Asians shine, with very few (compared to other ethnicities) toiling or failing or concentrating on easy courses, then you are discriminating against them at entry.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @dearieme


    I’d challenge Harvard: show me your measures of academic success in your courses, analysed by ethnic group.
     
    Good idea, but Harvard already cooked the books. The median grade at Harvard is A-, so everyone is clustered very narrowly.

    That said, it may be possible to discover that Asians are underrepresented among those who dribble down from the A- median, sort of like the inverse of the banker who pointed out to the government that black borrowers were not underrepresented among defaulters, meaning that the bank wasn't neglecting their market. Of course, the government didn't care, they just wanted more black mortgages, future defaulting be damned. Similarly, colleges won't care that you proved Asians really are underrepresented, they just want the blacks, future stupidities be damned!
  29. • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Danindc

    Funny story.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    , @Jon
    @Danindc

    A random black guy from the neighborhood showed up at a party when I was a freshman. It was early in the semester, and we were all drunk at the time, so no one figured it out until the next day when we all went to the beach together. The combination of the morning coffee, the bright sun, and the fact that this guy was a little too eager to be the banker that would pool our money and go get beer and pizza finally clued everyone in that this late-20's, ghetto looking black guy probably wasn't a freshman after all. A few of us wanted to just ditch him at the beach, but everyone was too afraid of what it would look like if a bunch of privileged white kids did that, so we all just played along until we drove back to school later that afternoon.

    Replies: @Inverness

    , @R.G. Camara
    @Danindc

    The Great Imposter (Ferdinand Demara) and Catch Me If You Can (Frank Abagnale) were both "based on true stories" about 20th Century con men who could talk their way into jobs and positions for which they were totally faking it.

    Of course, perhaps the con men were just conning the novelists/filmmakers who bought their wild stories without checking them. For examples, some of the banks, hotels, and airlines that Abagnale supposedly swindled/fooled came out and denied that Abagnale had done it to them, and Abagnale has never proven them wrong.

    I'm reminded of how a man named Frank Dux made up a completely fictitious backstory about himself---special operations for the CIA, advanced black belts, secret martial arts tournaments --- that got him a hit Hollywood film based on his lying tales (Bloodsport), a decade of fight coordinator credits on other films, and, until he was exposed as a fraud , a lot of press celebrating him for his "true" tough guy life. Dux has stubbornly clung to his b.s. even after exposure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dux

    In other words, Hollywood types will believe anything if its a good story.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  30. It’s because everybody loves blacks!

    …Yeah, but watch where you stand on the subway platform.

  31. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous


    What’s strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn’t seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel.
     
    That can be said of Jews in general. The inbreds as a group have these terrible blind spots that their exploitation of the local population in banking and extreme ethnic solidarity causes all of the "oppression" that they experience later. While obviously Hack D the fed will argue for exceptions, the vast majority of Jews in history have been very unreflective that their own actions lead to the ultimate suffering they endure. The ethnocentricism enhanced by their severe inbreeding causes Jews to so protect their tribe that their minds are incapable of thinking themselves to ever have done anything wrong.

    As someone once pointed out: Genesis, the first book in the Bible, ends with the Jews moving to Egypt under Joseph, where they become rich and wealthy. But Exodus, the very next book, begins with the Jews enslaved en masse to the Egyptians. An obvious explanation to this swerve is that the Jews exploited the Egyptians as they would many later peoples, and the Egyptians got so fed up they took away their power and enslaved them as punishment, but that all occurred offstage between Genesis and Exodus. Yet Jews never mention this as a possibility.

    A prideful, stiff-necked people, indeed.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Mike Tre, @Graveldips

    According to Egyptian records, they were invaded by desert barbarians from the Eastern wastelands, who controlled part of the country. Oddly, that’s not how the Hebrews remembered it…

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Redneck farmer


    According to Egyptian records, they were invaded by desert barbarians from the Eastern wastelands, who controlled part of the country. Oddly, that’s not how the Hebrews remembered it…
     
    Future history books will tell of how Harvard enslaved the Jews in the 1920s.
  32. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    The quickest way to neuter the influence of the Ivy League is to swamp it with bookish Asians. This is potentially a big win for gentiles. The Ivies would become the equivalent of CalTech or UChicago. This scares (you know who), more than the potential loss in average Ivy endowment size — no pun intended.

  33. @Renard
    @PhysicistDave


    Most lawyers are dumber — a lot dumber! — than people think.
     
    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.

    The part that surprised me was how rude he was. But I suppose someone has to be, with RBG no longer on the court.

    Replies: @tyrone, @PhysicistDave

    The part that surprised me was how rude he was.

    ……..well he was one of the justices that struck down the lefts holiest sacrament…..murdering unborn babies .

  34. Another honest defense might be: smart, hard-working Asians are going to make it in America no matter where they go to school; blacks need help, and the mass of less-smart blacks need to see some black leaders, which Harvard can help provide.

  35. @Danindc
    Some don’t even get into school…they just sort of hang around

    https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/31/stanford-knew-about-the-campus-imposter-for-a-year-he-kept-coming-back/

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jon, @R.G. Camara

    Funny story.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Steve Sailer

    From his Tinder profile:


    About Me

    your parents’ would love me
    Stanford 25’
     
  36. @Peter Johnson
    @PhysicistDave

    Top lawyers, e.g. Yale educated ones from the 1980s, are extremely bright. You are meeting the wrong lawyers to judge them all uniformly as a group. Most lawyers do not argue before SCOTUS.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Peter Johnson wrote to me:

    Top lawyers, e.g. Yale educated ones from the 1980s, are extremely bright. You are meeting the wrong lawyers to judge them all uniformly as a group. Most lawyers do not argue before SCOTUS.

    When I was at Stanford, I knew some guys in the law school — I was not that impressed.

    What’s the basis of your information? Maybe you are just being misled by the propaganda put out by the Bar.

    After all, this guy representing Harvard does seem to be awfully stupid — and he is practicing before the Supreme Court and Harvard can hire the best.

    This is evidence that my own experience actually does generalize.

    • Troll: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @TWS
    @PhysicistDave

    Guy's got a tough argument to make. Hard not to sound stupid when your argument boils down to, "Yeah, we are breaking the law and want to keep doing it."

  37. @Renard
    @PhysicistDave


    Most lawyers are dumber — a lot dumber! — than people think.
     
    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.

    The part that surprised me was how rude he was. But I suppose someone has to be, with RBG no longer on the court.

    Replies: @tyrone, @PhysicistDave

    Renard wrote to me:

    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.

    That’s my point — I was really shocked at how dumb the lawyers we have interacted with turned out to be — and some had sterling reputations within the Northern California legal community.

    I think it is all a sham. It’s not true that most everyone is as dumb as the lawyers I have known — I think that it is quite possible that most lawyers are not as smart as the general manager at the local Walmart.

    They have one talent — they know how to bullshit. Though as Waxman proved before the High Court, they are not even very good at that.

    Look at Sotomayor — yeah, she is an affirmative-action babe. But she does not get the distinction between “de facto” and “de jure,” even when Alito tries to teach her. I knew that before I got out of high school.

    If lawyers as a whole are not morons, why didn’t the legal community as a whole rise up and say she was in the bottom percentile when she was nominated for the Court?

    Because she is not — morons are the norm.

    It’s all a sham.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @PhysicistDave

    Or, affirmative action and its consquences have been disastrous for the legal profession.

    , @Greta Handel
    @PhysicistDave

    Agree:


    It’s all a sham.
     
    But you may still be a couple red pills short of a dose.

    Neither the quality of Mr. Waxman’s argument (who could have come up with a coherent one?) nor the mediocrity of The Wise Latina has anything to do with the outcome.

    The processes are part of Washington’s three branch circus, keeping Americans distracted & deceived that there’s some principled rule of law hiding in plain sight there in the Constitution that will finally be tripped over after nearly half a century.

    As with abortion and other divisive issues, the Establishment will flip the switch on affirmative action when it’s needful to maintaining its rule.
    , @Meretricious
    @PhysicistDave

    The fact is that the smartest lawyers are NOT on the Supreme Court. Read intellectual property law, eg--that's real lawyering.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  38. @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I’ve had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
    And this is from a lawyer who is pretty realistic about the general IQ power of lawyers – I always say that we are either the smartest of the dumb people, or the dumbest of the smart. We mostly draw from that middle ground of people who were smart but lazy, or hard-working but a bit dim.
    Law isn’t hard, but it seems to be unique and counterintuitive enough in some of its applications that it sure throws smart people for a loop.

    • Agree: R.G. Camara, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jon

    Patent attorneys, like Calvin's dad in "Calvin and Hobbes," are pretty smart on the whole.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ic1000

    , @R.G. Camara
    @Jon


    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I’ve had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
     
    This.

    I'd like to add:

    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ---and discounts the IQs of others. He doesn't understand when he says extremely stupid things and those around him (including his lawyers) nod and be polite while knowing he doesn't get it. He didn't "explain" the law to them, he just rattled off something he read and they knew didn't matter.

    Second, experienced lawyers are smart enough to know that "black letter law" isn't black letter at all for the most part. Everything that seems black-and-white to non-lawyers? Well, in courts it becomes a sea of gray.

    Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of "right answer/wrong answer" because that's how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    However, in human-made law, everything is subjective (even the "objective" things). And science guys don't realize that judges are politicians too, or hapless bureaucrats, and often make rulings counter-logically to satisfy a personal political whim, or else because they just didn't check the answer too deeply.

    I once was at a party where a lawyer was discussing a legal issue with a computer nerd guy. Computer nerd guy was a quite successful fellow , but kept insisting that the lawyer's take on the issue was "wrong" because "the law says x" and pulled out his phone and showed him the legal quote. The lawyer was trying to explain to computer nerd that just because the "law said x" doesn't mean the court would agree, and often didn't, and computer nerd guy got redder in the face and insisted that because "law said x" it had to. When the lawyer asked "what if the court says the law doesn't say x" the computer nerd nearly yelled "then they appeal and get it fixed!" and the lawyer nearly laughed himself silly, and tried to explain that most appeals go nowhere and don't fix most lower court errors. At this point the computer nerd stormed off, enraged at how "stupid" the lawyer was about the law.

    That's how I picture Gammatard Dave's "explanation" of the law to the lawyers went, except, of course, the computer nerd was actually a success in life.

    Replies: @megabar, @PhysicistDave

    , @Anonymous Jew
    @Jon

    My best friend from college is a physics major and has had a successful career in STEM. I believe he only missed a question or two on his math SAT (early-90s). It’s absolutely astounding to me how bad he is at abstract verbal reasoning. His political arguments are about as sophisticated as a middle schooler. He also has not understanding of basic economics and genuinely believes in Marxism. I have met many similar people in STEM. I’m an HBDer, but sometimes I wonder if the IQ tests are missing something (abstract/holistic real world understanding?).

    If you’re really bright (130 IQ) then yes, most lawyers will seem dumb. On the other hand, the lawyers that break 170 on their LSAT and go to big law are as bright as anyone. I’ve met many who also have STEM undergrads (and one who was a doctor). They may be as spineless as the rest of our over class, but they’re not dumb.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Jon

    Jon wrote to me:


    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong.
     
    As a lawyer, you are clearly incompetent.

    You see, when I caught them on these errors, they ended up admitting I was right.

    I am not claiming that I still think they were wrong, even though they continued to maintain they were right.

    They ended up admitting they were wrong.

    Jon also wrote:

    They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
     
    Again, the evidence of their errors was so clear, that they ended up admitting they were wrong.

    I suspect you are as incompetent as they are.

    Lawyers are generally morons.

    As shown by the one Harvard hired to represent it before the US Supreme Court!

    But none of you can admit it.

    Your profession is a sham.

    Replies: @Jack D

  39. Appreciate the summary of what is happening at the Court. I would leave you with one observation:

    “… some combination of Solomon, Socrates, Jesus, and Chekhov…”

    One of these four is not like the others.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Captain Tripps

    Good point, the first guy was a corrupt head of state and a devil worshipper, and is likely included only because of one apochryphal story. Middle two were intellectuals punished for upsetting rulers, so pretty much the opposite. Chekhov apart from writing was a medical doctor who died young of natural causes.
    (Did Steve mean Dostoevsky, or meant him but didn't want to use him? Normally Dostoevsky is credited with great psychological insight. However, you can't go wrong with any of the Great Russian authors.)

    , @MEH 0910
    @Captain Tripps


    One of these four is not like the others.
     
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Walter_Koenig_Star_Trek.JPG

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Chekov

    Replies: @Inverness

  40. @anonymous
    Any thoughts on the Jewish angle in the court battle? The ADL submitted an amicus to the Supreme Court in this case. The conclusion of the amicus borrows the cultural misappropriation language of black studies, calling the Asian lawsuit akin to cultural misappropriation from Jews.

    It trivializes the tremendous hate, bigotry, and antisemitism faced by many Americans, including American Jews, in the 1920s and 1930s to suggest or imply that race-conscious admissions practices used by colleges and universities today are akin to the odious practices that were rampant at Harvard and other institutions of higher learning a century ago. Rather than learning the lessons of that historical discrimination, plaintiff-appellant’s attempt to create such a false equivalency misappropriates that history.
     
    Will Jewish applicants become the biggest losers if Harvard doesn't discriminate against Asian applicants? There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out. I assume no matter what the Supreme Court says, Harvard will try to maintain the number of black undergrads but need to increase the number of Asian American undegrads. If most white undergrads are Jews then it means Jews will lose seats.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @J.Ross, @slumber_j

    Yes, Jews are by far the worst case of unqualified privileged beneficiaries (ie, what whites are accused of), and in a free market they would be naturally forced out of place by East Asians. That’s exactly why this is happening.

  41. @Captain Tripps
    Appreciate the summary of what is happening at the Court. I would leave you with one observation:

    "... some combination of Solomon, Socrates, Jesus, and Chekhov..."
     
    One of these four is not like the others.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @MEH 0910

    Good point, the first guy was a corrupt head of state and a devil worshipper, and is likely included only because of one apochryphal story. Middle two were intellectuals punished for upsetting rulers, so pretty much the opposite. Chekhov apart from writing was a medical doctor who died young of natural causes.
    (Did Steve mean Dostoevsky, or meant him but didn’t want to use him? Normally Dostoevsky is credited with great psychological insight. However, you can’t go wrong with any of the Great Russian authors.)

  42. @PhysicistDave
    @Renard

    Renard wrote to me:


    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.
     
    That's my point -- I was really shocked at how dumb the lawyers we have interacted with turned out to be -- and some had sterling reputations within the Northern California legal community.

    I think it is all a sham. It's not true that most everyone is as dumb as the lawyers I have known -- I think that it is quite possible that most lawyers are not as smart as the general manager at the local Walmart.

    They have one talent -- they know how to bullshit. Though as Waxman proved before the High Court, they are not even very good at that.

    Look at Sotomayor -- yeah, she is an affirmative-action babe. But she does not get the distinction between "de facto" and "de jure," even when Alito tries to teach her. I knew that before I got out of high school.

    If lawyers as a whole are not morons, why didn't the legal community as a whole rise up and say she was in the bottom percentile when she was nominated for the Court?

    Because she is not -- morons are the norm.

    It's all a sham.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Greta Handel, @Meretricious

    Or, affirmative action and its consquences have been disastrous for the legal profession.

  43. @PhysicistDave
    @Renard

    Renard wrote to me:


    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.
     
    That's my point -- I was really shocked at how dumb the lawyers we have interacted with turned out to be -- and some had sterling reputations within the Northern California legal community.

    I think it is all a sham. It's not true that most everyone is as dumb as the lawyers I have known -- I think that it is quite possible that most lawyers are not as smart as the general manager at the local Walmart.

    They have one talent -- they know how to bullshit. Though as Waxman proved before the High Court, they are not even very good at that.

    Look at Sotomayor -- yeah, she is an affirmative-action babe. But she does not get the distinction between "de facto" and "de jure," even when Alito tries to teach her. I knew that before I got out of high school.

    If lawyers as a whole are not morons, why didn't the legal community as a whole rise up and say she was in the bottom percentile when she was nominated for the Court?

    Because she is not -- morons are the norm.

    It's all a sham.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Greta Handel, @Meretricious

    Agree:

    It’s all a sham.

    But you may still be a couple red pills short of a dose.

    Neither the quality of Mr. Waxman’s argument (who could have come up with a coherent one?) nor the mediocrity of The Wise Latina has anything to do with the outcome.

    The processes are part of Washington’s three branch circus, keeping Americans distracted & deceived that there’s some principled rule of law hiding in plain sight there in the Constitution that will finally be tripped over after nearly half a century.

    As with abortion and other divisive issues, the Establishment will flip the switch on affirmative action when it’s needful to maintaining its rule.

  44. And when all the negro school loans are backed with tax payer money, it’s a win win, baby! The same reason renters advertise “Section 8 welcome!” And liquor stores advertise “EBT welcome!” Not sure if car loans are back by TPM, but by golly we’re going to find out soon enough.

  45. But are cool blacks getting into Harvard?

    Or is it blacks that bitch and complain about whites?

    I know a ton of Cool Blacks…both from school and in the media…none went to Harvard

    • Replies: @Inverness
    @Thoughts

    Very few cool people of any color went to Harvard.

  46. @Danindc
    Some don’t even get into school…they just sort of hang around

    https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/31/stanford-knew-about-the-campus-imposter-for-a-year-he-kept-coming-back/

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jon, @R.G. Camara

    A random black guy from the neighborhood showed up at a party when I was a freshman. It was early in the semester, and we were all drunk at the time, so no one figured it out until the next day when we all went to the beach together. The combination of the morning coffee, the bright sun, and the fact that this guy was a little too eager to be the banker that would pool our money and go get beer and pizza finally clued everyone in that this late-20’s, ghetto looking black guy probably wasn’t a freshman after all. A few of us wanted to just ditch him at the beach, but everyone was too afraid of what it would look like if a bunch of privileged white kids did that, so we all just played along until we drove back to school later that afternoon.

    • Replies: @Inverness
    @Jon

    Did he violate you on the drive home? This is a safe space, and besides I won't tell anyone. Did you enjoy it?

    Is he now a U.S. Representative?

  47. @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians - hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the "fellow whites" game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @anonymous, @anonymous, @William Badwhite

    Jack D =

    “Hello fellow KKK members. God, I hate blacks. Let’s go lynch some right now. By the way, have you guys heard about how Hitler was evil and totally wrong about Jews?”

  48. The funny part is that I am sure they think they are getting the near-mythical black urban genius, essentially a character from The Wire or Will Hunting with a different paint job and accent. Instead what they get is a mix of diligent kids of African immigrants whose personal interests and comportment is pretty ‘white’ and traditional African-Americans from upper middle income households who have been LARPing as radicals and the oppressed in their white and/or Asian dominated high schools.

    All for the premium people will pay for “visible diversity”.

  49. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/harvard-insurance-affirmative-action.html
    https://archive.ph/lizFo

    Judge Rules Against Harvard in Case on Fumbled Insurance Filing

    The university’s blunder means it cannot use a $15 million policy to pay for its legal expenses in defending a challenge to its affirmative action program.

    […]
    In court papers, lawyers for Zurich said the case was straightforward. “Harvard’s admitted failure to comply with the notice provision,” they wrote, “is fatal to its claim for coverage.”

    In response, Harvard’s lawyers argued that Zurich “surely knew” about the affirmative action suit “in the year after it was filed, especially given the significant, ongoing attention that the suit received in national and local news” and Zurich’s own underwriting activities.

    They added: “The notice requirement is not an escape hatch for insurance companies to avoid liability to policyholders due to technical noncompliance.”

    Zurich’s lawyers said that argument was “creative yet specious” and “outlandish.”

    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/3/sffa-insurer-ruling/

  50. @Captain Tripps
    Appreciate the summary of what is happening at the Court. I would leave you with one observation:

    "... some combination of Solomon, Socrates, Jesus, and Chekhov..."
     
    One of these four is not like the others.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @MEH 0910

    One of these four is not like the others.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Chekov

    • Replies: @Inverness
    @MEH 0910

    So you're saying two of them are fictional?!

    Aren't all Russians fictional now? Are orchestras refusing to play Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov?

  51. @Jon
    @PhysicistDave


    And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.
     
    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I've had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
    And this is from a lawyer who is pretty realistic about the general IQ power of lawyers - I always say that we are either the smartest of the dumb people, or the dumbest of the smart. We mostly draw from that middle ground of people who were smart but lazy, or hard-working but a bit dim.
    Law isn't hard, but it seems to be unique and counterintuitive enough in some of its applications that it sure throws smart people for a loop.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @R.G. Camara, @Anonymous Jew, @PhysicistDave

    Patent attorneys, like Calvin’s dad in “Calvin and Hobbes,” are pretty smart on the whole.

    • Agree: Old Prude, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Steve Sailer

    Smart enough in conjunction with his wife to be unable to contain the disciplinary problem presented by a solitary male child.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @Desiderius

    , @ic1000
    @Steve Sailer

    In my experience, not-smart patent attorneys are about as common as old, bold pilots.

  52. Dunno how this fits, but the new Director of Admissions at Harvard is a black woman. The outgoing director was a long serving, hockey playing good old boy (New England division).

  53. @Polistra
    @Twinkie


    I must conclude that this is just straight up lying in defense of Jews as the Victimest People Ever.
     
    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It's full of this sort of legerdemain.

    The Chosenites went from preposterously, embarrassingly over-represented in the 1920s to just extremely over‐represented in the 1930s. Someone with the initials J.D. will be along soon, to explain why this was like the Holocaust, in advance of that other one.

    Which will lead to his next point, which is that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (actually, the WASP society they represented) are truly Worse Than Hitler, because they came first. Karabel has doubtless combed the historical record to see if Dear Old Adolf either attended the Ivy League, or at least read up on their nefarious practices.

    Given that they supposedly hated them so much, why, again, did these evil WASPs permit these termites to enter the country, much less gain control of all its important institutions? Question not rhetorical.

    Replies: @anonymous, @kaganovitch

    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It’s full of this sort of legerdemain.

    Indeed, a terrible book. He is what we call in Yiddish “an Afferist”.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @kaganovitch

    I kinda liked the book but putting that aside, aferist was not in my Yiddish vocabulary. It was just not a word that my parents and their circle used. I think it's actually a Russian word аферист (a lot of words in Yiddish (actual street Yiddish, not dictionary Yiddish that no one ever spoke) are borrowed from the local language - when I went to Poland I was surprised at how many Polish words I knew from my parent's Yiddish.)

    Looking online I do see it used in a few sources such as here:

    אפעריסט פארפירט א פאבריה־מיידל

    An aferist (scammer or con man) seduces a factory girl.

    From an article in a Yiddish newspaper published in Bialystok Poland in 1934;

    https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/ucg/1934/12/20/01/article/43&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    BTW, whenever I read a newspaper like this, my thought is to cry out - why are you worried about scammers and factory girls and ads for Tom i Jerry cartoons and bikes? You are dangling over the precipice by a thread and you are focused on this?

    I gather that aferist often has a sexual connotation as a seducer of females.

    Replies: @Alden, @kaganovitch

  54. @Danindc
    Some don’t even get into school…they just sort of hang around

    https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/31/stanford-knew-about-the-campus-imposter-for-a-year-he-kept-coming-back/

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jon, @R.G. Camara

    The Great Imposter (Ferdinand Demara) and Catch Me If You Can (Frank Abagnale) were both “based on true stories” about 20th Century con men who could talk their way into jobs and positions for which they were totally faking it.

    Of course, perhaps the con men were just conning the novelists/filmmakers who bought their wild stories without checking them. For examples, some of the banks, hotels, and airlines that Abagnale supposedly swindled/fooled came out and denied that Abagnale had done it to them, and Abagnale has never proven them wrong.

    I’m reminded of how a man named Frank Dux made up a completely fictitious backstory about himself—special operations for the CIA, advanced black belts, secret martial arts tournaments — that got him a hit Hollywood film based on his lying tales (Bloodsport), a decade of fight coordinator credits on other films, and, until he was exposed as a fraud , a lot of press celebrating him for his “true” tough guy life. Dux has stubbornly clung to his b.s. even after exposure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dux

    In other words, Hollywood types will believe anything if its a good story.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @R.G. Camara

    There was a youtube channel called Pinkman - that has since been removed - who put up a video explaining that if Dux had actually defeated 50 opponents in a fully bracketed tournament, there would have had to have been something like 50 quadrillion participants in the tourney. It was hilarious.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

  55. @Thoughts
    But are cool blacks getting into Harvard?

    Or is it blacks that bitch and complain about whites?

    I know a ton of Cool Blacks...both from school and in the media...none went to Harvard

    Replies: @Inverness

    Very few cool people of any color went to Harvard.

  56. @Jon
    @Danindc

    A random black guy from the neighborhood showed up at a party when I was a freshman. It was early in the semester, and we were all drunk at the time, so no one figured it out until the next day when we all went to the beach together. The combination of the morning coffee, the bright sun, and the fact that this guy was a little too eager to be the banker that would pool our money and go get beer and pizza finally clued everyone in that this late-20's, ghetto looking black guy probably wasn't a freshman after all. A few of us wanted to just ditch him at the beach, but everyone was too afraid of what it would look like if a bunch of privileged white kids did that, so we all just played along until we drove back to school later that afternoon.

    Replies: @Inverness

    Did he violate you on the drive home? This is a safe space, and besides I won’t tell anyone. Did you enjoy it?

    Is he now a U.S. Representative?

  57. @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    Was that before or after Caesar paid his armies, chump?

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  58. @MEH 0910
    @Captain Tripps


    One of these four is not like the others.
     
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Walter_Koenig_Star_Trek.JPG

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Chekov

    Replies: @Inverness

    So you’re saying two of them are fictional?!

    Aren’t all Russians fictional now? Are orchestras refusing to play Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov?

  59. @Jon
    @PhysicistDave


    And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.
     
    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I've had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
    And this is from a lawyer who is pretty realistic about the general IQ power of lawyers - I always say that we are either the smartest of the dumb people, or the dumbest of the smart. We mostly draw from that middle ground of people who were smart but lazy, or hard-working but a bit dim.
    Law isn't hard, but it seems to be unique and counterintuitive enough in some of its applications that it sure throws smart people for a loop.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @R.G. Camara, @Anonymous Jew, @PhysicistDave

    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I’ve had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.

    This.

    I’d like to add:

    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ—and discounts the IQs of others. He doesn’t understand when he says extremely stupid things and those around him (including his lawyers) nod and be polite while knowing he doesn’t get it. He didn’t “explain” the law to them, he just rattled off something he read and they knew didn’t matter.

    Second, experienced lawyers are smart enough to know that “black letter law” isn’t black letter at all for the most part. Everything that seems black-and-white to non-lawyers? Well, in courts it becomes a sea of gray.

    Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of “right answer/wrong answer” because that’s how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    However, in human-made law, everything is subjective (even the “objective” things). And science guys don’t realize that judges are politicians too, or hapless bureaucrats, and often make rulings counter-logically to satisfy a personal political whim, or else because they just didn’t check the answer too deeply.

    I once was at a party where a lawyer was discussing a legal issue with a computer nerd guy. Computer nerd guy was a quite successful fellow , but kept insisting that the lawyer’s take on the issue was “wrong” because “the law says x” and pulled out his phone and showed him the legal quote. The lawyer was trying to explain to computer nerd that just because the “law said x” doesn’t mean the court would agree, and often didn’t, and computer nerd guy got redder in the face and insisted that because “law said x” it had to. When the lawyer asked “what if the court says the law doesn’t say x” the computer nerd nearly yelled “then they appeal and get it fixed!” and the lawyer nearly laughed himself silly, and tried to explain that most appeals go nowhere and don’t fix most lower court errors. At this point the computer nerd stormed off, enraged at how “stupid” the lawyer was about the law.

    That’s how I picture Gammatard Dave’s “explanation” of the law to the lawyers went, except, of course, the computer nerd was actually a success in life.

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @megabar
    @R.G. Camara

    > Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of “right answer/wrong answer” because that’s how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    It's not always how STEM works, but your point is well-taken.

    There is a tendency to overgeneralize one's personal experience, even among smart people:

    * Elites: "The minorities who I work with are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine."
    * Capitalists: "The free market works great for consumer goods, so uncontrolled free markets are optimal for most problems."
    * Academics: "Academic science produces great value in hard sciences that have external correction, so applying the same method to social sciences and arts will also be valuable."

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra

    , @PhysicistDave
    @R.G. Camara

    My buddy R. G. Camara wrote to me:


    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ—and discounts the IQs of others.
     
    As opposed to R. G. Camara who is mad at me because I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except... wine and wafer.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  60. @Polistra

    My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”
     
    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?


    https://i.ibb.co/3sQ9fqG/Screenshot-20221101-175945-mailcom.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/GxgPdB3/20221103-024131.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/9ZJ2stS/Screenshot-20221103-025838-Chrome.jpg

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Carol, @Technite78, @Moe Gibbs, @Jim Don Bob, @VivaLaMigra

    White ad producers really like her kwazy hair! Like Hendrix or Chaka Khan!

    IRL, most black chicks prefer straight hair, blond hair, extensions, French braids, or the Ginormous Fake Bun.

  61. anonymous[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians - hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the "fellow whites" game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @anonymous, @anonymous, @William Badwhite

    “he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians”

    It would be odd for Jews to favor Indians because Indians are very verbal and pro-ethnic network. The two groups will end up clashing. My general sense is Indian women are very high percentage liberal and will follow the progressive agenda. Indian men are ideologically a mixed lot. And I notice they seem to work against Jewish interests. Liberal Congressman Ro Khanna is at the forefront of pulling back military pressure against Iran. Vivek Ramaswamy is a conservative activist and another Yale Law School grad who is running an anti-ESG pro-oil drilling fund.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @anonymous


    It would be odd for Jews to favor Indians because Indians are very verbal and pro-ethnic network. The two groups will end up clashing.
     
    That's tomorrow. Today South Asians are useful for Jewish elites, because the latter are always contemptuous of, and anxious about, Christian whites. Indians are super majority Hindu/non-Christian and seem to share similar feelings about Christian whites (or Christians in general - most people in the West know about the anti-Muslim violence in India, but few are aware that there are occasional pogroms against Christians in India by Hindu mobs). They also have low intermarriage rates with whites (unlike more Christian Asians such as Koreans and Filipinos).
  62. anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians - hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the "fellow whites" game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @anonymous, @anonymous, @William Badwhite

    [blanked]

  63. “…this may sound like Fetterman-level gibberish…”

    Whew! Glad I’m not alone. For a minute there I thought it was just me.

  64. What I would love to see is that Harvard and all the Ivies be forced to make ALL application material public. Transcripts, admissions essays, interview recordings, every little bit that goes into making the decision. Then we can all see for ourselves who gets picked and why. Of course this won’t happen, but it would hilarious.

    Similarly, I would love to see all student tests/papers be public, so we can see how much lighter the grading is for people of color.

  65. @Dennis Dale
    You overstate the Black! "cool" factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.

    The problem isn't Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.

    Asians are scary smart, alien and taking over. The Blacks! are reliably mediocre and aren't going to genuinely take over anything. They are the familiar, reassuring problem we kn0w--and we've invested so much already in it: we humor them, we cough up the gibs, we find them "cool" no matter how deplorable their collective behavior. They're not going anywhere (unfortunately).

    Asians, on the other hand, are the only distinct group left to challenge the elite (and that means the Tribe) and there's no narrative shock collar regulating their behavior.

    As whites are all saps now who can't get over how "cool" Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I'm investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @LP5, @That Would Be Telling, @AceDeuce

    Dennis Dale writes:

    Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already…

    Those beleaguered admissions officers.
    Who are they, what are their social media profiles and other handy identifying characteristics?
    How did those change over time, say for the last century?
    Are there adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the right people make the cut admissions are according to plan?
    Do the admissions offices resemble society at large or are there notable over- or under-representations?

    Those offers aren’t gonna make themselves.

  66. You could perform triage quite easily by contriving a vector equation which had as arguments the SAT scores, achievement test scores, and high school GPA and simply exclude anyone below a cut-off point. For anyone above the cut-off, you chose the freshman admitted by a lottery. Be most amusing if this system was imposed by court order.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Art Deco

    The most amusing part of this proposal is that it actually makes sense--particularly the lottery.

  67. @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    I used to be in the casualty claims business so I had a great deal of interaction with lawyers. Overall I would say that they were of above average intelligence. By “above average” I mean north of 100 on the IQ scale but how far north I could never tell for sure. Most of them seemed to be quite excellent in their chosen field. Outside the law? Mehh… .

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Prester John

    Prester John wrote to me:


    I used to be in the casualty claims business so I had a great deal of interaction with lawyers. Overall I would say that they were of above average intelligence. By “above average” I mean north of 100 on the IQ scale but how far north I could never tell for sure.
     
    Well, of course half of American Whites have IQs above 100. To get to be manager of the local Walmart, you surely need an IQ above 100.

    Which is why I said that I am doubtful that most of the lawyers here in Northern California with high reputations are as smart as the guy who manages our local Walmart. They do, of course, have the ability, more or less, to write in English (not real good on grammar and punctuation, to be sure!). And they managed to get through the LSAT.

    If not for being part of the whole scam of the legal profession, yes, they probably are smart enough to get low-level white-collar jobs of some sort.

    But what really did amaze me was that they were absolutely sure of matters of law on which they ended up having to admit they were wrong.

    I take it your expectations were just lower than mine: "north of 100 on the IQ scale" is consistent with being in the same range as managers of the local Walmart.

    I had thought lawyers were smarter than that. I was shocked to see they were not.

    And for everyone who keeps insisting that I am mistaken, I simply point to Waxman -- who was hired by Harvard to represent Harvard before the Supreme Court.

    No one has even tried to argue that that does not prove my point.
  68. @Steve Sailer
    @Jon

    Patent attorneys, like Calvin's dad in "Calvin and Hobbes," are pretty smart on the whole.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ic1000

    Smart enough in conjunction with his wife to be unable to contain the disciplinary problem presented by a solitary male child.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @Art Deco

    It was the tiger all along.

    , @Desiderius
    @Art Deco

    As was the Church in Calvin's time notably.

  69. @Art Deco
    You could perform triage quite easily by contriving a vector equation which had as arguments the SAT scores, achievement test scores, and high school GPA and simply exclude anyone below a cut-off point. For anyone above the cut-off, you chose the freshman admitted by a lottery. Be most amusing if this system was imposed by court order.

    Replies: @Prester John

    The most amusing part of this proposal is that it actually makes sense–particularly the lottery.

  70. @SafeNow
    This must be the least verbally proficient guy named Waxman whom I have ever heard. It’s like finding a vegetarian tiger. A slow cheetah. I could understand this pattern of speech if say, Mrs. Waxman found a pair of panties in his glove compartment, and a surprise confrontation ensued. But he had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.(But I am not saying Alito is a dope.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @G. Poulin, @AnotherDad, @Sparkylyle92, @Harry Baldwin

    Thanks SafeNow. I had the same thought. If you transcribed my spoken arguments–say at last Sunday’s brunch we had for our neighbors–they probably wouldn’t sound that great. But even given that … this is just sad. And on precisely the core question, so what this guy has prepped for. He comes across as the Waxman that actually would leave panties in his glove box.

    “Vegetarian tiger”, “Slow cheetah” .. terrific stuff, thanks man.

  71. Maybe Asians should self identify as blacks? LGBT? Other?

  72. @anonymous
    Any thoughts on the Jewish angle in the court battle? The ADL submitted an amicus to the Supreme Court in this case. The conclusion of the amicus borrows the cultural misappropriation language of black studies, calling the Asian lawsuit akin to cultural misappropriation from Jews.

    It trivializes the tremendous hate, bigotry, and antisemitism faced by many Americans, including American Jews, in the 1920s and 1930s to suggest or imply that race-conscious admissions practices used by colleges and universities today are akin to the odious practices that were rampant at Harvard and other institutions of higher learning a century ago. Rather than learning the lessons of that historical discrimination, plaintiff-appellant’s attempt to create such a false equivalency misappropriates that history.
     
    Will Jewish applicants become the biggest losers if Harvard doesn't discriminate against Asian applicants? There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out. I assume no matter what the Supreme Court says, Harvard will try to maintain the number of black undergrads but need to increase the number of Asian American undegrads. If most white undergrads are Jews then it means Jews will lose seats.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @J.Ross, @slumber_j

    There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out.

    It’s more like 1,600–a number that’s been constant for a long time now, while the population has doubled or whatever, and Harvard and its ilk have meanwhile also emphasized the admission of lots of foreign students, so the applicant pool is immense.

    As the lawyer says in the argument excerpted above: “Harvard is getting — last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots.” That’s an admission rate of ~2.6%, which means that about one in every 38 applicants is admitted.

    I’d argue that a big problem for Harvard and similar institutions dwells in these numbers: even if you can immediately dismiss half the applicants because of test scores or grades or whatever, you still have 19 people for every slot. How do you go about discriminating among them? I have no idea.

    But one thing you could do would be to focus your attention on applicants who are US citizens: it’s a start anyway.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @slumber_j

    You have to distinguish between # of admits and # enrolled. Harvard has just about the highest yield of any school but they still have to admit 2100 students in order to get 1600 to enroll because some people choose a different school.

    As for the idea that they are going to have to keep black enrollment constant so Jews/whites will be the biggest losers, I think that if they lose the case and black enrollment stays the same they are going to be back in court because clearly they are doing some shenanigans. They WILL do end runs around the S. Ct. ruling just as they have tried to do on the gun laws but they are going to have to limit the shenanigans somewhat if they hope not to get caught. Also, as it is, whites are now underrepresented on many campuses (not sure about Harvard). If you increase Asian enrollment AND you maintain Black and Latino enrollment the same then you are going to end up completely squeezing whites out of your campus - Harvard is not going to do that for various reasons. My prediction is that black enrollment will drop somewhat, but not to the 1 or 2% that would result from an academic merit based system.

    2nd in the "personality score" that they used as a thumb on the scale AGAINST Asians, they also used it as a thumb on the scale IN FAVOR of blacks who score the highest on personality. If you do away with the "personality score" it's going to decrease the black advantage vs not only Asians but also v. whites (including Jewish whites).

    Replies: @slumber_j

    , @Ralph L
    @slumber_j

    Harvard probably has a low percentage of applicants approved but who choose not to enroll, but lower-prestige schools must have a big problem with that, with so many top students applying to multiple selective schools for bragging rights. Then there's the fight for the few top-notch black and brown applicants. Racial quotas must make things a lot simpler. How big are typical wait lists?

    Can't they find enough darker-skinned but bright dot Indians to achieve the desired Benneton look without so much dilution of their intellectual brand? As they lump the East Asians and Subcons together, the Eastern ones would have lost their legal evidence.

  73. @dearieme
    Long ago I taught at an Aussie university and was struck that one of my Chinese students was a bit thick. Then the penny dropped: if you admit Asian students on the same terms as everyone else of course the occasional one will be thick, just as with any other group.

    So here's how I'd challenge Harvard: show me your measures of academic success in your courses, analysed by ethnic group. If the Asians shine, with very few (compared to other ethnicities) toiling or failing or concentrating on easy courses, then you are discriminating against them at entry.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    I’d challenge Harvard: show me your measures of academic success in your courses, analysed by ethnic group.

    Good idea, but Harvard already cooked the books. The median grade at Harvard is A-, so everyone is clustered very narrowly.

    That said, it may be possible to discover that Asians are underrepresented among those who dribble down from the A- median, sort of like the inverse of the banker who pointed out to the government that black borrowers were not underrepresented among defaulters, meaning that the bank wasn’t neglecting their market. Of course, the government didn’t care, they just wanted more black mortgages, future defaulting be damned. Similarly, colleges won’t care that you proved Asians really are underrepresented, they just want the blacks, future stupidities be damned!

  74. @Polistra
    One thing that's coming across clearly is that this isn't about Harvard, or UNC, or even college. It's about the social (and racial) engineering of our New Society and that's why "important people" are worked up over it. The forces of reaction are going to protect their pets at all costs (integrity is fairly irrelevant) and they don't care who is injured in the process.

    Except for white people, of course. They care very deeply about injuring white people, and that's what this is really all about. They've admitted this explicitly.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @AnotherDad

    The thing that comes across to me most clearly:

    We’ve really gone down the wrong track to have the Supreme Court finely parsing through the admissions criteria of a private university. That is not what a free society looks like.

    Toss all this “Civil Rights” bullshit. Let Americans figure out how and who they want to live and work and associate with on their own.

    And actual Americans should grow some self-respect and stop paying attention to what the numbnuts from Harvard are claiming and telling us to do. Cause … they are always wrong.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe you are right ( I don't think so - especially not in the case of universities which in this day and age take a ton of taxpayer money. If you don't take any government money then do whatever you want but if taxpayers are in part funding your university that creates certain obligations) but that ship sailed long ago. We have a certain rule book. We have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws which apply to private businesses and universities. Given that these laws are on the books and that the government will be on you like white on rice if you discriminate against blacks, you should get the exact same treatment when you discriminate against Asians.

    When Roberts was being confirmed he said that his job is to be a neutral umpire and to call balls and strikes as he sees them. That means that the strike zone for Ohtani should be the same as the strike zone for Marcus Stroman. Maybe they should do away with strike zones or make the strike zone bigger or smaller. Maybe an inning should have 2 outs or 4 instead of 3. But whatever you do, the same rules should apply to everyone in the same way. Don't bullshit me and say that you are calling more strikes on Ohtani because he has an inferior "personality".

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @AnotherDad


    We’ve really gone down the wrong track to have the Supreme Court finely parsing through the admissions criteria of a private university. That is not what a free society looks like.
     
    Well, one of the problems here is that Harvard isn't really some leafy private college in middle America. In such a case I might be inclined to agree with you on a "let a million flowers bloom" sort of attitude. There's enough room in America for all kinds sort of thing. But these people would never leave you alone in a leafy private college in middle America - the smallest mouse whispering dissent must be immediately and remorselessly crushed.

    Harvard has an outsized hand in picking and choosing the American ruling class and setting the agenda for the American academy. Young Barack Obama knew that Occidental College wasn't going to cut it - he had to transfer to Columbia and edge his way into Harvard Law School to be among the prime candidates for entry into the American ruling class. It's now the case that our ruling class is awful, and the academy is worse - none of these institutions are any longer entitled to a benefit of doubt and should be relentlessly harassed from all sides by a populist movement.
  75. It’s because everybody loves blacks! My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”

    Everybody used to enjoy black comedians, but it seems that there aren’t as many good ones as there used to be. Maybe it’s that being obsessed with racial resentment and victimhood isn’t as funny as making jokes about pimps and drug addicts.

  76. The real “tell” about Harvard’s “personality score” is that not only do Asians get the lowest personality score but blacks get the highest. Everyone knows what great personalities blacks have – they’re all like Oprah and Obama.

    In these “Affirmative Action” (i.e. racist) scenarios it’s always useful to imagine the reverse case. Imagine that Harvard had some subjective measure called “personality score” and it was scoring blacks as having the worst personalities. The cries of racism would be endless. Everyone in the admissions office would have to be fired and Harvard would have to take only blacks for the next 10 years in order to atone for their sins.

    Such a scheme would never withstand court scrutiny. Imagine if the Duke Power Company said, “we have a racially neutral way of hiring employees – we assess each applicant on their “personality” and we throw out the applications of the ones who have inferior personalities. We get thousand of applications and don’t have time to go thru each one so we reduce the pile by getting rid of everyone with bad personalities. It’s not our fault that the people with bad personalities are mostly black in the totally objective judgment of the KKK members we have manning our HR dept. ”

    They would lose their case so fast that their heads would spin. But the Harvard lawyer gets to stand up there and lie to the face of Supreme Court justices and the MSM reaction is going to be “why is Alito such a racist? Why can’t we have nine Ketanjis on the Court?”

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Jack D


    The real “tell” about Harvard’s “personality score” is that not only do Asians get the lowest personality score but blacks get the highest. Everyone knows what great personalities blacks have – they’re all like Oprah and Obama.
     
    Blacks have souls. Asians, we assume, have math in the place that blacks have souls.

    Imagine if the Duke Power Company said, “we have a racially neutral way of hiring employees – we assess each applicant on their “personality” and we throw out the applications of the ones who have inferior personalities. We get thousand of applications and don’t have time to go thru each one so we reduce the pile by getting rid of everyone with bad personalities. It’s not our fault that the people with bad personalities are mostly black in the totally objective judgment of the KKK members we have manning our HR dept. ”
     
    The triage argument is laughable, insofar as triage is a matter of conservation of limited resources while Harvard has a $53 Billion Dollar endowment and could hire enough admissions officers to thoroughly comb through each application several times over.

    Such a scheme would never withstand court scrutiny.
     
    This is a test of which of our two Constitutions prevail - the 1789 written version as amended, or the 1960s unwritten civil rights Constitution.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities? Obama seems garrulous, vacuous and spiteful; it's an endurable nuisance for Mooch, who is interested in decorative arts, Sasha, and Malia, and is able to relegate her husband to the background of her life. Oprah, for all of her accomplishments, remains unmarried and childless.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

  77. Alito has the personal makeup of the perfect Republican Supreme Court nominee – solid legal mind which cuts through civil rights voodoo, and in his personal life he spends his free time as a baseball statistics geek. This guy has a complete Universe at home with his family and following baseball (IIRC, he keeps his own score books). He seemingly has no want or desire to seek out Washington society.

  78. @AnotherDad
    @Polistra

    The thing that comes across to me most clearly:

    We've really gone down the wrong track to have the Supreme Court finely parsing through the admissions criteria of a private university. That is not what a free society looks like.

    Toss all this "Civil Rights" bullshit. Let Americans figure out how and who they want to live and work and associate with on their own.

    And actual Americans should grow some self-respect and stop paying attention to what the numbnuts from Harvard are claiming and telling us to do. Cause ... they are always wrong.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Maybe you are right ( I don’t think so – especially not in the case of universities which in this day and age take a ton of taxpayer money. If you don’t take any government money then do whatever you want but if taxpayers are in part funding your university that creates certain obligations) but that ship sailed long ago. We have a certain rule book. We have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws which apply to private businesses and universities. Given that these laws are on the books and that the government will be on you like white on rice if you discriminate against blacks, you should get the exact same treatment when you discriminate against Asians.

    When Roberts was being confirmed he said that his job is to be a neutral umpire and to call balls and strikes as he sees them. That means that the strike zone for Ohtani should be the same as the strike zone for Marcus Stroman. Maybe they should do away with strike zones or make the strike zone bigger or smaller. Maybe an inning should have 2 outs or 4 instead of 3. But whatever you do, the same rules should apply to everyone in the same way. Don’t bullshit me and say that you are calling more strikes on Ohtani because he has an inferior “personality”.

    • Thanks: Alden
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Let's be honest about the crux of our disagreement here:

    I'm an opponent of minoritarianism ... across the board. I prefer a cohesive high-trust Western society where everyone marries everyone and is on board with the common culture, is loyal to their fellow citizens. Obviously 1619, created issues with that from the get go in America.

    The "Civil Rights" jihad was in theory was about fixing the situation with blacks, but quickly was revealed as the minoritarian hammer for busyingbodying everyone in society--and attacking the precisely a society based on white gentile--i.e. Western--norms and culture. It along with the Cold War "Military Industrial Complex" has been the primary vector for growing state power, as I've pointed out with my rather well turned: "Diversity is the Health of the State". And a far more personally intrusive and bullying state power.

    You posed as the enemy of "leftists", but actually favor this bullying state power. You just seem want it to be a bullying state power that imposes your version of "what's good for the Jews!" rather than the reigning ideology of "diversity!"

    I'm not even clear on where you want the bullying to end? We know--boy do we know!--how you feel about Protestant universities, protecting their traditional character and discriminating in favor of their people. How about Catholics? Is it ok for Notre Dame or Georgetown to discriminate against Jews and Asians to maintain their Catholic character? Brigham Young and Mormons? Or does rage against Harvard's (100 year old) Jewish quota essentially spring from the feeling that "Harvard matters?" That you--and others--have mentally nationalized HYPS, maybe the rest of the Ivies as America's "Grand Ecoles" that must operate according some sort of JackD approved test based admissions scheme? And you don't really give a shit about what Notre Dame or Brigham Young are doing? If so, you should just say it. Give the list the mentally nationalized universities that matter. Or admit you favor state busybodying bullying without end.

    ~~~

    Furthermore, I think there's almost no chance your scheme wins out in the future America.

    Your fellow Jews have been most insistent that IMMIGRATION is the fundamental American value. Immigration uber alles! And in just their few decades of power they have fundamentally cracked the American egg. America really has been diversified. It isn't a nation anymore. (Though that nation still exists.) Those deplorable flyover gentile peasants reduced to rump in a steaming multi-ethnic stew.

    But multi-ethnic societies don't do "meritorcracy"--that's for one-people nations--they do ethnic politics.

    Take India, which is essentially the full scale implementation of the Jewish--endogamous separate peoples--model in all its glorious hideousness. They have affirmative action/poltical allocation. They call it "reservations" and have disputes and court cases and even riots over it. Diversity!

    This set of Supreme's may well find Harvard is violating some aspect of Civil Rights law. (I assume they will.) But in the new America the old white gentile majority is shuffling off to the graveyard/crematorium ... and some new "Our Democracy" majority will simply put in the "Civil Rights" law that allows divying up the goodies as they wish.


    Much better would be returning to the idea that private good are ... private. Let all people sort out their private affairs as they wish. And have the ethnic contention/allocation only in public sphere.

    That--far and away--seems like a much better, less oppressive and realistic path for "let's all get along" in the new American pig pile.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Jack D

  79. @Jack D
    The real "tell" about Harvard's "personality score" is that not only do Asians get the lowest personality score but blacks get the highest. Everyone knows what great personalities blacks have - they're all like Oprah and Obama.

    In these "Affirmative Action" (i.e. racist) scenarios it's always useful to imagine the reverse case. Imagine that Harvard had some subjective measure called "personality score" and it was scoring blacks as having the worst personalities. The cries of racism would be endless. Everyone in the admissions office would have to be fired and Harvard would have to take only blacks for the next 10 years in order to atone for their sins.

    Such a scheme would never withstand court scrutiny. Imagine if the Duke Power Company said, "we have a racially neutral way of hiring employees - we assess each applicant on their "personality" and we throw out the applications of the ones who have inferior personalities. We get thousand of applications and don't have time to go thru each one so we reduce the pile by getting rid of everyone with bad personalities. It's not our fault that the people with bad personalities are mostly black in the totally objective judgment of the KKK members we have manning our HR dept. "

    They would lose their case so fast that their heads would spin. But the Harvard lawyer gets to stand up there and lie to the face of Supreme Court justices and the MSM reaction is going to be "why is Alito such a racist? Why can't we have nine Ketanjis on the Court?"

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Art Deco

    The real “tell” about Harvard’s “personality score” is that not only do Asians get the lowest personality score but blacks get the highest. Everyone knows what great personalities blacks have – they’re all like Oprah and Obama.

    Blacks have souls. Asians, we assume, have math in the place that blacks have souls.

    Imagine if the Duke Power Company said, “we have a racially neutral way of hiring employees – we assess each applicant on their “personality” and we throw out the applications of the ones who have inferior personalities. We get thousand of applications and don’t have time to go thru each one so we reduce the pile by getting rid of everyone with bad personalities. It’s not our fault that the people with bad personalities are mostly black in the totally objective judgment of the KKK members we have manning our HR dept. ”

    The triage argument is laughable, insofar as triage is a matter of conservation of limited resources while Harvard has a $53 Billion Dollar endowment and could hire enough admissions officers to thoroughly comb through each application several times over.

    Such a scheme would never withstand court scrutiny.

    This is a test of which of our two Constitutions prevail – the 1789 written version as amended, or the 1960s unwritten civil rights Constitution.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    while Harvard has a $53 Billion Dollar endowment and could hire enough admissions officers
     
    Turns out the people who donate money to universities as a rule don't entirely trust the administrators; for Harvard, check out the terms for Widener Library (where I can personally confirm the "not a brick" stipulation based on their turning a window into a walkway to another library building).

    So a lot, perhaps most depending on how things work in investing the existing earmarked donations can't simply be directed to something like the admissions office. Where you also ought to think about the difficulty of hiring good people in a market with tens of other institutions, and how many you could reasonably manage so many people. Plus do the math for 60,000 applications!
  80. @Jack D
    The real "tell" about Harvard's "personality score" is that not only do Asians get the lowest personality score but blacks get the highest. Everyone knows what great personalities blacks have - they're all like Oprah and Obama.

    In these "Affirmative Action" (i.e. racist) scenarios it's always useful to imagine the reverse case. Imagine that Harvard had some subjective measure called "personality score" and it was scoring blacks as having the worst personalities. The cries of racism would be endless. Everyone in the admissions office would have to be fired and Harvard would have to take only blacks for the next 10 years in order to atone for their sins.

    Such a scheme would never withstand court scrutiny. Imagine if the Duke Power Company said, "we have a racially neutral way of hiring employees - we assess each applicant on their "personality" and we throw out the applications of the ones who have inferior personalities. We get thousand of applications and don't have time to go thru each one so we reduce the pile by getting rid of everyone with bad personalities. It's not our fault that the people with bad personalities are mostly black in the totally objective judgment of the KKK members we have manning our HR dept. "

    They would lose their case so fast that their heads would spin. But the Harvard lawyer gets to stand up there and lie to the face of Supreme Court justices and the MSM reaction is going to be "why is Alito such a racist? Why can't we have nine Ketanjis on the Court?"

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Art Deco

    Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities? Obama seems garrulous, vacuous and spiteful; it’s an endurable nuisance for Mooch, who is interested in decorative arts, Sasha, and Malia, and is able to relegate her husband to the background of her life. Oprah, for all of her accomplishments, remains unmarried and childless.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Thanks: David In TN
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Art Deco


    Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities?
     
    Obama's lack of a personality was seen as a feature rather than a bug. It reassured people. He exuded holiness, while outsourcing the assholiness to others.


    https://youtu.be/eX8tL3PMj7o
    , @Mike Tre
    @Art Deco

    "Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities?"

    Well, they both resent whites for facilitating their successes in life. I'm sure Jack D can relate.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  81. @slumber_j
    @anonymous


    There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out.
     
    It's more like 1,600--a number that's been constant for a long time now, while the population has doubled or whatever, and Harvard and its ilk have meanwhile also emphasized the admission of lots of foreign students, so the applicant pool is immense.

    As the lawyer says in the argument excerpted above: "Harvard is getting — last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots." That's an admission rate of ~2.6%, which means that about one in every 38 applicants is admitted.

    I'd argue that a big problem for Harvard and similar institutions dwells in these numbers: even if you can immediately dismiss half the applicants because of test scores or grades or whatever, you still have 19 people for every slot. How do you go about discriminating among them? I have no idea.

    But one thing you could do would be to focus your attention on applicants who are US citizens: it's a start anyway.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ralph L

    You have to distinguish between # of admits and # enrolled. Harvard has just about the highest yield of any school but they still have to admit 2100 students in order to get 1600 to enroll because some people choose a different school.

    As for the idea that they are going to have to keep black enrollment constant so Jews/whites will be the biggest losers, I think that if they lose the case and black enrollment stays the same they are going to be back in court because clearly they are doing some shenanigans. They WILL do end runs around the S. Ct. ruling just as they have tried to do on the gun laws but they are going to have to limit the shenanigans somewhat if they hope not to get caught. Also, as it is, whites are now underrepresented on many campuses (not sure about Harvard). If you increase Asian enrollment AND you maintain Black and Latino enrollment the same then you are going to end up completely squeezing whites out of your campus – Harvard is not going to do that for various reasons. My prediction is that black enrollment will drop somewhat, but not to the 1 or 2% that would result from an academic merit based system.

    2nd in the “personality score” that they used as a thumb on the scale AGAINST Asians, they also used it as a thumb on the scale IN FAVOR of blacks who score the highest on personality. If you do away with the “personality score” it’s going to decrease the black advantage vs not only Asians but also v. whites (including Jewish whites).

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @Jack D

    Okay: if that's the case, we're looking at about 3.4% of applicants admitted, or one in 29. Throw out half of those 29, and you still have to choose from among 14 or 15 basically qualified people for each slot.

    My point is that it's not as though Harvard is trying to figure out who's the better of two qualified applicants. Get rid of everyone who scores below 1570 on the SAT (which is widely rumored to be the cutoff for any nonblack non-athlete or whatever the special criteria are), and you still have a really difficult problem on your hands.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Alden

  82. @AnotherDad
    @Polistra

    The thing that comes across to me most clearly:

    We've really gone down the wrong track to have the Supreme Court finely parsing through the admissions criteria of a private university. That is not what a free society looks like.

    Toss all this "Civil Rights" bullshit. Let Americans figure out how and who they want to live and work and associate with on their own.

    And actual Americans should grow some self-respect and stop paying attention to what the numbnuts from Harvard are claiming and telling us to do. Cause ... they are always wrong.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    We’ve really gone down the wrong track to have the Supreme Court finely parsing through the admissions criteria of a private university. That is not what a free society looks like.

    Well, one of the problems here is that Harvard isn’t really some leafy private college in middle America. In such a case I might be inclined to agree with you on a “let a million flowers bloom” sort of attitude. There’s enough room in America for all kinds sort of thing. But these people would never leave you alone in a leafy private college in middle America – the smallest mouse whispering dissent must be immediately and remorselessly crushed.

    Harvard has an outsized hand in picking and choosing the American ruling class and setting the agenda for the American academy. Young Barack Obama knew that Occidental College wasn’t going to cut it – he had to transfer to Columbia and edge his way into Harvard Law School to be among the prime candidates for entry into the American ruling class. It’s now the case that our ruling class is awful, and the academy is worse – none of these institutions are any longer entitled to a benefit of doubt and should be relentlessly harassed from all sides by a populist movement.

  83. Anon[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Speaks

    The fact that Asian Americans got a marginally, on average, a marginally lower personal rating score is no more evidence of discrimination against them than the fact that they got a marginally higher rating than any data can show on academics and extracurriculars.
     
    In other words, that Asians score better on tests, get better grades, and engage in more extracurricular activities is offset by the fact that Asians have lousy personalities, but that's not discrimination; it's triage.

    Replies: @Anon

    My suspicion is that we’re actually seeing is discrimination against introverts. Harvard loves extroverts because they tend to be movers and shakers in life. Introverts, by contrast, just discover things, and Harvard has no use for that. Harvard is not into innovation but power. Harvard wants to graduate a power elite, not a bunch of scientists.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Anon


    My suspicion is that we’re actually seeing is discrimination against introverts. Harvard loves extroverts because they tend to be movers and shakers in life. Introverts, by contrast, just discover things, and Harvard has no use for that. Harvard is not into innovation but power. Harvard wants to graduate a power elite, not a bunch of scientists.
     
    I don't think it's quite that black and white about introverts and extroverts, and I note since Harvard decided to become A Great University they started by hiring a MIT chemistry professor and it created some of the world's best science and math departments, and has constantly tried without success to become great at engineering.

    It was clear then, I think, and certainly is today that there's great power and sometimes great wealth to be found in STEM, and it would be exceedingly stupid for Harvard to completely ignore that. Hmmm, I'll also note one of its major contributions to WWII was electronic warfare, but we hear very little about that because like the radar MIT for example specialized in it was the sort of thing that needed to stay as secret as possible.
  84. 1 pesky fact remains. When these affirmatively acted upon Negroes are interviewed for a job after graduation–regardless of how how woke the interviewer is–their degree will be “Harvard,” not Harvard. And that’s a fact, Jack.

  85. @Polistra

    My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”
     
    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?


    https://i.ibb.co/3sQ9fqG/Screenshot-20221101-175945-mailcom.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/GxgPdB3/20221103-024131.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/9ZJ2stS/Screenshot-20221103-025838-Chrome.jpg

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Carol, @Technite78, @Moe Gibbs, @Jim Don Bob, @VivaLaMigra

    If you really want to get credit for the diversity of your advertisements, you go with fierce BLACK! women with “natural” hair, usually dressed as though they’re about to host their own talk show, or walk the red carpet at some fabulous event.

  86. @Polistra

    My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”
     
    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?


    https://i.ibb.co/3sQ9fqG/Screenshot-20221101-175945-mailcom.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/GxgPdB3/20221103-024131.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/9ZJ2stS/Screenshot-20221103-025838-Chrome.jpg

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Carol, @Technite78, @Moe Gibbs, @Jim Don Bob, @VivaLaMigra

    It’s the hair. The sacred, untouchable hair that all of us deplorable, awkward, rhythm-challenged YTs are told we want so desperately to fondle. Frankly, I find their skull-pubes to be rather disgusting. You KNOW that rat’s nest ain’t bein’ washed very often.

  87. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous


    What’s strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn’t seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel.
     
    That can be said of Jews in general. The inbreds as a group have these terrible blind spots that their exploitation of the local population in banking and extreme ethnic solidarity causes all of the "oppression" that they experience later. While obviously Hack D the fed will argue for exceptions, the vast majority of Jews in history have been very unreflective that their own actions lead to the ultimate suffering they endure. The ethnocentricism enhanced by their severe inbreeding causes Jews to so protect their tribe that their minds are incapable of thinking themselves to ever have done anything wrong.

    As someone once pointed out: Genesis, the first book in the Bible, ends with the Jews moving to Egypt under Joseph, where they become rich and wealthy. But Exodus, the very next book, begins with the Jews enslaved en masse to the Egyptians. An obvious explanation to this swerve is that the Jews exploited the Egyptians as they would many later peoples, and the Egyptians got so fed up they took away their power and enslaved them as punishment, but that all occurred offstage between Genesis and Exodus. Yet Jews never mention this as a possibility.

    A prideful, stiff-necked people, indeed.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Mike Tre, @Graveldips

    Or possibly the jews were just thrown out of Egypt once their financial grifting became intolerable, and they were never actually slaves at all.

  88. @Jack D
    @slumber_j

    You have to distinguish between # of admits and # enrolled. Harvard has just about the highest yield of any school but they still have to admit 2100 students in order to get 1600 to enroll because some people choose a different school.

    As for the idea that they are going to have to keep black enrollment constant so Jews/whites will be the biggest losers, I think that if they lose the case and black enrollment stays the same they are going to be back in court because clearly they are doing some shenanigans. They WILL do end runs around the S. Ct. ruling just as they have tried to do on the gun laws but they are going to have to limit the shenanigans somewhat if they hope not to get caught. Also, as it is, whites are now underrepresented on many campuses (not sure about Harvard). If you increase Asian enrollment AND you maintain Black and Latino enrollment the same then you are going to end up completely squeezing whites out of your campus - Harvard is not going to do that for various reasons. My prediction is that black enrollment will drop somewhat, but not to the 1 or 2% that would result from an academic merit based system.

    2nd in the "personality score" that they used as a thumb on the scale AGAINST Asians, they also used it as a thumb on the scale IN FAVOR of blacks who score the highest on personality. If you do away with the "personality score" it's going to decrease the black advantage vs not only Asians but also v. whites (including Jewish whites).

    Replies: @slumber_j

    Okay: if that’s the case, we’re looking at about 3.4% of applicants admitted, or one in 29. Throw out half of those 29, and you still have to choose from among 14 or 15 basically qualified people for each slot.

    My point is that it’s not as though Harvard is trying to figure out who’s the better of two qualified applicants. Get rid of everyone who scores below 1570 on the SAT (which is widely rumored to be the cutoff for any nonblack non-athlete or whatever the special criteria are), and you still have a really difficult problem on your hands.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @slumber_j

    Absolutely, they have a difficult problem (a problem most businesses would love to have) of having 20 customers for each seat that they have to sell (makes you wonder why they don't add seats?). But their solution (take people's race into account) is unfortunately (about to be) illegal.

    They are never going back to the pre-1925 system of just rank ordering people on their admission test score. Their concept that they are in effect "casting" a class the way you would cast a musical play makes a certain amount of sense. We need an oboe player for the pit orchestra, we need an ingénue who can sing, we need a cornerback for the football team, etc. This is all fine and good UNLESS it is used as a way to disguise racism, in which case it is illegal. But that's exactly how they have been using it.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Alden
    @slumber_j

    Harvard no longer requires SAT submissions for acceptance. It’s website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.

    Harvard eliminated the SAT requirement for the class if 2021 on a temporary basis. And has extended the elimination of SATs to the fall class of 2026. After which SAT requirement will be reconsidered. Considered and never reinstated.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ Day’s of ignorant blathering about a lawsuit they haven’t read. Don’t even know the name of the lawsuit , state in which it was filed, or case number.

    And no, ignorant men of UNZ, it’s not Harvard admissions case. It’s Plaintiff vs defendant.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ offering advice to Harvard admissions about the minimum SAT scores Harvard should require for admission. When Harvard doesn’t require SAT scores.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @Gary in Gramercy

  89. if the — the — this — this — there is — there was no evidence

  90. @Twinkie
    @Dennis Dale


    The problem isn’t Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.
     

    As whites are all saps now who can’t get over how “cool” Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.
     
    No to both.

    Asians, being relative newcomers and risk-averse, tend to assimilate to the dominant social paradigm well. If that's being America-loving patriots (say, 1980's), that's what they will do. If it's being Woke, that's what they will follow, especially for the younger cohorts looking to rise in social status. Moreover, "Asians" in America are increasingly Indians who are the most left-leaning and arguably Woke-pleasing among the Asians. They recently became the largest of the Asian sub-groups in America.

    That's why I advocate immigration-restriction. We have to win the Kulturkampf and establish rightist cultural dominance before we can even think about letting in more new people. Otherwise, we are just going to be adding more foederati for the other side. And if you remember the late Roman history, you might recall what the foederati eventually became.

    I should add, though, that not all is lost. When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.

    Replies: @Renard, @Dennis Dale

    This is America. Sub-continentals aren’t Asian here. Don’t be daft.

    Their place among the Coalition of the Fringes makes my point–if my impression is correct and they’re over-represented in its leadership. I think they are and it’s partly for the appropriately idiotic reason that they have darker skin and thus better stand in for all the dull-witted Blacks! who keep failing to rise to genuine leadership roles. They also appear to be more inherently political than Asians–as are Blacks! What we often mean when we say “conformist” is “apolitical”.

    It doesn’t matter if and when Asians will “have had enough”–just as you see it hasn’t mattered at what point we’ve had enough. Believe me son, I’ve been watching this prediction recur continually over the last two decades of steady decline–your cope is born back ceaselessly into the Narrative’s advance a la Fitzgerald.

    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe. The Tribe has them in a probationary status right now, non-white and thus Good, but suspect due to their “model minority” umbrage. How dare they. Jews like their Gentiles dull and poor.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Dennis Dale


    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe.
     
    Jews like Asians just fine for the most part. In elite circles they rub elbows frequently and they generally get along. Similar cultures - emphasis on education, not too violent, etc. Twinkie (and maybe Koreans in general) is the exception because he sees himself as a member of a martial race whereas American Jews are mostly not interested in military service. But Chinese, Indians, etc. seem to get along just fine with Jews for the most part - I know plenty of Asian-Jewish couples and their offspring.

    Now, ANYONE that strays off of the Liberal consensus (which is pro-AA) is going to get pushback. Look at Clarence Thomas. Liberals that would never say a bad word about blacks in general hate Thomas with a passion. He's even worse than a white racist - he's a race traitor. But they are bad for straying, not for their race.

    Karabel isn't saying that Asians in general are bad, only this particular small group of Asians (ironically led by a Jew - another race traitor) who have decided to push back against AA. And of course, as part of that Karabel doing the very lawyerly thing of distinguishing the case. When Harvard discriminated against Jews in the 1920s (hey did you know I wrote the book on that?), that was awful but what Harvard is doing now is NOTHING like that. You can tell because Asians LIKE what Harvard is doing to them or at least not complaining about it while Jews (you should excuse the expression) squealed like stuck pigs when Harvard tried this same shtick on them. Well most Asians like it except for this handful of Asian deplorables who have brought this case - those are the Asian we don't like but not because they are Asian but because they are not behaving like members of the Coalition of the Fringes in good standing. Good members of the CotF aim only at white gentile men and not at each other. Can we pin this on Mitt Romney somehow, or Trump? Maybe the Russians are secretly funding this suit?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Desiderius
    @Dennis Dale

    Subcons are Aryan.

    The Indo- in Indo-European. And yeah they're quite skilled at using their hue to disguise that.

  91. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities? Obama seems garrulous, vacuous and spiteful; it's an endurable nuisance for Mooch, who is interested in decorative arts, Sasha, and Malia, and is able to relegate her husband to the background of her life. Oprah, for all of her accomplishments, remains unmarried and childless.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities?

    Obama’s lack of a personality was seen as a feature rather than a bug. It reassured people. He exuded holiness, while outsourcing the assholiness to others.

  92. @Art Deco
    @Steve Sailer

    Smart enough in conjunction with his wife to be unable to contain the disciplinary problem presented by a solitary male child.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @Desiderius

    It was the tiger all along.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  93. @Dennis Dale
    @Twinkie

    This is America. Sub-continentals aren't Asian here. Don't be daft.

    Their place among the Coalition of the Fringes makes my point--if my impression is correct and they're over-represented in its leadership. I think they are and it's partly for the appropriately idiotic reason that they have darker skin and thus better stand in for all the dull-witted Blacks! who keep failing to rise to genuine leadership roles. They also appear to be more inherently political than Asians--as are Blacks! What we often mean when we say "conformist" is "apolitical".

    It doesn't matter if and when Asians will "have had enough"--just as you see it hasn't mattered at what point we've had enough. Believe me son, I've been watching this prediction recur continually over the last two decades of steady decline--your cope is born back ceaselessly into the Narrative's advance a la Fitzgerald.

    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe. The Tribe has them in a probationary status right now, non-white and thus Good, but suspect due to their "model minority" umbrage. How dare they. Jews like their Gentiles dull and poor.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Desiderius

    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe.

    Jews like Asians just fine for the most part. In elite circles they rub elbows frequently and they generally get along. Similar cultures – emphasis on education, not too violent, etc. Twinkie (and maybe Koreans in general) is the exception because he sees himself as a member of a martial race whereas American Jews are mostly not interested in military service. But Chinese, Indians, etc. seem to get along just fine with Jews for the most part – I know plenty of Asian-Jewish couples and their offspring.

    Now, ANYONE that strays off of the Liberal consensus (which is pro-AA) is going to get pushback. Look at Clarence Thomas. Liberals that would never say a bad word about blacks in general hate Thomas with a passion. He’s even worse than a white racist – he’s a race traitor. But they are bad for straying, not for their race.

    Karabel isn’t saying that Asians in general are bad, only this particular small group of Asians (ironically led by a Jew – another race traitor) who have decided to push back against AA. And of course, as part of that Karabel doing the very lawyerly thing of distinguishing the case. When Harvard discriminated against Jews in the 1920s (hey did you know I wrote the book on that?), that was awful but what Harvard is doing now is NOTHING like that. You can tell because Asians LIKE what Harvard is doing to them or at least not complaining about it while Jews (you should excuse the expression) squealed like stuck pigs when Harvard tried this same shtick on them. Well most Asians like it except for this handful of Asian deplorables who have brought this case – those are the Asian we don’t like but not because they are Asian but because they are not behaving like members of the Coalition of the Fringes in good standing. Good members of the CotF aim only at white gentile men and not at each other. Can we pin this on Mitt Romney somehow, or Trump? Maybe the Russians are secretly funding this suit?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    Jews like Asians just fine for the most part.
     
    Jews like Asians "just fine" as long as they are on top. But there is anxiety there too: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204076204578076613986930932

    Some of the more vehement attacks on Amy Chua’s deliberately provocative 2011 memoir of child rearing, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” were perhaps fueled by resentment of Asian-American ascendancy, especially in the context of raising “perfect” children. Confession: I was one of the book’s more vocal detractors. Was I, a Jewish-American writer, driven to pique, in part, by a member of a group that threatens Jewish-American cultural domination, just as American Jews once threatened the WASP mandarinate? Well, maybe.

    The subtle vying for success in various realms of American life between Asian-Americans and American Jews makes one wonder what mores and tastes will look like when Asian-Americans begin to exert their own influence over the culture. Will the verbal brio and intellectual bent of Jews, their edgy irony and frank super-competitiveness give way to Asian discretion, deference to the community, and gifts for less verbal pursuits like music, science and math? Will things become, as they once were under WASP hegemony, quieter? [Boldfaces mine.]
     

    Hmmm, sounds like a fear of Christian white - East Asian socio-political (not to forget marriage) alliance.

    Twinkie (and maybe Koreans in general) is the exception because he sees himself as a member of a martial race whereas American Jews are mostly not interested in military service.
     
    That's not the real reason, much as you like to malign me, because Koreans are normal people with a normal history of a nation and a state (which includes, yes, military history - this guy is Korea's most cited hero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin) while Jews are a rootless people who were tax collectors, money lenders, and merchants living at the sufferance of elites of other nations and who don't have a prevailing martial history since Masada (to which the Israelis had to harken back - close to 2,000 years - in order to build a martial mythos for the new nation).

    The real reason is that Koreans are super majority Christians in this country (and a large fraction evangelical). Indeed, a substantial fraction of ALL Asians in this country are Christian and their Christian fervor tends to be stronger than that of average whites in this country. This doesn't bode well for a people who harbor a strong anti-Christian prejudice and have been pushing for the destruction of the Christian norms and have been at the vanguard of promoting secularism in this country.


    But Chinese, Indians, etc. seem to get along just fine with Jews for the most part
     
    Literally, the two least Christian Asian sub-groups in America. I rest my case.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

  94. @slumber_j
    @anonymous


    There are only 2100/2200 seats every year so someone has to lose out.
     
    It's more like 1,600--a number that's been constant for a long time now, while the population has doubled or whatever, and Harvard and its ilk have meanwhile also emphasized the admission of lots of foreign students, so the applicant pool is immense.

    As the lawyer says in the argument excerpted above: "Harvard is getting — last year got 61,000 applications for 1600 slots." That's an admission rate of ~2.6%, which means that about one in every 38 applicants is admitted.

    I'd argue that a big problem for Harvard and similar institutions dwells in these numbers: even if you can immediately dismiss half the applicants because of test scores or grades or whatever, you still have 19 people for every slot. How do you go about discriminating among them? I have no idea.

    But one thing you could do would be to focus your attention on applicants who are US citizens: it's a start anyway.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ralph L

    Harvard probably has a low percentage of applicants approved but who choose not to enroll, but lower-prestige schools must have a big problem with that, with so many top students applying to multiple selective schools for bragging rights. Then there’s the fight for the few top-notch black and brown applicants. Racial quotas must make things a lot simpler. How big are typical wait lists?

    Can’t they find enough darker-skinned but bright dot Indians to achieve the desired Benneton look without so much dilution of their intellectual brand? As they lump the East Asians and Subcons together, the Eastern ones would have lost their legal evidence.

  95. @Steve Sailer
    @Danindc

    Funny story.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    From his Tinder profile:

    About Me

    your parents’ would love me
    Stanford 25’

  96. @slumber_j
    @Jack D

    Okay: if that's the case, we're looking at about 3.4% of applicants admitted, or one in 29. Throw out half of those 29, and you still have to choose from among 14 or 15 basically qualified people for each slot.

    My point is that it's not as though Harvard is trying to figure out who's the better of two qualified applicants. Get rid of everyone who scores below 1570 on the SAT (which is widely rumored to be the cutoff for any nonblack non-athlete or whatever the special criteria are), and you still have a really difficult problem on your hands.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Alden

    Absolutely, they have a difficult problem (a problem most businesses would love to have) of having 20 customers for each seat that they have to sell (makes you wonder why they don’t add seats?). But their solution (take people’s race into account) is unfortunately (about to be) illegal.

    They are never going back to the pre-1925 system of just rank ordering people on their admission test score. Their concept that they are in effect “casting” a class the way you would cast a musical play makes a certain amount of sense. We need an oboe player for the pit orchestra, we need an ingénue who can sing, we need a cornerback for the football team, etc. This is all fine and good UNLESS it is used as a way to disguise racism, in which case it is illegal. But that’s exactly how they have been using it.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Their concept that they are in effect “casting” a class the way you would cast a musical play makes a certain amount of sense.

    No it doesn't, but it might justify their phony-baloney jobs. The programs you have, the features of the campus, the extant social networks induce your applicants to self-select and make the cast.

    Replies: @Jack D

  97. @Jon
    @PhysicistDave


    And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.
     
    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I've had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
    And this is from a lawyer who is pretty realistic about the general IQ power of lawyers - I always say that we are either the smartest of the dumb people, or the dumbest of the smart. We mostly draw from that middle ground of people who were smart but lazy, or hard-working but a bit dim.
    Law isn't hard, but it seems to be unique and counterintuitive enough in some of its applications that it sure throws smart people for a loop.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @R.G. Camara, @Anonymous Jew, @PhysicistDave

    My best friend from college is a physics major and has had a successful career in STEM. I believe he only missed a question or two on his math SAT (early-90s). It’s absolutely astounding to me how bad he is at abstract verbal reasoning. His political arguments are about as sophisticated as a middle schooler. He also has not understanding of basic economics and genuinely believes in Marxism. I have met many similar people in STEM. I’m an HBDer, but sometimes I wonder if the IQ tests are missing something (abstract/holistic real world understanding?).

    If you’re really bright (130 IQ) then yes, most lawyers will seem dumb. On the other hand, the lawyers that break 170 on their LSAT and go to big law are as bright as anyone. I’ve met many who also have STEM undergrads (and one who was a doctor). They may be as spineless as the rest of our over class, but they’re not dumb.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Anonymous Jew


    His political arguments are about as sophisticated as a middle schooler. He also has not understanding of basic economics and genuinely believes in Marxism. I have met many similar people in STEM. I’m an HBDer, but sometimes I wonder if the IQ tests are missing something (abstract/holistic real world understanding?).
     
    Ronald Reagan had a great line about this: "It isn't that liberals are stupid, its that they believe in so much that isn't so."

    First, you have account for the fact that many lefties just really are evil. Evil exists. And as we saw in COVID, BLM riots, and with trannyism, liberals want to mutilate and rape your children, and want you to die alone, and will laugh at you when it happens. History's worst monsters were guided by Marxism. Even today, its hard to tell whether it was Marxism that made George Soros a monster or whether he was already a monster and took up Marxism to further his evil, but they are linked together. So many of these liberals you think are just misguided really are bent on evil. Accept it.

    Second, if not evil, many higher IQ lefties are quite easily led by propaganda and live very sheltered lives. The history of Marxism is born-rich, sheltered brats in ivory towers trying to force it upon various populations of lower IQ manual laborers and middle-class shopkeepers and having it all woefully fall apart. The Marxists have all these theories that have never been proven by data but sound smart because they keep repeating them back to one another using ten-dollar vocabulary words and vague concepts. Capturing the universities is always an initial step in Marxist take overs because you need to seed the ground with true-believing rich kids whose parents will fund the Marxist causes and the kids can sound reasonable and intelligent when recruiting.

    Third, Dunning-Kruger effect. Many people think they're "experts" at things they have never done. Witness how many people yell at the TV screen in a sports match about how much they'd succeed if only they were in charge and the coach/player is an "idiot." If you've never argued in court or tried writing a brief, it can seem like lawyers are idiots because the "obvious" answer is never stated (as the computer nerd in my little anecdote thought).

    Fourth, the inability of anyone who doesn't deal with government bureaucracy day to day to fully grasp how petty, inefficient, and awful most government workers can be, and its universal to all governments everywhere and in history. Government workers will literally make people rot in jail or die without medical treatment over picayune slights. IRS agents and federal prosecutors and FBI agents get a kick out of torturing innocent folks or little fish just to flex their muscle. And stupid affirmative action hires will literally forget to do basic tasks and end up hurting real people's lives. Like the eye of Sauron, most of us escape the government's harsh power, colossal stiff-neckedness, or enraging incompetency because we are too minor a figure to be noticed, but if the eye rests upon you, rest assured your life will be a miserable mixture of deliberate torture, uncaring indifference, and just plain incompetent obtuseness.

    And this goes for judges, justices, and clerks as well, who are all government workers. "Hey, the post office gets me my mail, and Obama gave good speeches, so go government go!"

    Most higher-IQ lefties have jobs where they don't interact with the government daily, don't see these realities, and therefore think that the government does a far better job than it really does.

    Fifth and finally, communism's evils are not taught in schools. Why? Because Marxism captured the universities.

  98. @kaganovitch
    @Polistra

    Have you read his book, The Chosen? It’s full of this sort of legerdemain.

    Indeed, a terrible book. He is what we call in Yiddish "an Afferist".

    Replies: @Jack D

    I kinda liked the book but putting that aside, aferist was not in my Yiddish vocabulary. It was just not a word that my parents and their circle used. I think it’s actually a Russian word аферист (a lot of words in Yiddish (actual street Yiddish, not dictionary Yiddish that no one ever spoke) are borrowed from the local language – when I went to Poland I was surprised at how many Polish words I knew from my parent’s Yiddish.)

    Looking online I do see it used in a few sources such as here:

    אפעריסט פארפירט א פאבריה־מיידל

    An aferist (scammer or con man) seduces a factory girl.

    From an article in a Yiddish newspaper published in Bialystok Poland in 1934;

    https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/ucg/1934/12/20/01/article/43&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    BTW, whenever I read a newspaper like this, my thought is to cry out – why are you worried about scammers and factory girls and ads for Tom i Jerry cartoons and bikes? You are dangling over the precipice by a thread and you are focused on this?

    I gather that aferist often has a sexual connotation as a seducer of females.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Jack D

    I doubt anyone in Poland expected Germany would invade and occupy Poland or any other European country in 1934.

    , @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    Yes, it's really borrowed from Russian. My dad and uncles used it rarely, but Dzigan was particularly fond of the word. e.g. "Mir huben ah kultur austosch mit England, zey shikken unz Touristen und mir shikken zey Afferisten" (For the uninitiated "We -speaking of Israel- have a cultural exchange program with England, they send us tourists and we send them con men." In Yiddish it's alliterative unlike in English.) Considering how long Jews lived in Eastern Europe, there are comparatively few Slavic borrowings in Yiddish and many of them are for things like foods, ugekis/ ogorki(pickles) etc.

    Replies: @Jack D

  99. @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians - hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the "fellow whites" game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @anonymous, @anonymous, @William Badwhite

    Why doesn’t Jack D realize Jews derive moral currency from blacks? It’s part of the foundation of Jewish power in America.

  100. @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I am not a mind reader, so I do not know what commenter Jack D holds in his heart, but it seems to me that he is both 1) confident that Jewish money and media dominance have cowered politicians and other institutional figures sufficiently to defer to Jewish interests and 2) fearful that there would be popular, grassroots backlash against Jews, especially by non-Jewish whites (and possibly East Asians - hence the constant reassurances about how Asians like Jews).

    That seems to be why he alternately gloats about Jewish dominance over non-Jewish whites at the same time as anxiously plays the "fellow whites" game of deflecting discontent at Jewish elites toward East Asians (like other non-Christian elites, he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians).

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @anonymous, @anonymous, @William Badwhite

    And he does seem to hate blacks genuinely.

    I bash Jack as much as anyone, but mostly for his Jewish blindspots as well as his Russian obsession (e.g. Russia is a broken down craphole/gas station with nukes but also they’ll invade Germany then Britain any minute if “we” don’t beat up Putin).

    But vis-a-vis the bLaCks I think he just acknowledges reality and hate has very little do with it.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  101. @Art Deco
    @Steve Sailer

    Smart enough in conjunction with his wife to be unable to contain the disciplinary problem presented by a solitary male child.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @Desiderius

    As was the Church in Calvin’s time notably.

  102. @Dennis Dale
    @Twinkie

    This is America. Sub-continentals aren't Asian here. Don't be daft.

    Their place among the Coalition of the Fringes makes my point--if my impression is correct and they're over-represented in its leadership. I think they are and it's partly for the appropriately idiotic reason that they have darker skin and thus better stand in for all the dull-witted Blacks! who keep failing to rise to genuine leadership roles. They also appear to be more inherently political than Asians--as are Blacks! What we often mean when we say "conformist" is "apolitical".

    It doesn't matter if and when Asians will "have had enough"--just as you see it hasn't mattered at what point we've had enough. Believe me son, I've been watching this prediction recur continually over the last two decades of steady decline--your cope is born back ceaselessly into the Narrative's advance a la Fitzgerald.

    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe. The Tribe has them in a probationary status right now, non-white and thus Good, but suspect due to their "model minority" umbrage. How dare they. Jews like their Gentiles dull and poor.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Desiderius

    Subcons are Aryan.

    The Indo- in Indo-European. And yeah they’re quite skilled at using their hue to disguise that.

  103. Do you want to know the real reason we are discriminating against Asians and in favor of blacks? It’s because everybody loves blacks!

    If g (factor) drives out t (testosterone) – an interesting hypothesis – then maybe keeping some Bantus around serves as a decent hedge. Low-t people historically have ended up dead.

  104. Mr Waxman why am I not surprised. The name should be changed to Marx & Trotsky Yeshiva.

    If Plaintiffs win check out what happened to California state university admissions after anti affirmative action referendum Prop 209 was upheld in court in 1998.

    FYI although the Prop 209 campaign desperately tried to appeal to Asians Asians voted against Prop 209 and in favor of continuing affirmative action.

    Anti White affirmative action got worse after Prop 209 was upheld by the courts. . Check out percentage of White students in university of California schools and California state universities in 1996 when Prop 209 was voted into law And the class of 2022.

    The percentage of Whites accepted into the California state system sank every year.

  105. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous


    What’s strange to me about Jack D is despite his anxiety about attitudes towards Jews he doesn’t seem to think Jewish actions could lead to any kind of blowback in America or in world affairs against Israel.
     
    That can be said of Jews in general. The inbreds as a group have these terrible blind spots that their exploitation of the local population in banking and extreme ethnic solidarity causes all of the "oppression" that they experience later. While obviously Hack D the fed will argue for exceptions, the vast majority of Jews in history have been very unreflective that their own actions lead to the ultimate suffering they endure. The ethnocentricism enhanced by their severe inbreeding causes Jews to so protect their tribe that their minds are incapable of thinking themselves to ever have done anything wrong.

    As someone once pointed out: Genesis, the first book in the Bible, ends with the Jews moving to Egypt under Joseph, where they become rich and wealthy. But Exodus, the very next book, begins with the Jews enslaved en masse to the Egyptians. An obvious explanation to this swerve is that the Jews exploited the Egyptians as they would many later peoples, and the Egyptians got so fed up they took away their power and enslaved them as punishment, but that all occurred offstage between Genesis and Exodus. Yet Jews never mention this as a possibility.

    A prideful, stiff-necked people, indeed.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Mike Tre, @Graveldips

    Genesis Chp 47 tells how the Jews, on behalf of Pharaoh, enslaved the Egyptian masses. It’s very clear. Market dominant minority, 101. I was shocked when I first actually read it. Of course they were repaid with slavery.

  106. Waxman is one of the best Supreme Court advocates of his generation. You try to argue that 2 + 2 =5.

  107. @Dennis Dale
    You overstate the Black! "cool" factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.

    The problem isn't Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.

    Asians are scary smart, alien and taking over. The Blacks! are reliably mediocre and aren't going to genuinely take over anything. They are the familiar, reassuring problem we kn0w--and we've invested so much already in it: we humor them, we cough up the gibs, we find them "cool" no matter how deplorable their collective behavior. They're not going anywhere (unfortunately).

    Asians, on the other hand, are the only distinct group left to challenge the elite (and that means the Tribe) and there's no narrative shock collar regulating their behavior.

    As whites are all saps now who can't get over how "cool" Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I'm investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @LP5, @That Would Be Telling, @AceDeuce

    You overstate the Black! “cool” factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.

    True, except we’re talking about Harvard which can limit its admissions to many of the very best in the nation and world. I doubt very many if any will be acing Math 55, but they’ll do OK as undergraduates, or so is my impression.

    My viewpoint is from the “community college” MIT next door where a combination of intense self-selection and the floor of being able to do the core science and math curriculum means we admit blacks who are very much not mediocre nor to my observations troublesome. Again I doubt many if any will become math or physics majors, but I observes as CS majors they do just fine.

    Besides a previous iSteve discussion that mentioned a brief Harvard experiment with ghetto types who were so violently troublesome I think they were expelled, the problem starts at some level not much below Harvard for generalist institutions. See Thomas Sowell for the details on this which he first observed teaching at Cornell; the big picture is a cascading pattern of admitting unqualified blacks who can’t do the work at the institutions the go to.

    Which is a tragedy because if they’d gone to a lower tier school a lot of them would be matched to its slower pace and lower level of rigor. Our host probably has the numbers or could whip them up quickly, but I’d guess we’re trashing most of the “Talented Tenth” in the country. The determined ones probably transfer and get a degree somewhere and then get hired by the usual suspects, but needlessly get embittered in the process.

  108. (Waxman) is just a bad faith actor, and i presume, everybody involved knows that. he does, the justices do, and Harvard especially does, since they sent him on purpose. he’s deliberately not trying to make sense or make a cogent argument. ever since (they) took over Harvard, it hasn’t been run to make sense. it’s run to use the 200 year old established prestige of the Harvard name, in the pursuit 0f (their) goals.

    this is how (they) do everything. take over something that somebody else created, then wear the dead husk of the thing like a suit, until it’s previous disguise value has finally been exhausted and it has become an obvious doppleganger to even the average Joe.

    dissident rightists catch on to this the fastest. communist takeover of Ivy Universities, communist takeover of US military, communist takeover of very non-leftist corporations like Disney. it made life very sucky over the last 30 years as you saw all this coming in slow motion, way ahead of everybody else. i cringe thinking about guys way older than me who saw parts of it coming from 50 years away. how frustrating must that have been in the 70s. i know my dad’s dad hated AA and used to rant about it in the 70s and 80s.

  109. @slumber_j
    @Jack D

    Okay: if that's the case, we're looking at about 3.4% of applicants admitted, or one in 29. Throw out half of those 29, and you still have to choose from among 14 or 15 basically qualified people for each slot.

    My point is that it's not as though Harvard is trying to figure out who's the better of two qualified applicants. Get rid of everyone who scores below 1570 on the SAT (which is widely rumored to be the cutoff for any nonblack non-athlete or whatever the special criteria are), and you still have a really difficult problem on your hands.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Alden

    Harvard no longer requires SAT submissions for acceptance. It’s website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.

    Harvard eliminated the SAT requirement for the class if 2021 on a temporary basis. And has extended the elimination of SATs to the fall class of 2026. After which SAT requirement will be reconsidered. Considered and never reinstated.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ Day’s of ignorant blathering about a lawsuit they haven’t read. Don’t even know the name of the lawsuit , state in which it was filed, or case number.

    And no, ignorant men of UNZ, it’s not Harvard admissions case. It’s Plaintiff vs defendant.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ offering advice to Harvard admissions about the minimum SAT scores Harvard should require for admission. When Harvard doesn’t require SAT scores.

    • Troll: Polistra
    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @Alden


    It’s [sic] website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.
     
    And evidently you believe that, which is funny; and from your ignorance about the way the world actually works, you accuse others of ignorance. Which is also funny.

    Harvard says it doesn't require SAT scores...and that's probably actually true if you're black or a recruited athlete or can check some similar box. Otherwise good luck applying without them--and the word on the street is that the cutoff is 1570. This is all either explicit or implied in what I already said.

    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff? No, I don't: that's why it's called a rumor. But for personal reasons it's very unlikely that I know any less than you do about the application process for Harvard College this year, and frankly it's foolish of you to assume that I do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Gary in Gramercy

    , @Gary in Gramercy
    @Alden

    The more confidently you make an assertion -- on virtually any subject -- the more likely you are to be filled to the brim with what Jack Kilpatrick called "horsefeathers." (See, e.g., https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM.)

    Call it "Alden's Law."

  110. @Jack D
    @kaganovitch

    I kinda liked the book but putting that aside, aferist was not in my Yiddish vocabulary. It was just not a word that my parents and their circle used. I think it's actually a Russian word аферист (a lot of words in Yiddish (actual street Yiddish, not dictionary Yiddish that no one ever spoke) are borrowed from the local language - when I went to Poland I was surprised at how many Polish words I knew from my parent's Yiddish.)

    Looking online I do see it used in a few sources such as here:

    אפעריסט פארפירט א פאבריה־מיידל

    An aferist (scammer or con man) seduces a factory girl.

    From an article in a Yiddish newspaper published in Bialystok Poland in 1934;

    https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/ucg/1934/12/20/01/article/43&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    BTW, whenever I read a newspaper like this, my thought is to cry out - why are you worried about scammers and factory girls and ads for Tom i Jerry cartoons and bikes? You are dangling over the precipice by a thread and you are focused on this?

    I gather that aferist often has a sexual connotation as a seducer of females.

    Replies: @Alden, @kaganovitch

    I doubt anyone in Poland expected Germany would invade and occupy Poland or any other European country in 1934.

  111. @Steve Sailer
    @Jon

    Patent attorneys, like Calvin's dad in "Calvin and Hobbes," are pretty smart on the whole.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ic1000

    In my experience, not-smart patent attorneys are about as common as old, bold pilots.

  112. @LondonBob
    How do they justify discriminating against whites in favour of jews, which is the really pertinent question?

    Replies: @Meretricious, @Anonymous Jew

    damn good question. Question #2: Why should elite institutions care 1 whit about the % of Bantus in their universities/organizations IF THEY ARE UNQUALIFIED?

  113. @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Johnson

    Peter Johnson wrote to me:


    Top lawyers, e.g. Yale educated ones from the 1980s, are extremely bright. You are meeting the wrong lawyers to judge them all uniformly as a group. Most lawyers do not argue before SCOTUS.
     
    When I was at Stanford, I knew some guys in the law school -- I was not that impressed.

    What's the basis of your information? Maybe you are just being misled by the propaganda put out by the Bar.

    After all, this guy representing Harvard does seem to be awfully stupid -- and he is practicing before the Supreme Court and Harvard can hire the best.

    This is evidence that my own experience actually does generalize.

    Replies: @TWS

    Guy’s got a tough argument to make. Hard not to sound stupid when your argument boils down to, “Yeah, we are breaking the law and want to keep doing it.”

  114. @PhysicistDave
    @Renard

    Renard wrote to me:


    Most everyone is pretty dumb, but this guy is arguing in front of the Supreme Court! And as SN said, he had lots of time to prepare.
     
    That's my point -- I was really shocked at how dumb the lawyers we have interacted with turned out to be -- and some had sterling reputations within the Northern California legal community.

    I think it is all a sham. It's not true that most everyone is as dumb as the lawyers I have known -- I think that it is quite possible that most lawyers are not as smart as the general manager at the local Walmart.

    They have one talent -- they know how to bullshit. Though as Waxman proved before the High Court, they are not even very good at that.

    Look at Sotomayor -- yeah, she is an affirmative-action babe. But she does not get the distinction between "de facto" and "de jure," even when Alito tries to teach her. I knew that before I got out of high school.

    If lawyers as a whole are not morons, why didn't the legal community as a whole rise up and say she was in the bottom percentile when she was nominated for the Court?

    Because she is not -- morons are the norm.

    It's all a sham.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Greta Handel, @Meretricious

    The fact is that the smartest lawyers are NOT on the Supreme Court. Read intellectual property law, eg–that’s real lawyering.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Meretricious

    Meretricious wrote to me:


    The fact is that the smartest lawyers are NOT on the Supreme Court. Read intellectual property law, eg–that’s real lawyering.
     
    Well, I've worked with some patent lawyers, and, yes, they were indeed not morons -- at least the ones I worked with were able to get up to speed fairly fast on the technical details (at least one had a STEM degree before going into patent law).

    IP law is one hell of a mess, but that is a different story: basically, the idea of "owning" ideas is, to put it mildly, a bit unnatural.

    I will say that our tax lawyer is also not an idiot: I am better at numbers than he is, not surprisingly, but of course he was able to teach me stuff about tax law.

    But the litigators and corporate lawyers I have known during the last several decades -- let's just say that their stupidity was only exceeded by their mendacity and cupidity. (Not that they were smart enough to know the meaning of words like "cupidity" --they'd probably guess it had something to do with sex! Stupid shysters.)
  115. @PhysicistDave
    @SafeNow

    SafeNow wrote:


    But [Harvard's lawyer] had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.
     
    Most lawyers are dumber -- a lot dumber! -- than people think.

    For various reasons, my wife and I have had to interact with quite a few lawyers over the last decade or so. And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.

    This is of course not because we are both geniuses who taught ourselves the contents of three years of law school in our spare time (we both have STEM Ph.D.s). It is because we know how to use Google.

    It is quite amazing how ignorant so many lawyers are of information relevant to their job that you can easily find via Google.

    By and large, these are not intellectually impressive people.

    And as to their character... when I was a kid, the neighbor two doors down was allegedly connected to the mob. A much more decent guy than most of the lawyers we have interacted with (specifically including ones we were paying to work for us).

    Replies: @Renard, @Peter Johnson, @Jon, @R.G. Camara, @Prester John, @Jack D

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Same thing with doctors – why pay a doctor when you can just Google your symptoms and diagnose yourself better than any doctor? Next time you go to a doctor, make sure to tell him the diagnosis first, which you found on Google. He will really appreciate your help, I promise.

    PD has meta-obliviousness regarding human interactions. He is may be some sort of idiot savant when it comes to physics but when it comes to dealing with human relations, not only is he oblivious but he is oblivious that he is oblivious. I would have paid money to be a fly on the wall and watch as PD told his lawyer that he knew more about the law than he did and that he was gonna “educate” him on the law (based on Googling). Who’s the stupid one if you are paying someone several hundred $/hr to do something that you could do better yourself?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:


    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.
     
    Very perceptive -- that is indeed what we did.

    Worked much better.

    But of course even firing one of you shysters is a nightmare. We had engaged one crooked shyster, a guy named Chris Knauf at the Disability Rights Legal Center in LA, to represent our daughter with regard to UCLA. He induced our daughter to sign a highly illegal representation agreement (illegal for over a century in California) that forbade her to settle with UCLA without his permission.

    When it became clear that he was not really trying to represent her interests effectively and when we complained about this, he announced that he was no longer representing her. But he refused to file the paperwork with the court to allow her to get another lawyer.

    So we filed a complaint with the state Bar about this. Naturally, they refused to do anything.

    So, we then hired another lawyer to get Knauf to actually give up the case that Knauf said he would no longer deal with.

    This second lawyer then tried to bully me into formally agreeing not to publicly tell the truth about Knauf as I am doing now!

    Finally, I myself started contacting members of the Board of DRLC making clear that I was going to go public with all this, as I am indeed doing here.

    At that point, Knauf finally filed the paperwork with the court to remove himself from the case.

    Of course, we also had to dump the second shyster.

    You're right: fire the lawyers and take care of it yourself.

    Which is what I did.

    Successfully.

    I trust any non-attorney reading this can see why I maintain that the stupidity of most lawyers is exceeded only by their mendacity and cupidity.

    I've gone into details on this case, and named names (I'm going to the media and the state and federal attorneys with Knauf's story -- so sue me, Knauf, you bastard!), but I assure you I could give a number of other similar stories about our family's experience with shysters during the last several decades.

    What the Mafia would be like if the Mafia lacked any sense of decency whatsoever.

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Well, the last attorney we spoke to we conversed with in a group meeting on Zoom. As far as I could tell, she never prepared for the meeting and simply worked through a standard script she used for initial consultations. We had a number of questions about which we'd been receiving conflicting answers from various sources. She offered only vague non clarifications. We had questions about procedure. She offered nothing, just a noncommittal "It doesn't seem time yet". We came out of the meeting no smarter than we had been when we went into it and she charged us $600 for her time. I've dealt with an elder care attorney before (in New York), and he had a precise course of action mapped out and interceded for me with regard to one particular bank. I should note that this dame came recommended to us as the elder law attorney to consult in the section of the country where our elders live. One of our number eventually filled out the applications herself with the assistance of a counselor from the social services department. She tells me she learned more from filling out the application than she ever did from the lawyer we consulted.

    Replies: @Jack D

  116. @Alden
    @slumber_j

    Harvard no longer requires SAT submissions for acceptance. It’s website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.

    Harvard eliminated the SAT requirement for the class if 2021 on a temporary basis. And has extended the elimination of SATs to the fall class of 2026. After which SAT requirement will be reconsidered. Considered and never reinstated.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ Day’s of ignorant blathering about a lawsuit they haven’t read. Don’t even know the name of the lawsuit , state in which it was filed, or case number.

    And no, ignorant men of UNZ, it’s not Harvard admissions case. It’s Plaintiff vs defendant.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ offering advice to Harvard admissions about the minimum SAT scores Harvard should require for admission. When Harvard doesn’t require SAT scores.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @Gary in Gramercy

    It’s [sic] website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.

    And evidently you believe that, which is funny; and from your ignorance about the way the world actually works, you accuse others of ignorance. Which is also funny.

    Harvard says it doesn’t require SAT scores…and that’s probably actually true if you’re black or a recruited athlete or can check some similar box. Otherwise good luck applying without them–and the word on the street is that the cutoff is 1570. This is all either explicit or implied in what I already said.

    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff? No, I don’t: that’s why it’s called a rumor. But for personal reasons it’s very unlikely that I know any less than you do about the application process for Harvard College this year, and frankly it’s foolish of you to assume that I do.

    • Thanks: Polistra
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @slumber_j


    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff?
     
    The cutoff should be 1670. As in the year your "immigrant ancestor" arrived in Massachusetts.

    King Philip's War is too late!

    Replies: @slumber_j

    , @Gary in Gramercy
    @slumber_j

    They should just rename the Dunning-Kruger effect the Alden Effect, and be done with it.

    (By the way, best of luck with the admissions process; if your child gets into his or her first choice school via Early Decision/Action, the spring semester will be infinitely more pleasant. I write and edit a lot of personal statements for applicants at all levels, and by far, my most nerve-wracked clients are high school seniors...and their parents.)

  117. @LondonBob
    How do they justify discriminating against whites in favour of jews, which is the really pertinent question?

    Replies: @Meretricious, @Anonymous Jew

    Not disagreeing (I agree with Unz that there’re way too many Jews), but how much of the Jewish overrepresentation (based on test scores) stems from prominent alumni and legacy admissions? (See Jared Kushner as the prime example). Maybe many of these under qualified Jews are merely the regressed to the mean children of prominent and big money Jews and/or Jewish alumni? Maybe it’s not the Jewishness of their parents but instead their parents’ deep pockets and Harvard degrees? I don’t have the answer and am not taking sides.

    Personally I would like to see the Ivies go strictly on numbers if for no other reason than to see Black enrollment fall and liberal heads explode.

  118. @R.G. Camara
    @Jon


    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I’ve had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
     
    This.

    I'd like to add:

    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ---and discounts the IQs of others. He doesn't understand when he says extremely stupid things and those around him (including his lawyers) nod and be polite while knowing he doesn't get it. He didn't "explain" the law to them, he just rattled off something he read and they knew didn't matter.

    Second, experienced lawyers are smart enough to know that "black letter law" isn't black letter at all for the most part. Everything that seems black-and-white to non-lawyers? Well, in courts it becomes a sea of gray.

    Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of "right answer/wrong answer" because that's how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    However, in human-made law, everything is subjective (even the "objective" things). And science guys don't realize that judges are politicians too, or hapless bureaucrats, and often make rulings counter-logically to satisfy a personal political whim, or else because they just didn't check the answer too deeply.

    I once was at a party where a lawyer was discussing a legal issue with a computer nerd guy. Computer nerd guy was a quite successful fellow , but kept insisting that the lawyer's take on the issue was "wrong" because "the law says x" and pulled out his phone and showed him the legal quote. The lawyer was trying to explain to computer nerd that just because the "law said x" doesn't mean the court would agree, and often didn't, and computer nerd guy got redder in the face and insisted that because "law said x" it had to. When the lawyer asked "what if the court says the law doesn't say x" the computer nerd nearly yelled "then they appeal and get it fixed!" and the lawyer nearly laughed himself silly, and tried to explain that most appeals go nowhere and don't fix most lower court errors. At this point the computer nerd stormed off, enraged at how "stupid" the lawyer was about the law.

    That's how I picture Gammatard Dave's "explanation" of the law to the lawyers went, except, of course, the computer nerd was actually a success in life.

    Replies: @megabar, @PhysicistDave

    > Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of “right answer/wrong answer” because that’s how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    It’s not always how STEM works, but your point is well-taken.

    There is a tendency to overgeneralize one’s personal experience, even among smart people:

    * Elites: “The minorities who I work with are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”
    * Capitalists: “The free market works great for consumer goods, so uncontrolled free markets are optimal for most problems.”
    * Academics: “Academic science produces great value in hard sciences that have external correction, so applying the same method to social sciences and arts will also be valuable.”

    • Agree: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @VivaLaMigra
    @megabar


    * Elites: “The minorities who I work with are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”
     
    They can't be terribly "elite" if they can't even construct a sentence according to established grammatical rules, as in: “The minorities with whom I work are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”

    I honestly don't know which is the greater evidence of the fast approaching apocalypse: the nearly universal dangling participle, or that 99% of current English speakers can't fathom the difference between "who" and "whom." Why don't we combine "he" and "him" and "she" and "her" while we're at this business of discarding distinctions between nominative and objective cases of pronouns?

    Replies: @AceDeuce

  119. @Jack D
    @slumber_j

    Absolutely, they have a difficult problem (a problem most businesses would love to have) of having 20 customers for each seat that they have to sell (makes you wonder why they don't add seats?). But their solution (take people's race into account) is unfortunately (about to be) illegal.

    They are never going back to the pre-1925 system of just rank ordering people on their admission test score. Their concept that they are in effect "casting" a class the way you would cast a musical play makes a certain amount of sense. We need an oboe player for the pit orchestra, we need an ingénue who can sing, we need a cornerback for the football team, etc. This is all fine and good UNLESS it is used as a way to disguise racism, in which case it is illegal. But that's exactly how they have been using it.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Their concept that they are in effect “casting” a class the way you would cast a musical play makes a certain amount of sense.

    No it doesn’t, but it might justify their phony-baloney jobs. The programs you have, the features of the campus, the extant social networks induce your applicants to self-select and make the cast.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco


    induce your applicants to self-select
     
    What if 20 or 30x as many applicants "self-select" than you have room for? What if, after you cut out everyone with under a 1560 SAT, you STILL have 4 or 5x as many applicants? What then? Raise the bar to 1580? Lottery? What if raising the bar to 1560 gets you a class full of nerdy Asians and outright cheaters? How do you get players for your sports teams? How do you recognize donors who have donated millions of $?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  120. Waxman’s arguments remind me of a Conan O’Brien skit, where Andy and Conan were given a topic to debate, and so they had to argue for or against. Andy was given the “pro” side of grave robbing.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @megabar

    An argument in favor of grave robbing: "Don't call it robbery, call it recycling."

    Who says three years of law school were a waste of time and money?

    Replies: @megabar

  121. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Their concept that they are in effect “casting” a class the way you would cast a musical play makes a certain amount of sense.

    No it doesn't, but it might justify their phony-baloney jobs. The programs you have, the features of the campus, the extant social networks induce your applicants to self-select and make the cast.

    Replies: @Jack D

    induce your applicants to self-select

    What if 20 or 30x as many applicants “self-select” than you have room for? What if, after you cut out everyone with under a 1560 SAT, you STILL have 4 or 5x as many applicants? What then? Raise the bar to 1580? Lottery? What if raising the bar to 1560 gets you a class full of nerdy Asians and outright cheaters? How do you get players for your sports teams? How do you recognize donors who have donated millions of $?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    What if 20 or 30x as many applicants “self-select” than you have room for?

    Lottery's not a bad idea.

    The problem you're referring to simply does not exist for the vast majority of schools.

    I had a conversation over 40 years ago with a man employed in the admissions office at Stanford. He tells me, well we have the obvious admits (about 1%, IIRC), the obvious non admits (about 90%, IIRC), and their man-hours in his office were devoted to sorting through who was in between.

  122. @Jon
    @PhysicistDave


    And we have repeatedly had to teach lawyers whom we were paying basic facts about the law.
     
    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I've had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
    And this is from a lawyer who is pretty realistic about the general IQ power of lawyers - I always say that we are either the smartest of the dumb people, or the dumbest of the smart. We mostly draw from that middle ground of people who were smart but lazy, or hard-working but a bit dim.
    Law isn't hard, but it seems to be unique and counterintuitive enough in some of its applications that it sure throws smart people for a loop.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @R.G. Camara, @Anonymous Jew, @PhysicistDave

    Jon wrote to me:

    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong.

    As a lawyer, you are clearly incompetent.

    You see, when I caught them on these errors, they ended up admitting I was right.

    I am not claiming that I still think they were wrong, even though they continued to maintain they were right.

    They ended up admitting they were wrong.

    Jon also wrote:

    They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.

    Again, the evidence of their errors was so clear, that they ended up admitting they were wrong.

    I suspect you are as incompetent as they are.

    Lawyers are generally morons.

    As shown by the one Harvard hired to represent it before the US Supreme Court!

    But none of you can admit it.

    Your profession is a sham.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave


    Again, the evidence of their errors was so clear, that they ended up admitting they were wrong.
     
    The cluelessness has reached levels never measured before. .0001 nanoclues! Such low levels of having a clue cannot be perceived by the human eye and can only be measured by an electron microscope.
  123. @Anon
    @James Speaks

    My suspicion is that we're actually seeing is discrimination against introverts. Harvard loves extroverts because they tend to be movers and shakers in life. Introverts, by contrast, just discover things, and Harvard has no use for that. Harvard is not into innovation but power. Harvard wants to graduate a power elite, not a bunch of scientists.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    My suspicion is that we’re actually seeing is discrimination against introverts. Harvard loves extroverts because they tend to be movers and shakers in life. Introverts, by contrast, just discover things, and Harvard has no use for that. Harvard is not into innovation but power. Harvard wants to graduate a power elite, not a bunch of scientists.

    I don’t think it’s quite that black and white about introverts and extroverts, and I note since Harvard decided to become A Great University they started by hiring a MIT chemistry professor and it created some of the world’s best science and math departments, and has constantly tried without success to become great at engineering.

    It was clear then, I think, and certainly is today that there’s great power and sometimes great wealth to be found in STEM, and it would be exceedingly stupid for Harvard to completely ignore that. Hmmm, I’ll also note one of its major contributions to WWII was electronic warfare, but we hear very little about that because like the radar MIT for example specialized in it was the sort of thing that needed to stay as secret as possible.

  124. In other words, it means letting many applications die a quick death in sizable part due to the race of the applicant.

    In medical triage, patients are dismissed for two, opposing, reasons. There is either no hope of saving them, or there is no need of saving them. The latter will survive regardless, so their treatment can wait until the pressures have diminished. Scarce resources are thus directed to the critical middle range, where action makes a difference.

    While the term is not etymologically related to “three”, that’s a handy way to look at it.

    So whose applications are not given attention because they are automatically in?

  125. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Jack D


    The real “tell” about Harvard’s “personality score” is that not only do Asians get the lowest personality score but blacks get the highest. Everyone knows what great personalities blacks have – they’re all like Oprah and Obama.
     
    Blacks have souls. Asians, we assume, have math in the place that blacks have souls.

    Imagine if the Duke Power Company said, “we have a racially neutral way of hiring employees – we assess each applicant on their “personality” and we throw out the applications of the ones who have inferior personalities. We get thousand of applications and don’t have time to go thru each one so we reduce the pile by getting rid of everyone with bad personalities. It’s not our fault that the people with bad personalities are mostly black in the totally objective judgment of the KKK members we have manning our HR dept. ”
     
    The triage argument is laughable, insofar as triage is a matter of conservation of limited resources while Harvard has a $53 Billion Dollar endowment and could hire enough admissions officers to thoroughly comb through each application several times over.

    Such a scheme would never withstand court scrutiny.
     
    This is a test of which of our two Constitutions prevail - the 1789 written version as amended, or the 1960s unwritten civil rights Constitution.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    while Harvard has a $53 Billion Dollar endowment and could hire enough admissions officers

    Turns out the people who donate money to universities as a rule don’t entirely trust the administrators; for Harvard, check out the terms for Widener Library (where I can personally confirm the “not a brick” stipulation based on their turning a window into a walkway to another library building).

    So a lot, perhaps most depending on how things work in investing the existing earmarked donations can’t simply be directed to something like the admissions office. Where you also ought to think about the difficulty of hiring good people in a market with tens of other institutions, and how many you could reasonably manage so many people. Plus do the math for 60,000 applications!

  126. @Prester John
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to be in the casualty claims business so I had a great deal of interaction with lawyers. Overall I would say that they were of above average intelligence. By "above average" I mean north of 100 on the IQ scale but how far north I could never tell for sure. Most of them seemed to be quite excellent in their chosen field. Outside the law? Mehh... .

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Prester John wrote to me:

    I used to be in the casualty claims business so I had a great deal of interaction with lawyers. Overall I would say that they were of above average intelligence. By “above average” I mean north of 100 on the IQ scale but how far north I could never tell for sure.

    Well, of course half of American Whites have IQs above 100. To get to be manager of the local Walmart, you surely need an IQ above 100.

    Which is why I said that I am doubtful that most of the lawyers here in Northern California with high reputations are as smart as the guy who manages our local Walmart. They do, of course, have the ability, more or less, to write in English (not real good on grammar and punctuation, to be sure!). And they managed to get through the LSAT.

    If not for being part of the whole scam of the legal profession, yes, they probably are smart enough to get low-level white-collar jobs of some sort.

    But what really did amaze me was that they were absolutely sure of matters of law on which they ended up having to admit they were wrong.

    I take it your expectations were just lower than mine: “north of 100 on the IQ scale” is consistent with being in the same range as managers of the local Walmart.

    I had thought lawyers were smarter than that. I was shocked to see they were not.

    And for everyone who keeps insisting that I am mistaken, I simply point to Waxman — who was hired by Harvard to represent Harvard before the Supreme Court.

    No one has even tried to argue that that does not prove my point.

  127. @PhysicistDave
    @Jon

    Jon wrote to me:


    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong.
     
    As a lawyer, you are clearly incompetent.

    You see, when I caught them on these errors, they ended up admitting I was right.

    I am not claiming that I still think they were wrong, even though they continued to maintain they were right.

    They ended up admitting they were wrong.

    Jon also wrote:

    They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
     
    Again, the evidence of their errors was so clear, that they ended up admitting they were wrong.

    I suspect you are as incompetent as they are.

    Lawyers are generally morons.

    As shown by the one Harvard hired to represent it before the US Supreme Court!

    But none of you can admit it.

    Your profession is a sham.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Again, the evidence of their errors was so clear, that they ended up admitting they were wrong.

    The cluelessness has reached levels never measured before. .0001 nanoclues! Such low levels of having a clue cannot be perceived by the human eye and can only be measured by an electron microscope.

    • Troll: PhysicistDave
  128. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe you are right ( I don't think so - especially not in the case of universities which in this day and age take a ton of taxpayer money. If you don't take any government money then do whatever you want but if taxpayers are in part funding your university that creates certain obligations) but that ship sailed long ago. We have a certain rule book. We have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws which apply to private businesses and universities. Given that these laws are on the books and that the government will be on you like white on rice if you discriminate against blacks, you should get the exact same treatment when you discriminate against Asians.

    When Roberts was being confirmed he said that his job is to be a neutral umpire and to call balls and strikes as he sees them. That means that the strike zone for Ohtani should be the same as the strike zone for Marcus Stroman. Maybe they should do away with strike zones or make the strike zone bigger or smaller. Maybe an inning should have 2 outs or 4 instead of 3. But whatever you do, the same rules should apply to everyone in the same way. Don't bullshit me and say that you are calling more strikes on Ohtani because he has an inferior "personality".

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Let’s be honest about the crux of our disagreement here:

    I’m an opponent of minoritarianism … across the board. I prefer a cohesive high-trust Western society where everyone marries everyone and is on board with the common culture, is loyal to their fellow citizens. Obviously 1619, created issues with that from the get go in America.

    The “Civil Rights” jihad was in theory was about fixing the situation with blacks, but quickly was revealed as the minoritarian hammer for busyingbodying everyone in society–and attacking the precisely a society based on white gentile–i.e. Western–norms and culture. It along with the Cold War “Military Industrial Complex” has been the primary vector for growing state power, as I’ve pointed out with my rather well turned: “Diversity is the Health of the State”. And a far more personally intrusive and bullying state power.

    You posed as the enemy of “leftists”, but actually favor this bullying state power. You just seem want it to be a bullying state power that imposes your version of “what’s good for the Jews!” rather than the reigning ideology of “diversity!”

    I’m not even clear on where you want the bullying to end? We know–boy do we know!–how you feel about Protestant universities, protecting their traditional character and discriminating in favor of their people. How about Catholics? Is it ok for Notre Dame or Georgetown to discriminate against Jews and Asians to maintain their Catholic character? Brigham Young and Mormons? Or does rage against Harvard’s (100 year old) Jewish quota essentially spring from the feeling that “Harvard matters?” That you–and others–have mentally nationalized HYPS, maybe the rest of the Ivies as America’s “Grand Ecoles” that must operate according some sort of JackD approved test based admissions scheme? And you don’t really give a shit about what Notre Dame or Brigham Young are doing? If so, you should just say it. Give the list the mentally nationalized universities that matter. Or admit you favor state busybodying bullying without end.

    ~~~

    Furthermore, I think there’s almost no chance your scheme wins out in the future America.

    Your fellow Jews have been most insistent that IMMIGRATION is the fundamental American value. Immigration uber alles! And in just their few decades of power they have fundamentally cracked the American egg. America really has been diversified. It isn’t a nation anymore. (Though that nation still exists.) Those deplorable flyover gentile peasants reduced to rump in a steaming multi-ethnic stew.

    But multi-ethnic societies don’t do “meritorcracy”–that’s for one-people nations–they do ethnic politics.

    Take India, which is essentially the full scale implementation of the Jewish–endogamous separate peoples–model in all its glorious hideousness. They have affirmative action/poltical allocation. They call it “reservations” and have disputes and court cases and even riots over it. Diversity!

    This set of Supreme’s may well find Harvard is violating some aspect of Civil Rights law. (I assume they will.) But in the new America the old white gentile majority is shuffling off to the graveyard/crematorium … and some new “Our Democracy” majority will simply put in the “Civil Rights” law that allows divying up the goodies as they wish.

    Much better would be returning to the idea that private good are … private. Let all people sort out their private affairs as they wish. And have the ethnic contention/allocation only in public sphere.

    That–far and away–seems like a much better, less oppressive and realistic path for “let’s all get along” in the new American pig pile.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @AnotherDad

    AnotherDad wrote to Jack D:


    Much better would be returning to the idea that private good are … private. Let all people sort out their private affairs as they wish. And have the ethnic contention/allocation only in public sphere.
     
    Jack D is a lawyer: if Americans were generally allowed to resolve their problems privately without the intervention of the law, how would Jack or most lawyers make a living?

    Yes, there would still be criminal-defense lawyers and lawyers to work out the detailed contracts for, say, M&A. But the demand for lawyers would be much, much lower, and with lower demand their incomes would plummet (supply-and-demand and all that).

    I once tried to explain to a med-school student that the medical cartel's artificial limits on the supply of doctors raised the price of medical care. He replied that if there were more doctors, then each of them would just have to raise his prices to maintain his income: he was quite sincere about this.

    “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair.
    , @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform. Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change the immigration and citizenship laws, etc. Good look getting this all passed, especially in the New Diverse America. Good luck getting ANY of it passed.

    My ambitions are much more modest. All I want is for the existing laws to be enforced in a truly colorblind fashion - essentially the MLK "content of your character" plan. (Of course black leaders today have moved far beyond King (who probably wasn't really sincere either, but let's take him at his word). As it is now, justice (and the admissions office) peeks a little bit from her blindfold.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @AnotherDad

  129. @R.G. Camara
    @Jon


    As a lawyer, I can confidently predict that you were probably just getting basic facts about the law really, really wrong. I’ve had these types of conversations too many times with otherwise bright individuals who were successful in much harder disciplines than law, like physics (I was a patent attorney). They would sometimes so insistently and persistently get it wrong that I would feel like I was engaging in some kind of Gell-Mann Amnesia when I would switch back to treating them as an expert on the IP we were dealing with.
     
    This.

    I'd like to add:

    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ---and discounts the IQs of others. He doesn't understand when he says extremely stupid things and those around him (including his lawyers) nod and be polite while knowing he doesn't get it. He didn't "explain" the law to them, he just rattled off something he read and they knew didn't matter.

    Second, experienced lawyers are smart enough to know that "black letter law" isn't black letter at all for the most part. Everything that seems black-and-white to non-lawyers? Well, in courts it becomes a sea of gray.

    Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of "right answer/wrong answer" because that's how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    However, in human-made law, everything is subjective (even the "objective" things). And science guys don't realize that judges are politicians too, or hapless bureaucrats, and often make rulings counter-logically to satisfy a personal political whim, or else because they just didn't check the answer too deeply.

    I once was at a party where a lawyer was discussing a legal issue with a computer nerd guy. Computer nerd guy was a quite successful fellow , but kept insisting that the lawyer's take on the issue was "wrong" because "the law says x" and pulled out his phone and showed him the legal quote. The lawyer was trying to explain to computer nerd that just because the "law said x" doesn't mean the court would agree, and often didn't, and computer nerd guy got redder in the face and insisted that because "law said x" it had to. When the lawyer asked "what if the court says the law doesn't say x" the computer nerd nearly yelled "then they appeal and get it fixed!" and the lawyer nearly laughed himself silly, and tried to explain that most appeals go nowhere and don't fix most lower court errors. At this point the computer nerd stormed off, enraged at how "stupid" the lawyer was about the law.

    That's how I picture Gammatard Dave's "explanation" of the law to the lawyers went, except, of course, the computer nerd was actually a success in life.

    Replies: @megabar, @PhysicistDave

    My buddy R. G. Camara wrote to me:

    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ—and discounts the IQs of others.

    As opposed to R. G. Camara who is mad at me because I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except… wine and wafer.

    Game. Set. Match.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @PhysicistDave


    ...I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except… wine and wafer.
     
    Probably including a depressingly large percentage of (at least notional) Catholics.

    There is a spectrum of views on the Eucharist: Transubstantiation, Constubstantiation, Real Presence, or a Memorial Meal. The Eastern Church believes even Transubstantiation doesn't do justice to the Mystery of the Eucharist.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  130. How about this: Simply leave “race” off the applications and then “triage” to your heart’s content.

    Set aside X number of slots for black applicants who wish to be considered on the basis of race and triage those applications separately. In a class of 1600, maybe 13% of those slots would be set aside for the smartest blacks at the expense of dumber blacks.

    Blacks could apply in one group or the other, but not both. You’d end up with an unknowable number of blacks from the blind pool and a bare minimum of about 178 from the shallow end of the pool.

  131. @Polistra

    My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”
     
    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?


    https://i.ibb.co/3sQ9fqG/Screenshot-20221101-175945-mailcom.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/GxgPdB3/20221103-024131.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/9ZJ2stS/Screenshot-20221103-025838-Chrome.jpg

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Carol, @Technite78, @Moe Gibbs, @Jim Don Bob, @VivaLaMigra

    My favorite commercial is the one where they have a 20-30 something babe like this driving a high end Mercedes. You don’t see that even in Super ZIPs.

    I have been unable to gin up any interest in the NFL so far this year. The fall has been beautiful, the games are way too long, the announcers never STFU, and the endless commercials are much like the above.

  132. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Let's be honest about the crux of our disagreement here:

    I'm an opponent of minoritarianism ... across the board. I prefer a cohesive high-trust Western society where everyone marries everyone and is on board with the common culture, is loyal to their fellow citizens. Obviously 1619, created issues with that from the get go in America.

    The "Civil Rights" jihad was in theory was about fixing the situation with blacks, but quickly was revealed as the minoritarian hammer for busyingbodying everyone in society--and attacking the precisely a society based on white gentile--i.e. Western--norms and culture. It along with the Cold War "Military Industrial Complex" has been the primary vector for growing state power, as I've pointed out with my rather well turned: "Diversity is the Health of the State". And a far more personally intrusive and bullying state power.

    You posed as the enemy of "leftists", but actually favor this bullying state power. You just seem want it to be a bullying state power that imposes your version of "what's good for the Jews!" rather than the reigning ideology of "diversity!"

    I'm not even clear on where you want the bullying to end? We know--boy do we know!--how you feel about Protestant universities, protecting their traditional character and discriminating in favor of their people. How about Catholics? Is it ok for Notre Dame or Georgetown to discriminate against Jews and Asians to maintain their Catholic character? Brigham Young and Mormons? Or does rage against Harvard's (100 year old) Jewish quota essentially spring from the feeling that "Harvard matters?" That you--and others--have mentally nationalized HYPS, maybe the rest of the Ivies as America's "Grand Ecoles" that must operate according some sort of JackD approved test based admissions scheme? And you don't really give a shit about what Notre Dame or Brigham Young are doing? If so, you should just say it. Give the list the mentally nationalized universities that matter. Or admit you favor state busybodying bullying without end.

    ~~~

    Furthermore, I think there's almost no chance your scheme wins out in the future America.

    Your fellow Jews have been most insistent that IMMIGRATION is the fundamental American value. Immigration uber alles! And in just their few decades of power they have fundamentally cracked the American egg. America really has been diversified. It isn't a nation anymore. (Though that nation still exists.) Those deplorable flyover gentile peasants reduced to rump in a steaming multi-ethnic stew.

    But multi-ethnic societies don't do "meritorcracy"--that's for one-people nations--they do ethnic politics.

    Take India, which is essentially the full scale implementation of the Jewish--endogamous separate peoples--model in all its glorious hideousness. They have affirmative action/poltical allocation. They call it "reservations" and have disputes and court cases and even riots over it. Diversity!

    This set of Supreme's may well find Harvard is violating some aspect of Civil Rights law. (I assume they will.) But in the new America the old white gentile majority is shuffling off to the graveyard/crematorium ... and some new "Our Democracy" majority will simply put in the "Civil Rights" law that allows divying up the goodies as they wish.


    Much better would be returning to the idea that private good are ... private. Let all people sort out their private affairs as they wish. And have the ethnic contention/allocation only in public sphere.

    That--far and away--seems like a much better, less oppressive and realistic path for "let's all get along" in the new American pig pile.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Jack D

    AnotherDad wrote to Jack D:

    Much better would be returning to the idea that private good are … private. Let all people sort out their private affairs as they wish. And have the ethnic contention/allocation only in public sphere.

    Jack D is a lawyer: if Americans were generally allowed to resolve their problems privately without the intervention of the law, how would Jack or most lawyers make a living?

    Yes, there would still be criminal-defense lawyers and lawyers to work out the detailed contracts for, say, M&A. But the demand for lawyers would be much, much lower, and with lower demand their incomes would plummet (supply-and-demand and all that).

    I once tried to explain to a med-school student that the medical cartel’s artificial limits on the supply of doctors raised the price of medical care. He replied that if there were more doctors, then each of them would just have to raise his prices to maintain his income: he was quite sincere about this.

    “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  133. @R.G. Camara
    @Danindc

    The Great Imposter (Ferdinand Demara) and Catch Me If You Can (Frank Abagnale) were both "based on true stories" about 20th Century con men who could talk their way into jobs and positions for which they were totally faking it.

    Of course, perhaps the con men were just conning the novelists/filmmakers who bought their wild stories without checking them. For examples, some of the banks, hotels, and airlines that Abagnale supposedly swindled/fooled came out and denied that Abagnale had done it to them, and Abagnale has never proven them wrong.

    I'm reminded of how a man named Frank Dux made up a completely fictitious backstory about himself---special operations for the CIA, advanced black belts, secret martial arts tournaments --- that got him a hit Hollywood film based on his lying tales (Bloodsport), a decade of fight coordinator credits on other films, and, until he was exposed as a fraud , a lot of press celebrating him for his "true" tough guy life. Dux has stubbornly clung to his b.s. even after exposure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dux

    In other words, Hollywood types will believe anything if its a good story.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    There was a youtube channel called Pinkman – that has since been removed – who put up a video explaining that if Dux had actually defeated 50 opponents in a fully bracketed tournament, there would have had to have been something like 50 quadrillion participants in the tourney. It was hilarious.

    • Thanks: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Mike Tre

    I remember those videos, that kid was hilarious. Too bad he quit, he had a lot of talent and a unique, inimitable comedic style.

    Separately, Dux is amazing, he has no shame, and continues to lie to this day, which keeps him semi-famous and, I assume, allows him to sell some rubes his stuff and get invited to parties. A true forerunner of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, all he needed was the "infamous" sex tape.

  134. @SafeNow
    This must be the least verbally proficient guy named Waxman whom I have ever heard. It’s like finding a vegetarian tiger. A slow cheetah. I could understand this pattern of speech if say, Mrs. Waxman found a pair of panties in his glove compartment, and a surprise confrontation ensued. But he had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.(But I am not saying Alito is a dope.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @G. Poulin, @AnotherDad, @Sparkylyle92, @Harry Baldwin

    Great comment, thanks.
    It’s true, a stupid Jewish lawyer is rare enough, but a stupid Jewish lawyer in front of the Supreme Court? Ron Unz found statistical evidence that Jewish academic performance has cratered, maybe the same phenomenom is at work here. As for deliberately trying to bullshit the Supreme Court, that itself is a stupid idea.
    Maybe the public arguments are a cover and the real arguments take place secretly?

  135. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities? Obama seems garrulous, vacuous and spiteful; it's an endurable nuisance for Mooch, who is interested in decorative arts, Sasha, and Malia, and is able to relegate her husband to the background of her life. Oprah, for all of her accomplishments, remains unmarried and childless.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    “Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities?”

    Well, they both resent whites for facilitating their successes in life. I’m sure Jack D can relate.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Mike Tre

    I watched Oprah interact with her fans on an airliner in 1987 as she sat in an aisle seat while most of the passengers disembarked: she was superb at what she did.

    Famous personalities usually have highly advantageous personalities.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  136. @Mike Tre
    @Art Deco

    "Where is the evidence that either Obama or Oprah have great personalities?"

    Well, they both resent whites for facilitating their successes in life. I'm sure Jack D can relate.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I watched Oprah interact with her fans on an airliner in 1987 as she sat in an aisle seat while most of the passengers disembarked: she was superb at what she did.

    Famous personalities usually have highly advantageous personalities.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Steve Sailer

    Or just good in front of the camera. Johnny Carson was said to have been a real SOB.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

  137. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Let's be honest about the crux of our disagreement here:

    I'm an opponent of minoritarianism ... across the board. I prefer a cohesive high-trust Western society where everyone marries everyone and is on board with the common culture, is loyal to their fellow citizens. Obviously 1619, created issues with that from the get go in America.

    The "Civil Rights" jihad was in theory was about fixing the situation with blacks, but quickly was revealed as the minoritarian hammer for busyingbodying everyone in society--and attacking the precisely a society based on white gentile--i.e. Western--norms and culture. It along with the Cold War "Military Industrial Complex" has been the primary vector for growing state power, as I've pointed out with my rather well turned: "Diversity is the Health of the State". And a far more personally intrusive and bullying state power.

    You posed as the enemy of "leftists", but actually favor this bullying state power. You just seem want it to be a bullying state power that imposes your version of "what's good for the Jews!" rather than the reigning ideology of "diversity!"

    I'm not even clear on where you want the bullying to end? We know--boy do we know!--how you feel about Protestant universities, protecting their traditional character and discriminating in favor of their people. How about Catholics? Is it ok for Notre Dame or Georgetown to discriminate against Jews and Asians to maintain their Catholic character? Brigham Young and Mormons? Or does rage against Harvard's (100 year old) Jewish quota essentially spring from the feeling that "Harvard matters?" That you--and others--have mentally nationalized HYPS, maybe the rest of the Ivies as America's "Grand Ecoles" that must operate according some sort of JackD approved test based admissions scheme? And you don't really give a shit about what Notre Dame or Brigham Young are doing? If so, you should just say it. Give the list the mentally nationalized universities that matter. Or admit you favor state busybodying bullying without end.

    ~~~

    Furthermore, I think there's almost no chance your scheme wins out in the future America.

    Your fellow Jews have been most insistent that IMMIGRATION is the fundamental American value. Immigration uber alles! And in just their few decades of power they have fundamentally cracked the American egg. America really has been diversified. It isn't a nation anymore. (Though that nation still exists.) Those deplorable flyover gentile peasants reduced to rump in a steaming multi-ethnic stew.

    But multi-ethnic societies don't do "meritorcracy"--that's for one-people nations--they do ethnic politics.

    Take India, which is essentially the full scale implementation of the Jewish--endogamous separate peoples--model in all its glorious hideousness. They have affirmative action/poltical allocation. They call it "reservations" and have disputes and court cases and even riots over it. Diversity!

    This set of Supreme's may well find Harvard is violating some aspect of Civil Rights law. (I assume they will.) But in the new America the old white gentile majority is shuffling off to the graveyard/crematorium ... and some new "Our Democracy" majority will simply put in the "Civil Rights" law that allows divying up the goodies as they wish.


    Much better would be returning to the idea that private good are ... private. Let all people sort out their private affairs as they wish. And have the ethnic contention/allocation only in public sphere.

    That--far and away--seems like a much better, less oppressive and realistic path for "let's all get along" in the new American pig pile.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Jack D

    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform. Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change the immigration and citizenship laws, etc. Good look getting this all passed, especially in the New Diverse America. Good luck getting ANY of it passed.

    My ambitions are much more modest. All I want is for the existing laws to be enforced in a truly colorblind fashion – essentially the MLK “content of your character” plan. (Of course black leaders today have moved far beyond King (who probably wasn’t really sincere either, but let’s take him at his word). As it is now, justice (and the admissions office) peeks a little bit from her blindfold.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to AnotherDad:


    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform. Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change the immigration and citizenship laws, etc. Good look getting this all passed, especially in the New Diverse America. Good luck getting ANY of it passed.
     
    The Left ignores the actual content of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- not to mention the Fourteenth Amendment! -- so when sane people come to power, why shouldn't they just do the same thing? After all, that would actually be in line with the Constitution.

    Furthermore, how can we ever end the insanity unless we start talking now about why it is insane and needs to be overturned?

    Don't get me wrong: I think that under the Fourteenth Amendment, state action must be color-blind: legally-mandated Jim Crow was unconstitutional, not to mention remarkably stupid.

    And personally, I think that people who engage in racial discrimination in employment or public accommodations are assholes.

    But it is a basic principle of liberty, well-understood in the US prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that owners of private businesses were entitled to be assholes.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform.
     
    Correct. A bunch of Civil Rights legislation--enabling super-state bullying--should go.

    There isn't any Constitutional reform required. Americans did have quite reasonable freedom of association for the first 175 years or so. (For a lawyer you seem quite confused about this.) A guy could hire his nephew, or someone from his neighborhood or his church or synagogue or slap an ad in the paper and hire whomever he damn well liked without issue or worries about "equal opportunity".

    My point is that people ought to be sickened by the Supreme Court rifling throug Harvard's admission data and process. This is precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned for America--a free society with limited, properly contained, republican self-government.

    Anyone who actually "gets" America, would look at this and think "yuck".

    ~~~

    And Jack, you still haven't given me the list of your mentally nationalized private universities.

    Specifically, can say Georgetown discriminate for Catholics? If Georgetown went all Catholic--i.e. concentrated on carrying out its actual mission--it would be <1% black, only a percent or two Asian (skewing toward Filipinos and Koreans) and have no Jews (other than from Madeline Albright style convert families).

    Is that ok? Or does the bullying super-state get to set 'em straight?

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Twinkie

  138. MR. WAXMAN: — whatever you think about the personal rating, which is, after all, simply a number that —

    Any relation to Henry?

    Let me tell you how it will be
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me
    ‘Cause I’m the Waxman
    Yeah, I’m the Waxman
    Should five percent appear too small
    Be thankful I don’t take it all
    ‘Cause I’m the Waxman
    Yeah, I’m the Waxman
    And you’re working for no one but me

  139. @Dennis Dale
    You overstate the Black! "cool" factor. Admissions officers are under pressure for a whole lot of reasons already to accept Blacks!

    These guys and their institutions are foisting on themselves troublesome, mediocre students and they know it.

    The problem isn't Asians are boring as much as they are alien. This distinct somewhat inscrutable group impervious to mind-fuckery.

    Asians are scary smart, alien and taking over. The Blacks! are reliably mediocre and aren't going to genuinely take over anything. They are the familiar, reassuring problem we kn0w--and we've invested so much already in it: we humor them, we cough up the gibs, we find them "cool" no matter how deplorable their collective behavior. They're not going anywhere (unfortunately).

    Asians, on the other hand, are the only distinct group left to challenge the elite (and that means the Tribe) and there's no narrative shock collar regulating their behavior.

    As whites are all saps now who can't get over how "cool" Black! people are (adorable in their rapine and stupidity!), I'm investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @LP5, @That Would Be Telling, @AceDeuce

    I’m investing my hopes now in the Asians.

    Kinda like having “Rooftop Koreans” on the front lines doing the dirty work, amirite?

    The thing with YT (the relative few who aren’t anti-White, that is) using the ghookers as a kind of cat’s paw to try and put out the nationwide dumpster fire we’re enduring is that, having done the heavy lifting, why TF shouldn’t they say “This is our country now”? Especially as they pour in every year by the millions.

    The reason they succeed-and the reason their representatives are before the Supreme Court in the first place right now, is that they are united, self-regarding, and purposeful, unlike Whites. Their kids succeed because Asians in America live like American Whites used to 50-60 or more years ago. They aren’t a bunch of shambling, drugged, fat, nihilistic, self-hating capons like so many young Whites of today.

    If we can’t even take our own side in the fight–a fight that we are fighting only because we’ve collectively turned to schitt and given everything away to hostile aliens and ferals, what do we even think that we deserve?

  140. @Meretricious
    @PhysicistDave

    The fact is that the smartest lawyers are NOT on the Supreme Court. Read intellectual property law, eg--that's real lawyering.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Meretricious wrote to me:

    The fact is that the smartest lawyers are NOT on the Supreme Court. Read intellectual property law, eg–that’s real lawyering.

    Well, I’ve worked with some patent lawyers, and, yes, they were indeed not morons — at least the ones I worked with were able to get up to speed fairly fast on the technical details (at least one had a STEM degree before going into patent law).

    IP law is one hell of a mess, but that is a different story: basically, the idea of “owning” ideas is, to put it mildly, a bit unnatural.

    I will say that our tax lawyer is also not an idiot: I am better at numbers than he is, not surprisingly, but of course he was able to teach me stuff about tax law.

    But the litigators and corporate lawyers I have known during the last several decades — let’s just say that their stupidity was only exceeded by their mendacity and cupidity. (Not that they were smart enough to know the meaning of words like “cupidity” –they’d probably guess it had something to do with sex! Stupid shysters.)

  141. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Same thing with doctors - why pay a doctor when you can just Google your symptoms and diagnose yourself better than any doctor? Next time you go to a doctor, make sure to tell him the diagnosis first, which you found on Google. He will really appreciate your help, I promise.

    PD has meta-obliviousness regarding human interactions. He is may be some sort of idiot savant when it comes to physics but when it comes to dealing with human relations, not only is he oblivious but he is oblivious that he is oblivious. I would have paid money to be a fly on the wall and watch as PD told his lawyer that he knew more about the law than he did and that he was gonna "educate" him on the law (based on Googling). Who's the stupid one if you are paying someone several hundred $/hr to do something that you could do better yourself?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Art Deco

    Jack D wrote to me:

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Very perceptive — that is indeed what we did.

    Worked much better.

    But of course even firing one of you shysters is a nightmare. We had engaged one crooked shyster, a guy named Chris Knauf at the Disability Rights Legal Center in LA, to represent our daughter with regard to UCLA. He induced our daughter to sign a highly illegal representation agreement (illegal for over a century in California) that forbade her to settle with UCLA without his permission.

    When it became clear that he was not really trying to represent her interests effectively and when we complained about this, he announced that he was no longer representing her. But he refused to file the paperwork with the court to allow her to get another lawyer.

    So we filed a complaint with the state Bar about this. Naturally, they refused to do anything.

    So, we then hired another lawyer to get Knauf to actually give up the case that Knauf said he would no longer deal with.

    This second lawyer then tried to bully me into formally agreeing not to publicly tell the truth about Knauf as I am doing now!

    Finally, I myself started contacting members of the Board of DRLC making clear that I was going to go public with all this, as I am indeed doing here.

    At that point, Knauf finally filed the paperwork with the court to remove himself from the case.

    Of course, we also had to dump the second shyster.

    You’re right: fire the lawyers and take care of it yourself.

    Which is what I did.

    Successfully.

    I trust any non-attorney reading this can see why I maintain that the stupidity of most lawyers is exceeded only by their mendacity and cupidity.

    I’ve gone into details on this case, and named names (I’m going to the media and the state and federal attorneys with Knauf’s story — so sue me, Knauf, you bastard!), but I assure you I could give a number of other similar stories about our family’s experience with shysters during the last several decades.

    What the Mafia would be like if the Mafia lacked any sense of decency whatsoever.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    OK, I’m not going to argue who’s dumb and who’s not, but why would you take what is essentially a claim for defamation/breach of fiduciary duty/intentional infliction of emotional distress to a public interest lawyer? That guy you named is basically in the business of arguing that bathroom doors aren’t wide enough, isn’t he? Even if he’s technically competent, he’s probably a NLG type whose political sympathies are with the leftist administrators. What happened to your daughter should have been handled by a big time tort guy like John C. Taylor or Larry Grassini (still working, amazingly). UCLA would have been begging to settle.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  142. My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”

    or, “C’mon, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”

  143. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous

    While we all tend to notice Jewish ethnic networking and clannishness, we forget the Chinese have had "Chinatowns" in this country for over 150 years and the areas remain Chinese and have, in many places, grown and taken over other ethnic neighborhoods (e.g. Chinatown v. Little Italy in NYC).

    That's quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Hibernian, @petit bourgeois, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Chinatown, at least in Chicago, is a port of entry neighborhood. People of Chinese descent live almost everywhere.

  144. @PhysicistDave
    @R.G. Camara

    My buddy R. G. Camara wrote to me:


    First, PhysicistDave is a gammatard who vastly overrates his own IQ—and discounts the IQs of others.
     
    As opposed to R. G. Camara who is mad at me because I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except... wine and wafer.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    …I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except… wine and wafer.

    Probably including a depressingly large percentage of (at least notional) Catholics.

    There is a spectrum of views on the Eucharist: Transubstantiation, Constubstantiation, Real Presence, or a Memorial Meal. The Eastern Church believes even Transubstantiation doesn’t do justice to the Mystery of the Eucharist.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Hibernian

    Hibernian wrote to me:


    {Dave] …I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except… wine and wafer.

    [Hibernian] Probably including a depressingly large percentage of (at least notional) Catholics.
     
    The funny thing that completely unhinged R. G. Camara is that I was not commenting on the truth of any particular view of the Eucharist but merely pointing out that what a person thinks on the matter is very clearly correlated with which religions group the person identifies with.

    Few Jews or Baptists view it as anything except a memorial ritual, for example.

    I guess R.G. is just really, really sensitive on the matter.

    Aside from that strange hang-up, he actually seems like an okay guy.

    But I guess he is going to turn down my dinner invitation!
  145. @slumber_j
    @Alden


    It’s [sic] website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.
     
    And evidently you believe that, which is funny; and from your ignorance about the way the world actually works, you accuse others of ignorance. Which is also funny.

    Harvard says it doesn't require SAT scores...and that's probably actually true if you're black or a recruited athlete or can check some similar box. Otherwise good luck applying without them--and the word on the street is that the cutoff is 1570. This is all either explicit or implied in what I already said.

    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff? No, I don't: that's why it's called a rumor. But for personal reasons it's very unlikely that I know any less than you do about the application process for Harvard College this year, and frankly it's foolish of you to assume that I do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Gary in Gramercy

    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff?

    The cutoff should be 1670. As in the year your “immigrant ancestor” arrived in Massachusetts.

    King Philip’s War is too late!

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @Reg Cæsar


    The cutoff should be 1670. As in the year your “immigrant ancestor” arrived in Massachusetts.
     
    My earliest immigrant ancestor I'm aware of arrived in Mass. in 1635, a year before the founding of Harvard as it happens. The most recent--my grandmother--arrived in the US in I guess the 1920s, also from England. Then there are a lot of others in the intervening 290 years or so.

    King Philip’s War is too late!
     
    We have the fascinating figure of Squanto to thank for that...
  146. @SafeNow
    This must be the least verbally proficient guy named Waxman whom I have ever heard. It’s like finding a vegetarian tiger. A slow cheetah. I could understand this pattern of speech if say, Mrs. Waxman found a pair of panties in his glove compartment, and a surprise confrontation ensued. But he had months to prepare for this question. So it was a ruse; a verbal rope-a-dope.(But I am not saying Alito is a dope.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @G. Poulin, @AnotherDad, @Sparkylyle92, @Harry Baldwin

    Waxman is in the position of arguing a case in which he has to dance around the truth. And he has to do this dance in front of a skeptical and perceptive audience. It can’t be done well.

    It reminds me of the bind White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is in. Dan Bongino and Mark Simone describe her as the stupidest press secretary we’ve ever had, on the basis of her answers to questions about actions and statements by the president. For example, when she was asked to explain why, at a bill signing, Biden called on a Rep. Jackie Walorski to stand up, though she had died a month previously, Jean-Pierre said, “She was top of mind for the president.”

    What was she supposed to say? “As we are all aware, the president has dementia”?

    • Agree: slumber_j
  147. @Alden
    @slumber_j

    Harvard no longer requires SAT submissions for acceptance. It’s website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.

    Harvard eliminated the SAT requirement for the class if 2021 on a temporary basis. And has extended the elimination of SATs to the fall class of 2026. After which SAT requirement will be reconsidered. Considered and never reinstated.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ Day’s of ignorant blathering about a lawsuit they haven’t read. Don’t even know the name of the lawsuit , state in which it was filed, or case number.

    And no, ignorant men of UNZ, it’s not Harvard admissions case. It’s Plaintiff vs defendant.

    The men of UNZ the men of UNZ offering advice to Harvard admissions about the minimum SAT scores Harvard should require for admission. When Harvard doesn’t require SAT scores.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @Gary in Gramercy

    The more confidently you make an assertion — on virtually any subject — the more likely you are to be filled to the brim with what Jack Kilpatrick called “horsefeathers.” (See, e.g., https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM.)

    Call it “Alden’s Law.”

    • Thanks: Renard
  148. @megabar
    Waxman's arguments remind me of a Conan O'Brien skit, where Andy and Conan were given a topic to debate, and so they had to argue for or against. Andy was given the "pro" side of grave robbing.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    An argument in favor of grave robbing: “Don’t call it robbery, call it recycling.”

    Who says three years of law school were a waste of time and money?

    • LOL: Captain Tripps
    • Replies: @megabar
    @Gary in Gramercy

    > Who says three years of law school were a waste of time and money?

    Ha! IIRC, Andy's argument was that it gives teens something to do at night instead of getting into trouble.

  149. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous

    While we all tend to notice Jewish ethnic networking and clannishness, we forget the Chinese have had "Chinatowns" in this country for over 150 years and the areas remain Chinese and have, in many places, grown and taken over other ethnic neighborhoods (e.g. Chinatown v. Little Italy in NYC).

    That's quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Hibernian, @petit bourgeois, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    There is a history of Chinese assimilation in other countries. My friend Tony Chin is from Jamaica ( half black and half Chinese) and taught me many nuances of playing reggae live on stage. I owe him a debt of gratitude for telling me to switch to 12 gauge strings 30 years ago.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_Chin

    Tony’s weapon of choice is a Gibson Les Paul black beauty with gold plated hardware. Mine is a proletariat 1966 fender mustang. Who’s the elite now? Jamaica has a long history of Chinese immigration. He helped me out over many years to find my sound and paycheck. A really good guy.

    But I digress. Baja California Mexico has a long history of Chinese immigration too. Last year my friend took me to a Chinese Masonic Temple in Tijuana. Who would have thought that exists?

    A few weeks ago, I spent a couple of nights in Mexicali. After the Chinese exclusion act in 1882, many Chinese railroad workers fled the states to escape persecution to Mexicali. The 1915 census in Mexico recorded 85% Chinese.

    I’ve been to chinatowns in Vancouver, Seattle and SF. The food in Mexicali was probably the best I’ve ever had. The Chinese in Mexicali really have an underground subculture worthy of exploration.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @petit bourgeois

    A member of the Border Patrol watching the border in Arizona told me in 2003 that Mexicali was the best Mexican border town. Places like Tijuana are ruined by being next to America, he said, but Mexicali is a nice place, in part because it's not next to an American city.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @petit bourgeois

  150. @petit bourgeois
    @R.G. Camara

    There is a history of Chinese assimilation in other countries. My friend Tony Chin is from Jamaica ( half black and half Chinese) and taught me many nuances of playing reggae live on stage. I owe him a debt of gratitude for telling me to switch to 12 gauge strings 30 years ago.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_Chin

    https://youtu.be/ztHTOL_EJWM

    Tony's weapon of choice is a Gibson Les Paul black beauty with gold plated hardware. Mine is a proletariat 1966 fender mustang. Who's the elite now? Jamaica has a long history of Chinese immigration. He helped me out over many years to find my sound and paycheck. A really good guy.

    But I digress. Baja California Mexico has a long history of Chinese immigration too. Last year my friend took me to a Chinese Masonic Temple in Tijuana. Who would have thought that exists?

    A few weeks ago, I spent a couple of nights in Mexicali. After the Chinese exclusion act in 1882, many Chinese railroad workers fled the states to escape persecution to Mexicali. The 1915 census in Mexico recorded 85% Chinese.

    I've been to chinatowns in Vancouver, Seattle and SF. The food in Mexicali was probably the best I've ever had. The Chinese in Mexicali really have an underground subculture worthy of exploration.

    https://youtu.be/2mLS9UD4AI8

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    A member of the Border Patrol watching the border in Arizona told me in 2003 that Mexicali was the best Mexican border town. Places like Tijuana are ruined by being next to America, he said, but Mexicali is a nice place, in part because it’s not next to an American city.

    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @Steve Sailer

    Thank you Mr. Sailer. An acquaintance just bought a house on the Colorado River in the delta for $20,000 and he's taking his chocolate Labrador out for duck and quail hunting next weekend, in the process of registering his long guns for shooting birds.

    The problem I have is that I'm a acculturated to Mexican urban environments. I've been to Tijuana and the outer states 29 times since March of 2020, since COVID. I don't want to be out in the boonies without authentic tortillas and quality meat and seafood. In the middle of nowhere. The place is in Hardy's river.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_River#


    I'm not sure I want to go to a house that somebody paid $20,000 for when there is no taco shops or liquor stores or strip clubs around. Doesn't sound like fun to me to go wakeboarding when he doesn't have a boat. But I'm sure it's a start for a Newport brat.

    Seriously. The Chinese food in Mexicali may be better the San Gabriel valley. I want your opinion. You drive I'll buy. You have a passport cabron?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @petit bourgeois
    @Steve Sailer

    The place next to California on that border is called calexico. In the imperial valley. Not exactly a bastion of civil rights. They don't build prisons down there for nothing. Like calapatria.

    https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/facility-locator/cen/

  151. @Bill Jones
    @Polistra

    They all look the same to me.
    Until you get to the super-size nine economy ones.

    Replies: @Polistra

    Funny you should mention, because Janelle pay only $16 a month for her and her keeyid

    Which work out to just 3.6 cents per pound for the pair of them.

    (I did the calculation! Keep eating, erryone! Cheaper that way!)


    Were [sic] daddie at? STFU racists. (Hey! That hair again!)

    • LOL: Renard
  152. @Renard
    @Twinkie


    When the Woke become completely unhinged and let blacks destroy businesses and property value and run amok committing crimes all the while degenerate Trans insanity runs wild in schools (and not coincidentally test scores drop), even Asians will have had enough with the Establishment.
     
    Your points are all good but I'm not sure if I understand your various tenses and conditional moods here. When this happens, then even Asians will take notice? Were you around for the summer of 2020?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    When this happens, then even Asians will take notice? Were you around for the summer of 2020?

    Yes. Did you see what happened in Northern Virginia in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election?

    https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/10/26/1049266808/how-loudoun-county-schools-ended-up-at-the-center-of-virginia-s-election

    You mess with schools and Asians turn on you.

  153. @anonymous
    @Twinkie

    "he seems to be more favorably disposed toward South Asians/Indians"

    It would be odd for Jews to favor Indians because Indians are very verbal and pro-ethnic network. The two groups will end up clashing. My general sense is Indian women are very high percentage liberal and will follow the progressive agenda. Indian men are ideologically a mixed lot. And I notice they seem to work against Jewish interests. Liberal Congressman Ro Khanna is at the forefront of pulling back military pressure against Iran. Vivek Ramaswamy is a conservative activist and another Yale Law School grad who is running an anti-ESG pro-oil drilling fund.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    It would be odd for Jews to favor Indians because Indians are very verbal and pro-ethnic network. The two groups will end up clashing.

    That’s tomorrow. Today South Asians are useful for Jewish elites, because the latter are always contemptuous of, and anxious about, Christian whites. Indians are super majority Hindu/non-Christian and seem to share similar feelings about Christian whites (or Christians in general – most people in the West know about the anti-Muslim violence in India, but few are aware that there are occasional pogroms against Christians in India by Hindu mobs). They also have low intermarriage rates with whites (unlike more Christian Asians such as Koreans and Filipinos).

  154. @R.G. Camara
    @anonymous

    While we all tend to notice Jewish ethnic networking and clannishness, we forget the Chinese have had "Chinatowns" in this country for over 150 years and the areas remain Chinese and have, in many places, grown and taken over other ethnic neighborhoods (e.g. Chinatown v. Little Italy in NYC).

    That's quite an impressive streak of remaining ethnically distinct in a country that for a very long time was obsessed with assimilation.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Hibernian, @petit bourgeois, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    There are actually now three Chinatowns in New York, the other two being Flushing in Queens and Sunset Park in Brooklyn.

    There is a kitschy cheap look to the Chinatowns in contrast to trendy K-town in Midtown and posh Little Tokyo in East Village. But they are not representative of PRC architecture in general, which range from Venice-like elegance in Suzhou to Nazi-grandiose (Albert Speer Jr. was the designer of Beijing Olympic stadium.)

    Chinatown residents are mostly Fujian and Guangdong prole immigrants; their kids usually move on to suburbs in Westchester, LI and New Jersey. Where upper middle class Chinese congregate.

    Majority of this class follow along sheepishly to coalition-of-fringes slogans. But there is a significant minority who are die-hard Trump supporters.

    The upper class Chinese (origin from either PRC, HK or Taiwan) live in Manhattan and put their kids in Dalton and Collegiate. They assimilate very well into our elite trash.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms


    The upper class Chinese (origin from either PRC, HK or Taiwan) live in Manhattan and put their kids in Dalton and Collegiate. They assimilate very well into our elite trash.
     
    As an elite-trash-adjacent (or so I like to think) Manhattanite with school-age children, I can confirm this.

    Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

  155. @Steve Sailer
    @petit bourgeois

    A member of the Border Patrol watching the border in Arizona told me in 2003 that Mexicali was the best Mexican border town. Places like Tijuana are ruined by being next to America, he said, but Mexicali is a nice place, in part because it's not next to an American city.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @petit bourgeois

    Thank you Mr. Sailer. An acquaintance just bought a house on the Colorado River in the delta for $20,000 and he’s taking his chocolate Labrador out for duck and quail hunting next weekend, in the process of registering his long guns for shooting birds.

    The problem I have is that I’m a acculturated to Mexican urban environments. I’ve been to Tijuana and the outer states 29 times since March of 2020, since COVID. I don’t want to be out in the boonies without authentic tortillas and quality meat and seafood. In the middle of nowhere. The place is in Hardy’s river.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_River#

    I’m not sure I want to go to a house that somebody paid $20,000 for when there is no taco shops or liquor stores or strip clubs around. Doesn’t sound like fun to me to go wakeboarding when he doesn’t have a boat. But I’m sure it’s a start for a Newport brat.

    Seriously. The Chinese food in Mexicali may be better the San Gabriel valley. I want your opinion. You drive I’ll buy. You have a passport cabron?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @petit bourgeois


    I don’t want to be out in the boonies without authentic tortillas and quality meat and seafood.
     
    Are Mexican cities known for quality meat and seafood?
  156. @Jack D
    @Dennis Dale


    But the real question is how Asians are perceived by the Tribe.
     
    Jews like Asians just fine for the most part. In elite circles they rub elbows frequently and they generally get along. Similar cultures - emphasis on education, not too violent, etc. Twinkie (and maybe Koreans in general) is the exception because he sees himself as a member of a martial race whereas American Jews are mostly not interested in military service. But Chinese, Indians, etc. seem to get along just fine with Jews for the most part - I know plenty of Asian-Jewish couples and their offspring.

    Now, ANYONE that strays off of the Liberal consensus (which is pro-AA) is going to get pushback. Look at Clarence Thomas. Liberals that would never say a bad word about blacks in general hate Thomas with a passion. He's even worse than a white racist - he's a race traitor. But they are bad for straying, not for their race.

    Karabel isn't saying that Asians in general are bad, only this particular small group of Asians (ironically led by a Jew - another race traitor) who have decided to push back against AA. And of course, as part of that Karabel doing the very lawyerly thing of distinguishing the case. When Harvard discriminated against Jews in the 1920s (hey did you know I wrote the book on that?), that was awful but what Harvard is doing now is NOTHING like that. You can tell because Asians LIKE what Harvard is doing to them or at least not complaining about it while Jews (you should excuse the expression) squealed like stuck pigs when Harvard tried this same shtick on them. Well most Asians like it except for this handful of Asian deplorables who have brought this case - those are the Asian we don't like but not because they are Asian but because they are not behaving like members of the Coalition of the Fringes in good standing. Good members of the CotF aim only at white gentile men and not at each other. Can we pin this on Mitt Romney somehow, or Trump? Maybe the Russians are secretly funding this suit?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Jews like Asians just fine for the most part.

    Jews like Asians “just fine” as long as they are on top. But there is anxiety there too: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204076204578076613986930932

    Some of the more vehement attacks on Amy Chua’s deliberately provocative 2011 memoir of child rearing, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” were perhaps fueled by resentment of Asian-American ascendancy, especially in the context of raising “perfect” children. Confession: I was one of the book’s more vocal detractors. Was I, a Jewish-American writer, driven to pique, in part, by a member of a group that threatens Jewish-American cultural domination, just as American Jews once threatened the WASP mandarinate? Well, maybe.

    The subtle vying for success in various realms of American life between Asian-Americans and American Jews makes one wonder what mores and tastes will look like when Asian-Americans begin to exert their own influence over the culture. Will the verbal brio and intellectual bent of Jews, their edgy irony and frank super-competitiveness give way to Asian discretion, deference to the community, and gifts for less verbal pursuits like music, science and math? Will things become, as they once were under WASP hegemony, quieter? [Boldfaces mine.]

    Hmmm, sounds like a fear of Christian white – East Asian socio-political (not to forget marriage) alliance.

    Twinkie (and maybe Koreans in general) is the exception because he sees himself as a member of a martial race whereas American Jews are mostly not interested in military service.

    That’s not the real reason, much as you like to malign me, because Koreans are normal people with a normal history of a nation and a state (which includes, yes, military history – this guy is Korea’s most cited hero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin) while Jews are a rootless people who were tax collectors, money lenders, and merchants living at the sufferance of elites of other nations and who don’t have a prevailing martial history since Masada (to which the Israelis had to harken back – close to 2,000 years – in order to build a martial mythos for the new nation).

    The real reason is that Koreans are super majority Christians in this country (and a large fraction evangelical). Indeed, a substantial fraction of ALL Asians in this country are Christian and their Christian fervor tends to be stronger than that of average whites in this country. This doesn’t bode well for a people who harbor a strong anti-Christian prejudice and have been pushing for the destruction of the Christian norms and have been at the vanguard of promoting secularism in this country.

    But Chinese, Indians, etc. seem to get along just fine with Jews for the most part

    Literally, the two least Christian Asian sub-groups in America. I rest my case.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave, Renard
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Twinkie

    Jewish men and East Asian women get along extremely well. Lots of Jewish guys have an Asian fetish, while East Asians respect that Jews have wealth, education, and status. So there are many intermarriage these days. If you look at our emerging elite, it includes lots of Jewish husbands with Asian wives.

    The problem is that Asian women are now "stealing away" lots of successful Jewish men, which is pissing off Jewish women. For whatever reason, Jewish women and Asian men don't mix much. So there's an element of sexual envy among Jewish women, which manifests as anxiety.

    With second-generation Indians, both genders seem to mix with Jews at roughly the same rate.


    Hmmm, sounds like a fear of Christian white – East Asian socio-political (not to forget marriage) alliance.

     

    That'll depend on White Christians regaining power.

    At this point, nearly EVERY Asian-American subgroup (except Vietnamese) votes Democratic. Maybe this will change soon, as Democrats increasingly become associated with Black crime and affirmative action.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screen-Shot-2020-09-17-at-6.52.56-PM.png
  157. anonymous[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to me:


    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.
     
    Very perceptive -- that is indeed what we did.

    Worked much better.

    But of course even firing one of you shysters is a nightmare. We had engaged one crooked shyster, a guy named Chris Knauf at the Disability Rights Legal Center in LA, to represent our daughter with regard to UCLA. He induced our daughter to sign a highly illegal representation agreement (illegal for over a century in California) that forbade her to settle with UCLA without his permission.

    When it became clear that he was not really trying to represent her interests effectively and when we complained about this, he announced that he was no longer representing her. But he refused to file the paperwork with the court to allow her to get another lawyer.

    So we filed a complaint with the state Bar about this. Naturally, they refused to do anything.

    So, we then hired another lawyer to get Knauf to actually give up the case that Knauf said he would no longer deal with.

    This second lawyer then tried to bully me into formally agreeing not to publicly tell the truth about Knauf as I am doing now!

    Finally, I myself started contacting members of the Board of DRLC making clear that I was going to go public with all this, as I am indeed doing here.

    At that point, Knauf finally filed the paperwork with the court to remove himself from the case.

    Of course, we also had to dump the second shyster.

    You're right: fire the lawyers and take care of it yourself.

    Which is what I did.

    Successfully.

    I trust any non-attorney reading this can see why I maintain that the stupidity of most lawyers is exceeded only by their mendacity and cupidity.

    I've gone into details on this case, and named names (I'm going to the media and the state and federal attorneys with Knauf's story -- so sue me, Knauf, you bastard!), but I assure you I could give a number of other similar stories about our family's experience with shysters during the last several decades.

    What the Mafia would be like if the Mafia lacked any sense of decency whatsoever.

    Replies: @anonymous

    OK, I’m not going to argue who’s dumb and who’s not, but why would you take what is essentially a claim for defamation/breach of fiduciary duty/intentional infliction of emotional distress to a public interest lawyer? That guy you named is basically in the business of arguing that bathroom doors aren’t wide enough, isn’t he? Even if he’s technically competent, he’s probably a NLG type whose political sympathies are with the leftist administrators. What happened to your daughter should have been handled by a big time tort guy like John C. Taylor or Larry Grassini (still working, amazingly). UCLA would have been begging to settle.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @anonymous

    anonymous[122] asked me:


    OK, I’m not going to argue who’s dumb and who’s not, but why would you take what is essentially a claim for defamation/breach of fiduciary duty/intentional infliction of emotional distress to a public interest lawyer?
     
    We didn't. Somehow, you got really, really confused.

    We went to Knauf to get academic accommodations for my daughter's medical condition. That was all. When we engaged him, he was in private practice and not with DRLC -- this was the kind of thing he did, and we paid him for it.

    Then he moved to DRLC and took the case with him.

    We gradually found out that Knauf was not trying to get accommodations for her medical condition but rather was just trying to get a big juicy monetary settlement out of UCLA for himself instead (though not for our daughter), which is not what we asked him or agreed with him to do.

    His representation agreement was not a standard contingency agreement: it basically gave him a lot of money even if my daughter got none at all -- and again we were not looking for money but just for appropriate academic accommodations, which he promised to make his central goal, but then refused to pursue.

    Knauf wanted to keep me out of the loop: obviously, it was easier for him to bully a college student with a medical disability if the parents were not in the loop.

    If you're asking about the felonious retaliation against my daughter that UCLA carried out (and, quite bizarrely, admitted to!), we did not engage Knauf to deal with that initially, since it happened as a consequence of our engaging Knauf. His associate promised to deal with that when we saw it coming, but of course they did not do so, being what they are.

    Crooked shysters.

    As to why we did not hire another lawyer to sue UCLA for the multiple felonies committed against my daughter -- physical assault (including a broken bone) documented by UCLA medical, retaliation against my daughter for reporting the assault, etc. -- I myself would have done so.

    But my daughter, quite understandably, just wanted to get the hell out of that shithole university and get on with her life.

    She now has a job as an engineer with a spinoff of HP. So, she's free at last of that bastard Knauf and of the criminals who run that shithole college, UCLA.

    I'm friendly with the President of the CA PUC, who is a lawyer. She claims that if I bring all this to the attention of the CA Attorney General's office, they will do to Knauf what he deserves.

    I'm skeptical, but we'll see.

    I think using the Web to inform the disabled community of what DRLC really is may work better.

    Does that answer your questions?
  158. @Steve Sailer
    @petit bourgeois

    A member of the Border Patrol watching the border in Arizona told me in 2003 that Mexicali was the best Mexican border town. Places like Tijuana are ruined by being next to America, he said, but Mexicali is a nice place, in part because it's not next to an American city.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @petit bourgeois

    The place next to California on that border is called calexico. In the imperial valley. Not exactly a bastion of civil rights. They don’t build prisons down there for nothing. Like calapatria.

    https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/facility-locator/cen/

  159. @Steve Sailer
    @Mike Tre

    I watched Oprah interact with her fans on an airliner in 1987 as she sat in an aisle seat while most of the passengers disembarked: she was superb at what she did.

    Famous personalities usually have highly advantageous personalities.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    Or just good in front of the camera. Johnny Carson was said to have been a real SOB.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Mike Tre

    From what I've heard about Carson he had sociopathic paranoia coupled with BPD. He would cut people out of his life for the slightest offense, always thinking they were plotting against him, even if he had been their "best" friend for years. He seldom went to Hollywood parties or socialized with any stars (all that Tonight Show chumminess was fake as F), and he divorced women like he was going to the bathroom, and preferred to be alone in his beach side home.

    E.g. Joan Rivers learned his wrath when she didn't consult him when offered her own talk show. He had promoted her for years and let her guest host, and likely thought she was a good candidate to take over for him. But she dared take a plum talk show offer on another network---without asking his permission. Kiss the ring, slave!

    His last (and much-younger wife) could only seduce him to hit on her by trespassing on his private beach while in a skimpy bikini, because otherwise Johnny wasn't socializing ("Oops! Sorry, Mr. Carson! My, you're so handsome in person."). Otherwise, he was a silent solo dude outside the studio.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  160. @anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    OK, I’m not going to argue who’s dumb and who’s not, but why would you take what is essentially a claim for defamation/breach of fiduciary duty/intentional infliction of emotional distress to a public interest lawyer? That guy you named is basically in the business of arguing that bathroom doors aren’t wide enough, isn’t he? Even if he’s technically competent, he’s probably a NLG type whose political sympathies are with the leftist administrators. What happened to your daughter should have been handled by a big time tort guy like John C. Taylor or Larry Grassini (still working, amazingly). UCLA would have been begging to settle.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    anonymous[122] asked me:

    OK, I’m not going to argue who’s dumb and who’s not, but why would you take what is essentially a claim for defamation/breach of fiduciary duty/intentional infliction of emotional distress to a public interest lawyer?

    We didn’t. Somehow, you got really, really confused.

    We went to Knauf to get academic accommodations for my daughter’s medical condition. That was all. When we engaged him, he was in private practice and not with DRLC — this was the kind of thing he did, and we paid him for it.

    Then he moved to DRLC and took the case with him.

    We gradually found out that Knauf was not trying to get accommodations for her medical condition but rather was just trying to get a big juicy monetary settlement out of UCLA for himself instead (though not for our daughter), which is not what we asked him or agreed with him to do.

    His representation agreement was not a standard contingency agreement: it basically gave him a lot of money even if my daughter got none at all — and again we were not looking for money but just for appropriate academic accommodations, which he promised to make his central goal, but then refused to pursue.

    Knauf wanted to keep me out of the loop: obviously, it was easier for him to bully a college student with a medical disability if the parents were not in the loop.

    If you’re asking about the felonious retaliation against my daughter that UCLA carried out (and, quite bizarrely, admitted to!), we did not engage Knauf to deal with that initially, since it happened as a consequence of our engaging Knauf. His associate promised to deal with that when we saw it coming, but of course they did not do so, being what they are.

    Crooked shysters.

    As to why we did not hire another lawyer to sue UCLA for the multiple felonies committed against my daughter — physical assault (including a broken bone) documented by UCLA medical, retaliation against my daughter for reporting the assault, etc. — I myself would have done so.

    But my daughter, quite understandably, just wanted to get the hell out of that shithole university and get on with her life.

    She now has a job as an engineer with a spinoff of HP. So, she’s free at last of that bastard Knauf and of the criminals who run that shithole college, UCLA.

    I’m friendly with the President of the CA PUC, who is a lawyer. She claims that if I bring all this to the attention of the CA Attorney General’s office, they will do to Knauf what he deserves.

    I’m skeptical, but we’ll see.

    I think using the Web to inform the disabled community of what DRLC really is may work better.

    Does that answer your questions?

    • Troll: R.G. Camara
  161. Steve: “we see that America can’t have an intelligent discussion anymore about race:”

    PRO-TIP: America has never, ever had an intelligent discussion about race.

    • Agree: AceDeuce
  162. @Hibernian
    @PhysicistDave


    ...I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except… wine and wafer.
     
    Probably including a depressingly large percentage of (at least notional) Catholics.

    There is a spectrum of views on the Eucharist: Transubstantiation, Constubstantiation, Real Presence, or a Memorial Meal. The Eastern Church believes even Transubstantiation doesn't do justice to the Mystery of the Eucharist.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Hibernian wrote to me:

    {Dave] …I once pointed out that most Americans do not think the wine and the wafer are anything except… wine and wafer.

    [Hibernian] Probably including a depressingly large percentage of (at least notional) Catholics.

    The funny thing that completely unhinged R. G. Camara is that I was not commenting on the truth of any particular view of the Eucharist but merely pointing out that what a person thinks on the matter is very clearly correlated with which religions group the person identifies with.

    Few Jews or Baptists view it as anything except a memorial ritual, for example.

    I guess R.G. is just really, really sensitive on the matter.

    Aside from that strange hang-up, he actually seems like an okay guy.

    But I guess he is going to turn down my dinner invitation!

  163. @Twinkie
    @Jack D


    Jews like Asians just fine for the most part.
     
    Jews like Asians "just fine" as long as they are on top. But there is anxiety there too: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204076204578076613986930932

    Some of the more vehement attacks on Amy Chua’s deliberately provocative 2011 memoir of child rearing, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” were perhaps fueled by resentment of Asian-American ascendancy, especially in the context of raising “perfect” children. Confession: I was one of the book’s more vocal detractors. Was I, a Jewish-American writer, driven to pique, in part, by a member of a group that threatens Jewish-American cultural domination, just as American Jews once threatened the WASP mandarinate? Well, maybe.

    The subtle vying for success in various realms of American life between Asian-Americans and American Jews makes one wonder what mores and tastes will look like when Asian-Americans begin to exert their own influence over the culture. Will the verbal brio and intellectual bent of Jews, their edgy irony and frank super-competitiveness give way to Asian discretion, deference to the community, and gifts for less verbal pursuits like music, science and math? Will things become, as they once were under WASP hegemony, quieter? [Boldfaces mine.]
     

    Hmmm, sounds like a fear of Christian white - East Asian socio-political (not to forget marriage) alliance.

    Twinkie (and maybe Koreans in general) is the exception because he sees himself as a member of a martial race whereas American Jews are mostly not interested in military service.
     
    That's not the real reason, much as you like to malign me, because Koreans are normal people with a normal history of a nation and a state (which includes, yes, military history - this guy is Korea's most cited hero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin) while Jews are a rootless people who were tax collectors, money lenders, and merchants living at the sufferance of elites of other nations and who don't have a prevailing martial history since Masada (to which the Israelis had to harken back - close to 2,000 years - in order to build a martial mythos for the new nation).

    The real reason is that Koreans are super majority Christians in this country (and a large fraction evangelical). Indeed, a substantial fraction of ALL Asians in this country are Christian and their Christian fervor tends to be stronger than that of average whites in this country. This doesn't bode well for a people who harbor a strong anti-Christian prejudice and have been pushing for the destruction of the Christian norms and have been at the vanguard of promoting secularism in this country.


    But Chinese, Indians, etc. seem to get along just fine with Jews for the most part
     
    Literally, the two least Christian Asian sub-groups in America. I rest my case.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Jewish men and East Asian women get along extremely well. Lots of Jewish guys have an Asian fetish, while East Asians respect that Jews have wealth, education, and status. So there are many intermarriage these days. If you look at our emerging elite, it includes lots of Jewish husbands with Asian wives.

    The problem is that Asian women are now “stealing away” lots of successful Jewish men, which is pissing off Jewish women. For whatever reason, Jewish women and Asian men don’t mix much. So there’s an element of sexual envy among Jewish women, which manifests as anxiety.

    With second-generation Indians, both genders seem to mix with Jews at roughly the same rate.

    Hmmm, sounds like a fear of Christian white – East Asian socio-political (not to forget marriage) alliance.

    That’ll depend on White Christians regaining power.

    At this point, nearly EVERY Asian-American subgroup (except Vietnamese) votes Democratic. Maybe this will change soon, as Democrats increasingly become associated with Black crime and affirmative action.

  164. @Jack D
    @kaganovitch

    I kinda liked the book but putting that aside, aferist was not in my Yiddish vocabulary. It was just not a word that my parents and their circle used. I think it's actually a Russian word аферист (a lot of words in Yiddish (actual street Yiddish, not dictionary Yiddish that no one ever spoke) are borrowed from the local language - when I went to Poland I was surprised at how many Polish words I knew from my parent's Yiddish.)

    Looking online I do see it used in a few sources such as here:

    אפעריסט פארפירט א פאבריה־מיידל

    An aferist (scammer or con man) seduces a factory girl.

    From an article in a Yiddish newspaper published in Bialystok Poland in 1934;

    https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/ucg/1934/12/20/01/article/43&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    BTW, whenever I read a newspaper like this, my thought is to cry out - why are you worried about scammers and factory girls and ads for Tom i Jerry cartoons and bikes? You are dangling over the precipice by a thread and you are focused on this?

    I gather that aferist often has a sexual connotation as a seducer of females.

    Replies: @Alden, @kaganovitch

    Yes, it’s really borrowed from Russian. My dad and uncles used it rarely, but Dzigan was particularly fond of the word. e.g. “Mir huben ah kultur austosch mit England, zey shikken unz Touristen und mir shikken zey Afferisten” (For the uninitiated “We -speaking of Israel- have a cultural exchange program with England, they send us tourists and we send them con men.” In Yiddish it’s alliterative unlike in English.) Considering how long Jews lived in Eastern Europe, there are comparatively few Slavic borrowings in Yiddish and many of them are for things like foods, ugekis/ ogorki(pickles) etc.

    • Thanks: Gary in Gramercy
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @kaganovitch


    Considering how long Jews lived in Eastern Europe, there are comparatively few Slavic borrowings in Yiddish and many of them are for things like foods, ugekis/ ogorki(pickles) etc.
     
    Yiddish (as actually spoken) tends to use local or international words not just for foods but for nouns in general, especially for things that did not exist in 9th century Germany. This is of course true of many languages - in most languages the word for hamburger is hamburger and the word for telephone is telephone. Modern Hebrew is a somewhat invented language so they took the trouble to make up new words for things like electricity but Yiddish would generally go with the local word as the easiest thing. You see this also in American Yiddish (aka Yinglish).

    Here is a sign from the Lower East Side at the beginning of the 20th century. You can see that Men's Furnishings is rendered in Yiddish as Men's Furnishing

    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a0a0ee2e9bfdf638b5c9b82/1515968187884-YCJ0AT6WGU7TLEAMKT8U/Lower+East+Side+Store+With+Yiddish+Sign+%7C+LESJC?format=1000w

  165. @Gary in Gramercy
    @megabar

    An argument in favor of grave robbing: "Don't call it robbery, call it recycling."

    Who says three years of law school were a waste of time and money?

    Replies: @megabar

    > Who says three years of law school were a waste of time and money?

    Ha! IIRC, Andy’s argument was that it gives teens something to do at night instead of getting into trouble.

  166. @Reg Cæsar
    @slumber_j


    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff?
     
    The cutoff should be 1670. As in the year your "immigrant ancestor" arrived in Massachusetts.

    King Philip's War is too late!

    Replies: @slumber_j

    The cutoff should be 1670. As in the year your “immigrant ancestor” arrived in Massachusetts.

    My earliest immigrant ancestor I’m aware of arrived in Mass. in 1635, a year before the founding of Harvard as it happens. The most recent–my grandmother–arrived in the US in I guess the 1920s, also from England. Then there are a lot of others in the intervening 290 years or so.

    King Philip’s War is too late!

    We have the fascinating figure of Squanto to thank for that…

  167. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @R.G. Camara

    There are actually now three Chinatowns in New York, the other two being Flushing in Queens and Sunset Park in Brooklyn.

    There is a kitschy cheap look to the Chinatowns in contrast to trendy K-town in Midtown and posh Little Tokyo in East Village. But they are not representative of PRC architecture in general, which range from Venice-like elegance in Suzhou to Nazi-grandiose (Albert Speer Jr. was the designer of Beijing Olympic stadium.)

    Chinatown residents are mostly Fujian and Guangdong prole immigrants; their kids usually move on to suburbs in Westchester, LI and New Jersey. Where upper middle class Chinese congregate.

    Majority of this class follow along sheepishly to coalition-of-fringes slogans. But there is a significant minority who are die-hard Trump supporters.

    The upper class Chinese (origin from either PRC, HK or Taiwan) live in Manhattan and put their kids in Dalton and Collegiate. They assimilate very well into our elite trash.

    Replies: @slumber_j

    The upper class Chinese (origin from either PRC, HK or Taiwan) live in Manhattan and put their kids in Dalton and Collegiate. They assimilate very well into our elite trash.

    As an elite-trash-adjacent (or so I like to think) Manhattanite with school-age children, I can confirm this.

    • Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @slumber_j

    Thanks, I don't mean to paint with a broad brush. The Chinese proverb is, since the time of tyrant King Zhou 紂 of Shang (1075–1046 BCE), there have been those who "help the wicked perpetrate wicked deeds" 助紂為虐 zhù zhòu wéi nüè

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/助紂為虐

    * King Zhou was supposedly cruel and perverse but may have been a device for Confucian historians in posterity to legitimize his displacement (or on the receiving end of conquest).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Zhou_of_Shang

  168. @Jack D
    @Art Deco


    induce your applicants to self-select
     
    What if 20 or 30x as many applicants "self-select" than you have room for? What if, after you cut out everyone with under a 1560 SAT, you STILL have 4 or 5x as many applicants? What then? Raise the bar to 1580? Lottery? What if raising the bar to 1560 gets you a class full of nerdy Asians and outright cheaters? How do you get players for your sports teams? How do you recognize donors who have donated millions of $?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    What if 20 or 30x as many applicants “self-select” than you have room for?

    Lottery’s not a bad idea.

    The problem you’re referring to simply does not exist for the vast majority of schools.

    I had a conversation over 40 years ago with a man employed in the admissions office at Stanford. He tells me, well we have the obvious admits (about 1%, IIRC), the obvious non admits (about 90%, IIRC), and their man-hours in his office were devoted to sorting through who was in between.

  169. @Jack D
    @PhysicistDave

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Same thing with doctors - why pay a doctor when you can just Google your symptoms and diagnose yourself better than any doctor? Next time you go to a doctor, make sure to tell him the diagnosis first, which you found on Google. He will really appreciate your help, I promise.

    PD has meta-obliviousness regarding human interactions. He is may be some sort of idiot savant when it comes to physics but when it comes to dealing with human relations, not only is he oblivious but he is oblivious that he is oblivious. I would have paid money to be a fly on the wall and watch as PD told his lawyer that he knew more about the law than he did and that he was gonna "educate" him on the law (based on Googling). Who's the stupid one if you are paying someone several hundred $/hr to do something that you could do better yourself?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Art Deco

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Well, the last attorney we spoke to we conversed with in a group meeting on Zoom. As far as I could tell, she never prepared for the meeting and simply worked through a standard script she used for initial consultations. We had a number of questions about which we’d been receiving conflicting answers from various sources. She offered only vague non clarifications. We had questions about procedure. She offered nothing, just a noncommittal “It doesn’t seem time yet”. We came out of the meeting no smarter than we had been when we went into it and she charged us $600 for her time. I’ve dealt with an elder care attorney before (in New York), and he had a precise course of action mapped out and interceded for me with regard to one particular bank. I should note that this dame came recommended to us as the elder law attorney to consult in the section of the country where our elders live. One of our number eventually filled out the applications herself with the assistance of a counselor from the social services department. She tells me she learned more from filling out the application than she ever did from the lawyer we consulted.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    I guess there must be good lawyers and bad lawyers like everything else. All I can tell you is that my clients are generally shrewd businessmen and they keep coming back to me. I can only conclude that they must think that whatever I charge them is worth it or they wouldn't come back.

    I can tell you that the absolutely worst clients to deal with (for me at least - as an elder care lawyer that's what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD and I try to avoid them as much as possible, doubly so because the transactions they are involved in tend to be small (so you get the biggest aggravation for the smallest fee). They tend to be emotionally invested in their matter and so you have to be a shrink as much as a lawyer. If I had wanted to be a shrink I would have become a shrink.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @PhysicistDave

  170. @Polistra

    My God, man, don’t you watch any TV commercials?”
     
    Have been meaning to ask. Why do all these chicks look so similar?


    https://i.ibb.co/3sQ9fqG/Screenshot-20221101-175945-mailcom.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/GxgPdB3/20221103-024131.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/9ZJ2stS/Screenshot-20221103-025838-Chrome.jpg

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Carol, @Technite78, @Moe Gibbs, @Jim Don Bob, @VivaLaMigra

    I gotta laugh at that 3rd pic, ‘cuz what black…ooops, of course I meant “Black” with a capital “B!” doesn’t want to own a M/B without that company having to spend millions on advertising? Daimler Benz’s only worry is keeping any black …er, BLACK! – I better capitalize the whole darn thing! – with enough money he’s borrowed, stolen, or made in the drug trade from buying a Bimmer instead. Said Bimmer having been manufactured in the Red Neck state of South Carolina, BTW.

  171. @Redneck farmer
    @R.G. Camara

    According to Egyptian records, they were invaded by desert barbarians from the Eastern wastelands, who controlled part of the country. Oddly, that's not how the Hebrews remembered it...

    Replies: @anonymous

    According to Egyptian records, they were invaded by desert barbarians from the Eastern wastelands, who controlled part of the country. Oddly, that’s not how the Hebrews remembered it…

    Future history books will tell of how Harvard enslaved the Jews in the 1920s.

  172. @petit bourgeois
    @Steve Sailer

    Thank you Mr. Sailer. An acquaintance just bought a house on the Colorado River in the delta for $20,000 and he's taking his chocolate Labrador out for duck and quail hunting next weekend, in the process of registering his long guns for shooting birds.

    The problem I have is that I'm a acculturated to Mexican urban environments. I've been to Tijuana and the outer states 29 times since March of 2020, since COVID. I don't want to be out in the boonies without authentic tortillas and quality meat and seafood. In the middle of nowhere. The place is in Hardy's river.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_River#


    I'm not sure I want to go to a house that somebody paid $20,000 for when there is no taco shops or liquor stores or strip clubs around. Doesn't sound like fun to me to go wakeboarding when he doesn't have a boat. But I'm sure it's a start for a Newport brat.

    Seriously. The Chinese food in Mexicali may be better the San Gabriel valley. I want your opinion. You drive I'll buy. You have a passport cabron?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I don’t want to be out in the boonies without authentic tortillas and quality meat and seafood.

    Are Mexican cities known for quality meat and seafood?

  173. @megabar
    @R.G. Camara

    > Third, many left-brained science guys think in terms of “right answer/wrong answer” because that’s how STEM works. Either your answer is true or not, and its objective.

    It's not always how STEM works, but your point is well-taken.

    There is a tendency to overgeneralize one's personal experience, even among smart people:

    * Elites: "The minorities who I work with are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine."
    * Capitalists: "The free market works great for consumer goods, so uncontrolled free markets are optimal for most problems."
    * Academics: "Academic science produces great value in hard sciences that have external correction, so applying the same method to social sciences and arts will also be valuable."

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra

    * Elites: “The minorities who I work with are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”

    They can’t be terribly “elite” if they can’t even construct a sentence according to established grammatical rules, as in: “The minorities with whom I work are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”

    I honestly don’t know which is the greater evidence of the fast approaching apocalypse: the nearly universal dangling participle, or that 99% of current English speakers can’t fathom the difference between “who” and “whom.” Why don’t we combine “he” and “him” and “she” and “her” while we’re at this business of discarding distinctions between nominative and objective cases of pronouns?

    • Replies: @AceDeuce
    @VivaLaMigra

    From the Big Lebowski:


    Walter Sobchak:
    Am I wrong?

    The Dude:
    No, you're not wrong.

    Walter Sobchak:
    AM I WRONG?

    The Dude:
    You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole.
     

  174. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Since you were smarter than your lawyers, you should have just fired them and done your own legal work.

    Well, the last attorney we spoke to we conversed with in a group meeting on Zoom. As far as I could tell, she never prepared for the meeting and simply worked through a standard script she used for initial consultations. We had a number of questions about which we'd been receiving conflicting answers from various sources. She offered only vague non clarifications. We had questions about procedure. She offered nothing, just a noncommittal "It doesn't seem time yet". We came out of the meeting no smarter than we had been when we went into it and she charged us $600 for her time. I've dealt with an elder care attorney before (in New York), and he had a precise course of action mapped out and interceded for me with regard to one particular bank. I should note that this dame came recommended to us as the elder law attorney to consult in the section of the country where our elders live. One of our number eventually filled out the applications herself with the assistance of a counselor from the social services department. She tells me she learned more from filling out the application than she ever did from the lawyer we consulted.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I guess there must be good lawyers and bad lawyers like everything else. All I can tell you is that my clients are generally shrewd businessmen and they keep coming back to me. I can only conclude that they must think that whatever I charge them is worth it or they wouldn’t come back.

    I can tell you that the absolutely worst clients to deal with (for me at least – as an elder care lawyer that’s what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD and I try to avoid them as much as possible, doubly so because the transactions they are involved in tend to be small (so you get the biggest aggravation for the smallest fee). They tend to be emotionally invested in their matter and so you have to be a shrink as much as a lawyer. If I had wanted to be a shrink I would have become a shrink.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    (for me at least – as an elder care lawyer that’s what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD and I try to avoid them as much as possible,

    I'm trying to recall you making an utterance for which the response would not be something like 'not a good look'. If you gave me a week, I might think of one. If you're in the business of blaming the client for asking you a question on a subject with which you haven't made yourself familiar (even though it's your job), you're not the right lawyer for many people. I pay my bills, but for the $600 you just billed me, I expect actual services, which we did not get. And she had weeks to prepare for that meeting. She's a 'bad lawyer'? I'm told she's ze best in ze business in a part of the country which has 1 million people in it. Must be a couple thousand working lawyers in that part of the country.

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Jack D

    Jack D wrote to Art Deco:


    I can tell you that the absolutely worst clients to deal with (for me at least – as an elder care lawyer that’s what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD
     
    And we in turn are desperately trying to avoid contact with lawyers like you.

    Now, if you could just tell us where we can find a list of all the lawyers like you so that we can avoid them...

    By the way, I note that you have not expressed any disapproval of the lawyer who induced my daughter to sign a highly illegal representation agreement. Is that because you do the same thing?
  175. @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    Yes, it's really borrowed from Russian. My dad and uncles used it rarely, but Dzigan was particularly fond of the word. e.g. "Mir huben ah kultur austosch mit England, zey shikken unz Touristen und mir shikken zey Afferisten" (For the uninitiated "We -speaking of Israel- have a cultural exchange program with England, they send us tourists and we send them con men." In Yiddish it's alliterative unlike in English.) Considering how long Jews lived in Eastern Europe, there are comparatively few Slavic borrowings in Yiddish and many of them are for things like foods, ugekis/ ogorki(pickles) etc.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Considering how long Jews lived in Eastern Europe, there are comparatively few Slavic borrowings in Yiddish and many of them are for things like foods, ugekis/ ogorki(pickles) etc.

    Yiddish (as actually spoken) tends to use local or international words not just for foods but for nouns in general, especially for things that did not exist in 9th century Germany. This is of course true of many languages – in most languages the word for hamburger is hamburger and the word for telephone is telephone. Modern Hebrew is a somewhat invented language so they took the trouble to make up new words for things like electricity but Yiddish would generally go with the local word as the easiest thing. You see this also in American Yiddish (aka Yinglish).

    Here is a sign from the Lower East Side at the beginning of the 20th century. You can see that Men’s Furnishings is rendered in Yiddish as Men’s Furnishing

    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a0a0ee2e9bfdf638b5c9b82/1515968187884-YCJ0AT6WGU7TLEAMKT8U/Lower+East+Side+Store+With+Yiddish+Sign+%7C+LESJC?format=1000w

  176. @Anonymous Jew
    @Jon

    My best friend from college is a physics major and has had a successful career in STEM. I believe he only missed a question or two on his math SAT (early-90s). It’s absolutely astounding to me how bad he is at abstract verbal reasoning. His political arguments are about as sophisticated as a middle schooler. He also has not understanding of basic economics and genuinely believes in Marxism. I have met many similar people in STEM. I’m an HBDer, but sometimes I wonder if the IQ tests are missing something (abstract/holistic real world understanding?).

    If you’re really bright (130 IQ) then yes, most lawyers will seem dumb. On the other hand, the lawyers that break 170 on their LSAT and go to big law are as bright as anyone. I’ve met many who also have STEM undergrads (and one who was a doctor). They may be as spineless as the rest of our over class, but they’re not dumb.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    His political arguments are about as sophisticated as a middle schooler. He also has not understanding of basic economics and genuinely believes in Marxism. I have met many similar people in STEM. I’m an HBDer, but sometimes I wonder if the IQ tests are missing something (abstract/holistic real world understanding?).

    Ronald Reagan had a great line about this: “It isn’t that liberals are stupid, its that they believe in so much that isn’t so.”

    First, you have account for the fact that many lefties just really are evil. Evil exists. And as we saw in COVID, BLM riots, and with trannyism, liberals want to mutilate and rape your children, and want you to die alone, and will laugh at you when it happens. History’s worst monsters were guided by Marxism. Even today, its hard to tell whether it was Marxism that made George Soros a monster or whether he was already a monster and took up Marxism to further his evil, but they are linked together. So many of these liberals you think are just misguided really are bent on evil. Accept it.

    Second, if not evil, many higher IQ lefties are quite easily led by propaganda and live very sheltered lives. The history of Marxism is born-rich, sheltered brats in ivory towers trying to force it upon various populations of lower IQ manual laborers and middle-class shopkeepers and having it all woefully fall apart. The Marxists have all these theories that have never been proven by data but sound smart because they keep repeating them back to one another using ten-dollar vocabulary words and vague concepts. Capturing the universities is always an initial step in Marxist take overs because you need to seed the ground with true-believing rich kids whose parents will fund the Marxist causes and the kids can sound reasonable and intelligent when recruiting.

    Third, Dunning-Kruger effect. Many people think they’re “experts” at things they have never done. Witness how many people yell at the TV screen in a sports match about how much they’d succeed if only they were in charge and the coach/player is an “idiot.” If you’ve never argued in court or tried writing a brief, it can seem like lawyers are idiots because the “obvious” answer is never stated (as the computer nerd in my little anecdote thought).

    Fourth, the inability of anyone who doesn’t deal with government bureaucracy day to day to fully grasp how petty, inefficient, and awful most government workers can be, and its universal to all governments everywhere and in history. Government workers will literally make people rot in jail or die without medical treatment over picayune slights. IRS agents and federal prosecutors and FBI agents get a kick out of torturing innocent folks or little fish just to flex their muscle. And stupid affirmative action hires will literally forget to do basic tasks and end up hurting real people’s lives. Like the eye of Sauron, most of us escape the government’s harsh power, colossal stiff-neckedness, or enraging incompetency because we are too minor a figure to be noticed, but if the eye rests upon you, rest assured your life will be a miserable mixture of deliberate torture, uncaring indifference, and just plain incompetent obtuseness.

    And this goes for judges, justices, and clerks as well, who are all government workers. “Hey, the post office gets me my mail, and Obama gave good speeches, so go government go!”

    Most higher-IQ lefties have jobs where they don’t interact with the government daily, don’t see these realities, and therefore think that the government does a far better job than it really does.

    Fifth and finally, communism’s evils are not taught in schools. Why? Because Marxism captured the universities.

  177. @Mike Tre
    @Steve Sailer

    Or just good in front of the camera. Johnny Carson was said to have been a real SOB.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    From what I’ve heard about Carson he had sociopathic paranoia coupled with BPD. He would cut people out of his life for the slightest offense, always thinking they were plotting against him, even if he had been their “best” friend for years. He seldom went to Hollywood parties or socialized with any stars (all that Tonight Show chumminess was fake as F), and he divorced women like he was going to the bathroom, and preferred to be alone in his beach side home.

    E.g. Joan Rivers learned his wrath when she didn’t consult him when offered her own talk show. He had promoted her for years and let her guest host, and likely thought she was a good candidate to take over for him. But she dared take a plum talk show offer on another network—without asking his permission. Kiss the ring, slave!

    His last (and much-younger wife) could only seduce him to hit on her by trespassing on his private beach while in a skimpy bikini, because otherwise Johnny wasn’t socializing (“Oops! Sorry, Mr. Carson! My, you’re so handsome in person.”). Otherwise, he was a silent solo dude outside the studio.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @R.G. Camara

    and he divorced women like he was going to the bathroom, and preferred to be alone in his beach side home.

    Not sure he was the initiator of any of his divorces.

    He later admitted to a biographer that his 1st divorce was the one he regretted. (IIRC, there were mutual adulteries). His 2d divorce was consequent to discovering Mrs. Carson was having an affair with Frank Gifford. His 3d divorce was initiated by the 3d Mrs. Carson for vague reasons ("I really tried for 18 months...") and she (consequent to the motions of her own lawyer) was revealed to be a comical spendthrift, providing material for his monologues ("I just got a call from my cat's lawyer. My cat wants $12,000 a week for Tender Vittles). She eventually carved $27,000,000 out of him in 1982 currency for eight years of marriage (no children).

    He was, in many respects, a bad man, and especially unpleasant when sozzled. (One bandleader who worked with him said he was a man who should not drink under any circumstances). His most thorough failure was in the realm of child-rearing. All three sons turned out badly. He had one grandchild, born illegitimate. The sire had to have his head beaten in by a family court to be induced to pay child support.

    Carson loathed his mother, telling a friend he was attending her funeral to make sure she was dead. I've had occasion to wonder what his brother and sister were like and what their take on their family life was.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

  178. @slumber_j
    @Alden


    It’s [sic] website states very clearly that not submitting SATs will not discriminate against or harm any applicant.
     
    And evidently you believe that, which is funny; and from your ignorance about the way the world actually works, you accuse others of ignorance. Which is also funny.

    Harvard says it doesn't require SAT scores...and that's probably actually true if you're black or a recruited athlete or can check some similar box. Otherwise good luck applying without them--and the word on the street is that the cutoff is 1570. This is all either explicit or implied in what I already said.

    Do I know that 1570 is the actual cutoff? No, I don't: that's why it's called a rumor. But for personal reasons it's very unlikely that I know any less than you do about the application process for Harvard College this year, and frankly it's foolish of you to assume that I do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Gary in Gramercy

    They should just rename the Dunning-Kruger effect the Alden Effect, and be done with it.

    (By the way, best of luck with the admissions process; if your child gets into his or her first choice school via Early Decision/Action, the spring semester will be infinitely more pleasant. I write and edit a lot of personal statements for applicants at all levels, and by far, my most nerve-wracked clients are high school seniors…and their parents.)

    • Thanks: slumber_j
  179. I’ll take one “lame” Asian over 100 “cool” blacks. Cool is overrated, particularly the black kind of coolness which is the opposite of cool.

  180. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    I guess there must be good lawyers and bad lawyers like everything else. All I can tell you is that my clients are generally shrewd businessmen and they keep coming back to me. I can only conclude that they must think that whatever I charge them is worth it or they wouldn't come back.

    I can tell you that the absolutely worst clients to deal with (for me at least - as an elder care lawyer that's what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD and I try to avoid them as much as possible, doubly so because the transactions they are involved in tend to be small (so you get the biggest aggravation for the smallest fee). They tend to be emotionally invested in their matter and so you have to be a shrink as much as a lawyer. If I had wanted to be a shrink I would have become a shrink.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @PhysicistDave

    (for me at least – as an elder care lawyer that’s what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD and I try to avoid them as much as possible,

    I’m trying to recall you making an utterance for which the response would not be something like ‘not a good look’. If you gave me a week, I might think of one. If you’re in the business of blaming the client for asking you a question on a subject with which you haven’t made yourself familiar (even though it’s your job), you’re not the right lawyer for many people. I pay my bills, but for the $600 you just billed me, I expect actual services, which we did not get. And she had weeks to prepare for that meeting. She’s a ‘bad lawyer’? I’m told she’s ze best in ze business in a part of the country which has 1 million people in it. Must be a couple thousand working lawyers in that part of the country.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  181. @R.G. Camara
    @Mike Tre

    From what I've heard about Carson he had sociopathic paranoia coupled with BPD. He would cut people out of his life for the slightest offense, always thinking they were plotting against him, even if he had been their "best" friend for years. He seldom went to Hollywood parties or socialized with any stars (all that Tonight Show chumminess was fake as F), and he divorced women like he was going to the bathroom, and preferred to be alone in his beach side home.

    E.g. Joan Rivers learned his wrath when she didn't consult him when offered her own talk show. He had promoted her for years and let her guest host, and likely thought she was a good candidate to take over for him. But she dared take a plum talk show offer on another network---without asking his permission. Kiss the ring, slave!

    His last (and much-younger wife) could only seduce him to hit on her by trespassing on his private beach while in a skimpy bikini, because otherwise Johnny wasn't socializing ("Oops! Sorry, Mr. Carson! My, you're so handsome in person."). Otherwise, he was a silent solo dude outside the studio.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    and he divorced women like he was going to the bathroom, and preferred to be alone in his beach side home.

    Not sure he was the initiator of any of his divorces.

    He later admitted to a biographer that his 1st divorce was the one he regretted. (IIRC, there were mutual adulteries). His 2d divorce was consequent to discovering Mrs. Carson was having an affair with Frank Gifford. His 3d divorce was initiated by the 3d Mrs. Carson for vague reasons (“I really tried for 18 months…”) and she (consequent to the motions of her own lawyer) was revealed to be a comical spendthrift, providing material for his monologues (“I just got a call from my cat’s lawyer. My cat wants $12,000 a week for Tender Vittles). She eventually carved $27,000,000 out of him in 1982 currency for eight years of marriage (no children).

    He was, in many respects, a bad man, and especially unpleasant when sozzled. (One bandleader who worked with him said he was a man who should not drink under any circumstances). His most thorough failure was in the realm of child-rearing. All three sons turned out badly. He had one grandchild, born illegitimate. The sire had to have his head beaten in by a family court to be induced to pay child support.

    Carson loathed his mother, telling a friend he was attending her funeral to make sure she was dead. I’ve had occasion to wonder what his brother and sister were like and what their take on their family life was.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Art Deco


    Not sure he was the initiator of any of his divorces.
     
    When you have 3 divorces on your record, who initiates is meaningless.

    And since (1) women initiate 80% of divorces; an(2) Carson was a 70s swinging famous rich dude; and (3) living in a far-left, community property state,

    women were lining up to divorce him.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  182. @Mike Tre
    @R.G. Camara

    There was a youtube channel called Pinkman - that has since been removed - who put up a video explaining that if Dux had actually defeated 50 opponents in a fully bracketed tournament, there would have had to have been something like 50 quadrillion participants in the tourney. It was hilarious.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    I remember those videos, that kid was hilarious. Too bad he quit, he had a lot of talent and a unique, inimitable comedic style.

    Separately, Dux is amazing, he has no shame, and continues to lie to this day, which keeps him semi-famous and, I assume, allows him to sell some rubes his stuff and get invited to parties. A true forerunner of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, all he needed was the “infamous” sex tape.

  183. @Art Deco
    @R.G. Camara

    and he divorced women like he was going to the bathroom, and preferred to be alone in his beach side home.

    Not sure he was the initiator of any of his divorces.

    He later admitted to a biographer that his 1st divorce was the one he regretted. (IIRC, there were mutual adulteries). His 2d divorce was consequent to discovering Mrs. Carson was having an affair with Frank Gifford. His 3d divorce was initiated by the 3d Mrs. Carson for vague reasons ("I really tried for 18 months...") and she (consequent to the motions of her own lawyer) was revealed to be a comical spendthrift, providing material for his monologues ("I just got a call from my cat's lawyer. My cat wants $12,000 a week for Tender Vittles). She eventually carved $27,000,000 out of him in 1982 currency for eight years of marriage (no children).

    He was, in many respects, a bad man, and especially unpleasant when sozzled. (One bandleader who worked with him said he was a man who should not drink under any circumstances). His most thorough failure was in the realm of child-rearing. All three sons turned out badly. He had one grandchild, born illegitimate. The sire had to have his head beaten in by a family court to be induced to pay child support.

    Carson loathed his mother, telling a friend he was attending her funeral to make sure she was dead. I've had occasion to wonder what his brother and sister were like and what their take on their family life was.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    Not sure he was the initiator of any of his divorces.

    When you have 3 divorces on your record, who initiates is meaningless.

    And since (1) women initiate 80% of divorces; an(2) Carson was a 70s swinging famous rich dude; and (3) living in a far-left, community property state,

    women were lining up to divorce him.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @R.G. Camara

    When you have 3 divorces on your record, who initiates is meaningless.

    Who initiates is the salient question in any divorce. Always.

    Replies: @Anon

  184. @VivaLaMigra
    @megabar


    * Elites: “The minorities who I work with are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”
     
    They can't be terribly "elite" if they can't even construct a sentence according to established grammatical rules, as in: “The minorities with whom I work are pretty decent people and get along at work, so radical changes in national demographics should be fine.”

    I honestly don't know which is the greater evidence of the fast approaching apocalypse: the nearly universal dangling participle, or that 99% of current English speakers can't fathom the difference between "who" and "whom." Why don't we combine "he" and "him" and "she" and "her" while we're at this business of discarding distinctions between nominative and objective cases of pronouns?

    Replies: @AceDeuce

    From the Big Lebowski:

    Walter Sobchak:
    Am I wrong?

    The Dude:
    No, you’re not wrong.

    Walter Sobchak:
    AM I WRONG?

    The Dude:
    You’re not wrong, Walter. You’re just an asshole.

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
  185. @slumber_j
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms


    The upper class Chinese (origin from either PRC, HK or Taiwan) live in Manhattan and put their kids in Dalton and Collegiate. They assimilate very well into our elite trash.
     
    As an elite-trash-adjacent (or so I like to think) Manhattanite with school-age children, I can confirm this.

    Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Thanks, I don’t mean to paint with a broad brush. The Chinese proverb is, since the time of tyrant King Zhou 紂 of Shang (1075–1046 BCE), there have been those who “help the wicked perpetrate wicked deeds” 助紂為虐 zhù zhòu wéi nüè

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/助紂為虐

    * King Zhou was supposedly cruel and perverse but may have been a device for Confucian historians in posterity to legitimize his displacement (or on the receiving end of conquest).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Zhou_of_Shang

  186. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform. Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change the immigration and citizenship laws, etc. Good look getting this all passed, especially in the New Diverse America. Good luck getting ANY of it passed.

    My ambitions are much more modest. All I want is for the existing laws to be enforced in a truly colorblind fashion - essentially the MLK "content of your character" plan. (Of course black leaders today have moved far beyond King (who probably wasn't really sincere either, but let's take him at his word). As it is now, justice (and the admissions office) peeks a little bit from her blindfold.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @AnotherDad

    Jack D wrote to AnotherDad:

    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform. Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change the immigration and citizenship laws, etc. Good look getting this all passed, especially in the New Diverse America. Good luck getting ANY of it passed.

    The Left ignores the actual content of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — not to mention the Fourteenth Amendment! — so when sane people come to power, why shouldn’t they just do the same thing? After all, that would actually be in line with the Constitution.

    Furthermore, how can we ever end the insanity unless we start talking now about why it is insane and needs to be overturned?

    Don’t get me wrong: I think that under the Fourteenth Amendment, state action must be color-blind: legally-mandated Jim Crow was unconstitutional, not to mention remarkably stupid.

    And personally, I think that people who engage in racial discrimination in employment or public accommodations are assholes.

    But it is a basic principle of liberty, well-understood in the US prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that owners of private businesses were entitled to be assholes.

  187. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    I guess there must be good lawyers and bad lawyers like everything else. All I can tell you is that my clients are generally shrewd businessmen and they keep coming back to me. I can only conclude that they must think that whatever I charge them is worth it or they wouldn't come back.

    I can tell you that the absolutely worst clients to deal with (for me at least - as an elder care lawyer that's what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD and I try to avoid them as much as possible, doubly so because the transactions they are involved in tend to be small (so you get the biggest aggravation for the smallest fee). They tend to be emotionally invested in their matter and so you have to be a shrink as much as a lawyer. If I had wanted to be a shrink I would have become a shrink.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @PhysicistDave

    Jack D wrote to Art Deco:

    I can tell you that the absolutely worst clients to deal with (for me at least – as an elder care lawyer that’s what you do) are members of the general public such as you and PD

    And we in turn are desperately trying to avoid contact with lawyers like you.

    Now, if you could just tell us where we can find a list of all the lawyers like you so that we can avoid them…

    By the way, I note that you have not expressed any disapproval of the lawyer who induced my daughter to sign a highly illegal representation agreement. Is that because you do the same thing?

  188. @R.G. Camara
    @Art Deco


    Not sure he was the initiator of any of his divorces.
     
    When you have 3 divorces on your record, who initiates is meaningless.

    And since (1) women initiate 80% of divorces; an(2) Carson was a 70s swinging famous rich dude; and (3) living in a far-left, community property state,

    women were lining up to divorce him.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    When you have 3 divorces on your record, who initiates is meaningless.

    Who initiates is the salient question in any divorce. Always.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Art Deco


    Who initiates is the salient question in any divorce. Always.
     
    Why? Salient as to what metric?
  189. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform. Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change the immigration and citizenship laws, etc. Good look getting this all passed, especially in the New Diverse America. Good luck getting ANY of it passed.

    My ambitions are much more modest. All I want is for the existing laws to be enforced in a truly colorblind fashion - essentially the MLK "content of your character" plan. (Of course black leaders today have moved far beyond King (who probably wasn't really sincere either, but let's take him at his word). As it is now, justice (and the admissions office) peeks a little bit from her blindfold.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @AnotherDad

    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform.

    Correct. A bunch of Civil Rights legislation–enabling super-state bullying–should go.

    There isn’t any Constitutional reform required. Americans did have quite reasonable freedom of association for the first 175 years or so. (For a lawyer you seem quite confused about this.) A guy could hire his nephew, or someone from his neighborhood or his church or synagogue or slap an ad in the paper and hire whomever he damn well liked without issue or worries about “equal opportunity”.

    My point is that people ought to be sickened by the Supreme Court rifling throug Harvard’s admission data and process. This is precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned for America–a free society with limited, properly contained, republican self-government.

    Anyone who actually “gets” America, would look at this and think “yuck”.

    ~~~

    And Jack, you still haven’t given me the list of your mentally nationalized private universities.

    Specifically, can say Georgetown discriminate for Catholics? If Georgetown went all Catholic–i.e. concentrated on carrying out its actual mission–it would be <1% black, only a percent or two Asian (skewing toward Filipinos and Koreans) and have no Jews (other than from Madeline Albright style convert families).

    Is that ok? Or does the bullying super-state get to set 'em straight?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @AnotherDad

    I'm not sickened by it. It's condign punishment.

    A better situation would be as follows:

    1. Federal student aid would be in the form of vouchers to be passed to institutions and then redeemed by the U.S. Treasury. As long as the school has some sort of accreditation, there wouldn't be any supplementary compliance costs for the institution. Over time, the share of the student body at tertiary institutions which would be receiving federal student aid would bounce around a set point of 15%. About 3/4 of those so receiving would be enrolled in ROTC or making use of veterans' benefits.

    2. State and territorial government would finance tertiary education at their own institutions, and provide no student aid to private institutions.

    3. Public and private tertiary institutions could bid for government contracts competing with commercial companies and other non profits. However, they would receive no grants from federal, state or local government. Governments agencies could offer term-limited fellowships for which college and university faculty could apply in order to pick their brains. Such fellowships would incorporate an indemnity for the institution for the loss of services of their employee, and indemnity that could be payable to hospitals, industrial labs, &c if one of their employees received such a fellowship and was permitted to take it. Otherwise, no grants.

    4. State governments could provide for research endowments at all of their institutions. Interest and dividends would be available for each institutions own faculty and would be allocated by committees of outside auditors who would be paid fees out of the institution's general revenues and who would assess the applications blind. Such endowments would be financed by donations (for which the transactions costs would come out of the institution's general revenues) and by recycling endowment income. There would be only one avenue to add public money to the endowment, and that would be via special bond issues put on the ballot by petition campaigns.

    5. Private institutions would be financed by endowment income, donations, tuition charges, room and board charges, and voluntary fee-for-service charges. The closest you could come to coerced fees would be parking fines and text book purchases. This would be incorporated into consumer protection law, federal and state. Mandatory charges would be financed by family resources, unsubsidized loans from banks and finance companies (compliant with anti-usury laws), grants from outside foundations, grants from the institutions dedicated scholarship endowments, and remissions provided for in the institution's budget, to be financed out of general revenues. There might also be federal vouchers from ROTC, veteran's benefits &c. As a matter of law, posted tuition and room and board charges would be the same for all applicants, with the remissions applied selectively later. The only other source of government finance might be Medicare and Medicaid reimbursments paid to a university medical center if there is one.

    6. Students admitted to public institutions would have a contingent claim on a tuition and room and board voucher which they could exercise by paying a recipient's fee to the state treasury. These fees would go into the state's general fund and the schools would never see it. The student takes the vouchers and presents them to dedicated state funds, which redeem them at face value. The dedicated funds in question would financed by a special state income tax which corrals a fixed % of the state's personal income flow; the tax base is specified in the state constitution and the legislature has only limited franchise to alter exemptions and rates. Student's receiving federal aid would use the federal vouchers to pay the recipient's fees. The vouchers presented to the school would clear the student's obligations entirely.

    7. Private institutions could admit whoever they want and also expel whoever they want provided in the latter case they are in accordance with contractual obligations assumed with the publication of their handbooks. However, if they recruit from out of state, they would be required to publish stock and flow data on their student body, broken down by coarse demographic categories. SAT scores, achievement test scores, high school GPA, means and standard deviations. Such statements would have to be audited and lying by schools and officials would make both the corporation and its employees liable for criminal prosecution.

    8. Berths at the sum of a state's public institutions would be rationed each year by the value in the funds divided by the redemption value of each voucher. All applications would be sent to a central office and would include little other than the applicant's identity papers, standardized test scores, and high school transcript, and some odds and ends. The most important element, however, would be a printed card wherein the applicant ranks his preferences among the state's undergraduate institutions. A composite score is calculated for each applicant. The cards are sorted according to each student's first choice and ranked according to composite score. For each school a hypothetical freshman class is assembled which consists of the first x positions in the rank-ordering, the value of x being the number of berths available at that school divided by historical yield. The school for which the cut-off score is the highest is identified and the student's above the cut-off constitute the freshmen admissions. The remaining applicants' cards are distributed to their 2d choice school and the piles for each school then ranked according to composite score. Rinse, repeat, until you have a freshman class for each state institution. A modified procedure can be applied for transfer admissions, community college admissions, and post-baccalaureate admissions.

    9. Disciplinary proceedings at public institutions have to be substantively and procedurally compliant with state law and the state constitution. Federal judicial review would require a federal constitutional violation.

    10. In re baccalaureate granting institutions and stand alone professional schools, boards of trustees at institutions public and private would be elected by stakeholders in a postal ballot supervised by the county board of elections where the institution is located, unless the school had a special dispensation. The stakeholders would be defined as those registered to vote in the state who qualify as alumni of the institution, which would mean those in residence for at least one academic year and receiving a baccalaureate, master's, first professional, or research degree from the institution. The stakeholder roll would be compiled from information registering voters fill out on an optional supplementary segment of the voter registration form and then cross checked by the county board employees in the county in which the institution sits. They would, every four years, mail out a ballot and a prospectus which includes a one page statement of candidacy. The ballot would be a ranked choice ballot and the candidates would be term limited. Special dispensations could be awarded by application to the courts or board of regents for religious schools, schools founded in the last 20 years, and schools founded as subsidiaries of other membership organizations, e.g labor unions or fraternal societies.

    11. Hiring, promotion, demotion, and dismissal at public institutions would be in compliance with substantive and procedural principles of state civil service law. (Which should not be all that restrictive).

    12. Being expressive associations, private institutions would be free to hire, promote, demote, and dismiss according to their discretion provided contractual obligations are respected. They would be compelled to publish and audited statement on the stock and flow of their employees, broken down by employee category and coarse demographic categories. Grants of continuous tenure would be unenforceable in state or federal court for plaintiffs under a certain age, and unenforceable unless the school had a mandatory retirement policy.

    , @Twinkie
    @AnotherDad


    My point is that people ought to be sickened by the Supreme Court rifling throug Harvard’s admission data and process. This is precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned for America–a free society with limited, properly contained, republican self-government.
     
    Really? In this age of tranny “rights,” that is what people should be sickened by?

    Look, I prize the freedom of association as much as any libertarian, but that ship sailed a long time ago. You should be sickened by the evisceration of the 10th Amendment before you worry about government “meddling” in Harvard’s affairs. For that matter, I’d be perfectly content to leave Harvard in its misery, if it took no government money. But it does in millions upon millions of dollars, and it shouldn’t be able to take public money and yet discriminate racially (non-Jewish whites and Asians) and sexually (males).

    I’d be perfectly happy to have a baker (or any business) that served or refused to serve anyone at his whim (including Asians), provided he didn’t take the public money. Once you take tax payer dollars, it’s a different game altogether. Want to have the freedom of association? Don’t suck from the public purse tit.

  190. @Art Deco
    @R.G. Camara

    When you have 3 divorces on your record, who initiates is meaningless.

    Who initiates is the salient question in any divorce. Always.

    Replies: @Anon

    Who initiates is the salient question in any divorce. Always.

    Why? Salient as to what metric?

  191. Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out – Oscar Wilde

  192. As a group, Asians Chinese are competition for the elite, Blacks Tokens are not.

  193. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform.
     
    Correct. A bunch of Civil Rights legislation--enabling super-state bullying--should go.

    There isn't any Constitutional reform required. Americans did have quite reasonable freedom of association for the first 175 years or so. (For a lawyer you seem quite confused about this.) A guy could hire his nephew, or someone from his neighborhood or his church or synagogue or slap an ad in the paper and hire whomever he damn well liked without issue or worries about "equal opportunity".

    My point is that people ought to be sickened by the Supreme Court rifling throug Harvard's admission data and process. This is precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned for America--a free society with limited, properly contained, republican self-government.

    Anyone who actually "gets" America, would look at this and think "yuck".

    ~~~

    And Jack, you still haven't given me the list of your mentally nationalized private universities.

    Specifically, can say Georgetown discriminate for Catholics? If Georgetown went all Catholic--i.e. concentrated on carrying out its actual mission--it would be <1% black, only a percent or two Asian (skewing toward Filipinos and Koreans) and have no Jews (other than from Madeline Albright style convert families).

    Is that ok? Or does the bullying super-state get to set 'em straight?

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Twinkie

    I’m not sickened by it. It’s condign punishment.

    A better situation would be as follows:

    1. Federal student aid would be in the form of vouchers to be passed to institutions and then redeemed by the U.S. Treasury. As long as the school has some sort of accreditation, there wouldn’t be any supplementary compliance costs for the institution. Over time, the share of the student body at tertiary institutions which would be receiving federal student aid would bounce around a set point of 15%. About 3/4 of those so receiving would be enrolled in ROTC or making use of veterans’ benefits.

    2. State and territorial government would finance tertiary education at their own institutions, and provide no student aid to private institutions.

    3. Public and private tertiary institutions could bid for government contracts competing with commercial companies and other non profits. However, they would receive no grants from federal, state or local government. Governments agencies could offer term-limited fellowships for which college and university faculty could apply in order to pick their brains. Such fellowships would incorporate an indemnity for the institution for the loss of services of their employee, and indemnity that could be payable to hospitals, industrial labs, &c if one of their employees received such a fellowship and was permitted to take it. Otherwise, no grants.

    4. State governments could provide for research endowments at all of their institutions. Interest and dividends would be available for each institutions own faculty and would be allocated by committees of outside auditors who would be paid fees out of the institution’s general revenues and who would assess the applications blind. Such endowments would be financed by donations (for which the transactions costs would come out of the institution’s general revenues) and by recycling endowment income. There would be only one avenue to add public money to the endowment, and that would be via special bond issues put on the ballot by petition campaigns.

    5. Private institutions would be financed by endowment income, donations, tuition charges, room and board charges, and voluntary fee-for-service charges. The closest you could come to coerced fees would be parking fines and text book purchases. This would be incorporated into consumer protection law, federal and state. Mandatory charges would be financed by family resources, unsubsidized loans from banks and finance companies (compliant with anti-usury laws), grants from outside foundations, grants from the institutions dedicated scholarship endowments, and remissions provided for in the institution’s budget, to be financed out of general revenues. There might also be federal vouchers from ROTC, veteran’s benefits &c. As a matter of law, posted tuition and room and board charges would be the same for all applicants, with the remissions applied selectively later. The only other source of government finance might be Medicare and Medicaid reimbursments paid to a university medical center if there is one.

    6. Students admitted to public institutions would have a contingent claim on a tuition and room and board voucher which they could exercise by paying a recipient’s fee to the state treasury. These fees would go into the state’s general fund and the schools would never see it. The student takes the vouchers and presents them to dedicated state funds, which redeem them at face value. The dedicated funds in question would financed by a special state income tax which corrals a fixed % of the state’s personal income flow; the tax base is specified in the state constitution and the legislature has only limited franchise to alter exemptions and rates. Student’s receiving federal aid would use the federal vouchers to pay the recipient’s fees. The vouchers presented to the school would clear the student’s obligations entirely.

    7. Private institutions could admit whoever they want and also expel whoever they want provided in the latter case they are in accordance with contractual obligations assumed with the publication of their handbooks. However, if they recruit from out of state, they would be required to publish stock and flow data on their student body, broken down by coarse demographic categories. SAT scores, achievement test scores, high school GPA, means and standard deviations. Such statements would have to be audited and lying by schools and officials would make both the corporation and its employees liable for criminal prosecution.

    8. Berths at the sum of a state’s public institutions would be rationed each year by the value in the funds divided by the redemption value of each voucher. All applications would be sent to a central office and would include little other than the applicant’s identity papers, standardized test scores, and high school transcript, and some odds and ends. The most important element, however, would be a printed card wherein the applicant ranks his preferences among the state’s undergraduate institutions. A composite score is calculated for each applicant. The cards are sorted according to each student’s first choice and ranked according to composite score. For each school a hypothetical freshman class is assembled which consists of the first x positions in the rank-ordering, the value of x being the number of berths available at that school divided by historical yield. The school for which the cut-off score is the highest is identified and the student’s above the cut-off constitute the freshmen admissions. The remaining applicants’ cards are distributed to their 2d choice school and the piles for each school then ranked according to composite score. Rinse, repeat, until you have a freshman class for each state institution. A modified procedure can be applied for transfer admissions, community college admissions, and post-baccalaureate admissions.

    9. Disciplinary proceedings at public institutions have to be substantively and procedurally compliant with state law and the state constitution. Federal judicial review would require a federal constitutional violation.

    10. In re baccalaureate granting institutions and stand alone professional schools, boards of trustees at institutions public and private would be elected by stakeholders in a postal ballot supervised by the county board of elections where the institution is located, unless the school had a special dispensation. The stakeholders would be defined as those registered to vote in the state who qualify as alumni of the institution, which would mean those in residence for at least one academic year and receiving a baccalaureate, master’s, first professional, or research degree from the institution. The stakeholder roll would be compiled from information registering voters fill out on an optional supplementary segment of the voter registration form and then cross checked by the county board employees in the county in which the institution sits. They would, every four years, mail out a ballot and a prospectus which includes a one page statement of candidacy. The ballot would be a ranked choice ballot and the candidates would be term limited. Special dispensations could be awarded by application to the courts or board of regents for religious schools, schools founded in the last 20 years, and schools founded as subsidiaries of other membership organizations, e.g labor unions or fraternal societies.

    11. Hiring, promotion, demotion, and dismissal at public institutions would be in compliance with substantive and procedural principles of state civil service law. (Which should not be all that restrictive).

    12. Being expressive associations, private institutions would be free to hire, promote, demote, and dismiss according to their discretion provided contractual obligations are respected. They would be compelled to publish and audited statement on the stock and flow of their employees, broken down by employee category and coarse demographic categories. Grants of continuous tenure would be unenforceable in state or federal court for plaintiffs under a certain age, and unenforceable unless the school had a mandatory retirement policy.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  194. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    Your plan would require extensive legislative (and perhaps even Constitutional) reform.
     
    Correct. A bunch of Civil Rights legislation--enabling super-state bullying--should go.

    There isn't any Constitutional reform required. Americans did have quite reasonable freedom of association for the first 175 years or so. (For a lawyer you seem quite confused about this.) A guy could hire his nephew, or someone from his neighborhood or his church or synagogue or slap an ad in the paper and hire whomever he damn well liked without issue or worries about "equal opportunity".

    My point is that people ought to be sickened by the Supreme Court rifling throug Harvard's admission data and process. This is precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned for America--a free society with limited, properly contained, republican self-government.

    Anyone who actually "gets" America, would look at this and think "yuck".

    ~~~

    And Jack, you still haven't given me the list of your mentally nationalized private universities.

    Specifically, can say Georgetown discriminate for Catholics? If Georgetown went all Catholic--i.e. concentrated on carrying out its actual mission--it would be <1% black, only a percent or two Asian (skewing toward Filipinos and Koreans) and have no Jews (other than from Madeline Albright style convert families).

    Is that ok? Or does the bullying super-state get to set 'em straight?

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Twinkie

    My point is that people ought to be sickened by the Supreme Court rifling throug Harvard’s admission data and process. This is precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned for America–a free society with limited, properly contained, republican self-government.

    Really? In this age of tranny “rights,” that is what people should be sickened by?

    Look, I prize the freedom of association as much as any libertarian, but that ship sailed a long time ago. You should be sickened by the evisceration of the 10th Amendment before you worry about government “meddling” in Harvard’s affairs. For that matter, I’d be perfectly content to leave Harvard in its misery, if it took no government money. But it does in millions upon millions of dollars, and it shouldn’t be able to take public money and yet discriminate racially (non-Jewish whites and Asians) and sexually (males).

    I’d be perfectly happy to have a baker (or any business) that served or refused to serve anyone at his whim (including Asians), provided he didn’t take the public money. Once you take tax payer dollars, it’s a different game altogether. Want to have the freedom of association? Don’t suck from the public purse tit.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  195. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-scientists-must-stand-for-affirmative-action-and-against-scientific-racism/
    https://archive.ph/23q4z

    Derb:
    https://vdare.com/posts/scientific-american-goes-even-woker-why-scientists-must-stand-for-affirmative-action-and-against-scientific-racism

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?