‘Walk Around Harvard. What Are the Names on the Buildings?’

US Politics
on 27 Comments

A couple days ago I was talking to a well-connected woman who has met Steve Walt, the former Harvard dean and anatomist of the Israel lobby, and she offered this characterization: Walt is the brilliant nerd type, "the smartest kid in
the high school. He loves ideas. He doesn’t care who comes up with a
good one." Then the woman said that Walt had been surprised by the response two years ago to his
paper. "He is naive." 

I asked why she felt that way.

"Walk around Harvard and the Kennedy School, what are the names on
the buildings? Taubman, Rubenstein, Belfer, Weiner. Where do you think
the money is coming from in academia?" I mentioned that Walt’s own
chair is endowed by Robert Belfer, who I believe is on the advisory
board of Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a thinktank that
Walt and Mearsheimer attack. The woman said, "This is why tenure is

mention this exchange because it was 1, typical of the kind of private
conversation that even  sober Establishment types (her; not me) have
about these issues and 2, a reminder that you cannot honestly describe
the formation of Middle East policy without acknowledging that Jews are
principals in the establishment, and Jewish wealth is a significant
factor in public life. I’m told that a hawkish Council on Foreign Relations conference on Iran last year was partially underwritten by Lester Crown. John Mearsheimer was disinvited from the Global Affairs Council in Chicago last year– I believe because Crown, whose fortune began in waste management, is at the head of it. It never ends. Obama and Hillary debated in Philadelphia in the Kimmel Theater at the Constitution Center; and Kimmel is a leader of the movement for separate schools for Jewish kids.

There’s nothing wrong with Jews making money. It’s Jewish identity that we need to work on…

27 Responses

  1. Naftali
    May 5, 2008, 10:43 pm

    Yup, we Jews control it all. We even limited our enrollment in Harvard for many years just to make it look like we were discriminated again. Oh, yes, we also eat Christian blood for Matzohs. What a bunc of retards.

  2. Richard Witty
    May 5, 2008, 10:50 pm

    The names are on the buildings because of charity, because individual Jews felt and acted thankfully.

  3. neocognitism
    May 5, 2008, 11:08 pm

    Nobody donates to Harvard out of "charity." The entire concept that giving money to Harvard can even be associated with the word "charity" is a joke.

    People give money to universities for vanity, to have a legacy, and to ensure their descendants all get in as "legacy" enrollees, just like GWB at Yale.

    I always resented walking into the halls there, named for rich legacy-seeking idiots who have no aptitude or accomplishments in the disciplines the buildings were built for. It's like that at every major University, though. The rich want to feel like their lives mean something other than the number of zeros in their bank accounts. They don't.

    If it was charity it would be anonymous. Or, for instance, the Catholic Church does not stamp "Jesus H. Christ" on the Turkeys it gives away at Thanksgiving to the poor, nor does it evangelize those poor. That's a charity.

  4. Roy Belmont
    May 6, 2008, 12:09 am

    It may or may not be the case that Bob Dylan's charitous givings were done so anonymously they've never been brought forward and ascribed, to this day.

  5. otto
    May 6, 2008, 2:33 am

    The fact that Walt could write about international politics for decades and be naive about this does not speak well of his real understanding of political forces.

  6. Joachim Martillo
    May 6, 2008, 6:34 am

    Historically, many Jews have used philanthropy for political manipulation. Medoff discusses the pattern in Baksheesh Diplomancy and I discuss it in specific detail in link to members.aol.com .

    There is nothing wrong with making money per se, but there is a pattern of criminality and unethicality associated with Jewish money making, Jewish finance has caused tremendous harm in the USA, Europe and the ME, and it cannot be ignored.

    For the past 40 years, most Jewish money making has been several orders of magnitude more evil than mafia money making.

    The State of Israel and "Our Crowd" manipulated winners in the media since the early 50s.

    Between Friedmanism and criminal financial activity associated with the State of Israel, Jewish financial criminality is now a world historical force that is causing tremendous harm to the world.

    Much of Crown's financial activity today now constitutes material aid to terrorism, and people like Crown should be arrested because the State of Israel is a murderous genocidal terror state that as a matter of policy routinely violates international law and commits crimes against humanity.

    Under Bush administration definitions, Crown is probably an illegal combatant and should be treated like Padilla.

    At this point seizing all of Crown's assests and interrogating Crown under Dershowitzian principles (and giving Dershowitz the same treatment) is appropriate.

    link to members.aol.com discusses "Fighting the Dystopic Future."

  7. LeaNder
    May 6, 2008, 8:23 am

    Master Machiavellian found a convenient "conspiracy nut" scapegoat.

    link to danielpipes.org

    Nothing to see here, let's move on.

  8. liberal white boy
    May 6, 2008, 9:00 am

    I do like Jimmy Kimmel but to be honest I'm sort of sweet on Sarah Silverman also. I'm one of those who thinks Sarah sort of used him to propel her to stardom. More power to her. If Jimmy gets run over by a truck tomorrow no big deal. It will just be her and liberal white boy, hopefully making little mongrels together.

    The Disgrace of Harvard…By Leonard Rabbidowitz…The Witz Hunt on America's College Campuses-Part II-An Investigative Report

    link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com

  9. samuel burke
    May 6, 2008, 10:14 am

    happy independence day israel and zionism…

    761. In 1948 President Roosevelt planned to open gates of America to 150,000 refugees, and Great Britain agreed to follow suit. When Roosevelt’s emissary Morris L. Ernst came to England, the Zionist leaders declared: “This is treason. You are undermining the Zionist movement”. As a result, Roosevelt informed Great Britain that the project must be abandoned: “We cannot put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership won’t stand for it”.

    762. In 1947 Congressman William Stratton sponsored a bill to grant immediate entry to the U.S. of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was publicly denounced by the Zionist leaders, and it was therefore not passed.

  10. Charles Keating
    May 6, 2008, 10:16 am

    Let's not forget the tax incentives to charitable giving.

  11. Charles Keating
    May 6, 2008, 10:22 am

    A small proportion of the total charity industry profit actually does benefit the official targets. Somebody may be thankfully wearing a pair of Bill Clinton's used shorts.

  12. Richard Witty
    May 6, 2008, 10:31 am

    Very rich people that make their income from compensation don't derive much tax benefit from charitable giving currently, unless they are old money.

    Vanity may be one reason for a name on a building, but vanity is NOT the reason that Jews give billions to many many charities.

    We do it as an intrinsic value, and to pass on our good fortune (even if we don't have any).

    Those that have stopped giving charitably are the ones that I worry about.

    And, I worry why there are not hundreds of non-Jewish (English, Dutch, French, Arab) names on buildings? It might be humility, it might be that they don't give.

  13. Richard Witty
    May 6, 2008, 10:32 am

    I don't understand why anyone would demean such a positive value as charity.

  14. neocognitism
    May 6, 2008, 10:46 am

    Richard, I just don't think it's charity when it gets your name on a building forever at an upper-level university where everyone will think you're smart by association, and get your name said 10,000 times a day by staff, faculty, and students.

    There's plenty of non-Jewish names on buildings, but my comment didn't have anything specifically to do with Jews. I was *only* talking about the super-rich who have enough money to go around doing such things.

    If it wasn't for reasons of vanity, they'd do it anonymously, like many other super-rich choose to do, but we never hear about.

  15. Richard Witty
    May 6, 2008, 11:08 am

    Phil's and others inference is that the presence of Jewish names on some buildings is evidence of some exercised suppressive power.

    I supervised the account management and reporting for restricted funds (grants, scholarships, etc.) at a moderate size college a decade ago.

    Donors in general are exerting far more influence on the use of money that they contribute to colleges. Its a two significance. One is that many colleges have used restricted funds for unauthorized uses, and some donors are overly intrusive in how funds are used.

    Usually a board is appointed to select a chair for example. Its not the donor that has the direct control. Otherwise, the charitable nature of the contribution is put into question.

    With the near elimination of the estate tax, and unfavorable treatment of charitable contributions subject to the alternative minimum tax, as well as phased out tax deductions at high incomes, there aren't many that get tax benefits from the charity.

    I think that is as it should be actually, as deductions for contributions to charity are a form of federal spending without specific legislation, AND that the fed pays more of a relatively wealthy person's contribution than a poor. (The nature of deductions at marginal rates.)

  16. samuel burke
    May 6, 2008, 11:21 am

    what the hell is wrong with a free american citizen giving grants to universities? it ought to remain incumbent on the universities themselves to teach and promote education sans political influence.

    just because someone is from one ethnicity or religious belief ought not to be the issue.

    we really ought to try not to introduce the old class warfare divisionary tactics of political parties into the issue we are most often discussing here. mostly what concerns the writings of phil tend to be the injustices against the palestinians promoted by american jewish zionist dinosaurs here in america, and the overwhelming power exerted by zionist on his country; the united states of america, in support for israels policies in the middle east that are detrimental to the united states.

    Be proud to be jewish and to have acquired so much political and monetary clout in america, just stop raising the spectre of anti semitism anytime someone mentions that the elephant in the room happens to be pink.

    Zionist american jews, you have excercised your power and influence in support of your beloved israel, be proud of it and tell americans, im sure they will accept you and love you for it.

    happy indepence day…to the nation within a nation.
    zionism, a blight on america and the middle east, and on the community that supports it and lends it undying support.

  17. Joachim Martillo
    May 6, 2008, 11:24 am

    Jewish racists work hard to make sure only Jewish and Jewishly acceptable contributions are permitted because philanthropy is a source of political power.

    Look for Zayed or Fish in the following documents.

    link to eaazi.blogspot.com

    link to eaazi.blogspot.com

    All giving by Jewish philanthropists at the megadonor level should be investigated as potential material support for Zionist terrorism.

    Outside of Soros, who is not very Jewish, I have not been able to identify any Jewish megadonor, who should not be arrested as a terrorism supporter.

    link to members.aol.com points out that Jewish academic giving is self-interested with little regard for humanitarianism or genuine scholarship.

  18. Charles Keating
    May 6, 2008, 12:20 pm

    Until recent times, philanthropists have had the advantage of tax benefits on large donations to charity through the "estate tax" or "death tax." (Estates worth over $600,000 were taxed at fifty-five percent. Money from estates donated to nonprofit organizations is not taxed, thus reducing the tax liability for the entire estate.)

    Under the Bush Administration, the estate tax system is slowly being phased out as tax percentages are being lowered each year until 2010. (The fifty-five percent tax on all estates over $600,000 is declining each year until the year 2010 when the rate reaches zero. It will return to the fifty-five percent rate in 2011 unless extended by further legislation.)

    Others benefit from charitable donations, too. Taxpayers who itemize their deductions also benefit from charitable gifts. If their income is large enough to file using the long form (with a Schedule A), individual deductions can be itemized. The amount owed to the IRS is then reduced.

    A corporation can also deduct donations it makes. Today, corporate donations have become a familiar resource for nonprofit organizations. A common motivation behind this type of giving is an attempt to improve the corporation's image through a favorable public response. Corporations must consider the cause they are giving to as one that represents a strength and interest of the corporation and its stakeholders. For example, a corporation that gives scholarships to study in a field that relates to its type of business could result in producing more highly qualified employees available for hire. In most cases, improving social conditions surrounding a corporation is beneficial to profits.

    Advertised Charity is an excellent marketing tool.

  19. MM
    May 6, 2008, 12:56 pm

    samuel burke, do you have a reference for 761? I'd never heard that.

    I just wanted to recommend that book, if it came from a legitimate one, to our good friend Richard, who's reading all he can to understand the true nature of zionism.

  20. Joachim Martillo
    May 6, 2008, 1:39 pm


    He meant Truman.

    Grodzinsky discusses the issue of refugee resettlement in detail.

    See link to books.google.com .

  21. LanceThruster
    May 6, 2008, 4:35 pm

    Those trying to claim that influence is not involved in such donations seem to ignore the effect when those donations are threatened to be withheld as with W & M at Harvard or with regard to Dr. Finkelstein at De Paul.

    True, this is not about buildings that are already named but the leverage is certainly there.

  22. Charles Keating
    May 6, 2008, 5:32 pm

    Phil touches on all this. What free interplay of ideas or discussion of facts on the reality ground exists in the ivory towers where the funding of academics comes from certain sources? Those who pay the piper call the tunes.

  23. Charles Keating
    May 6, 2008, 5:37 pm

    What happens when a Nunc Pro Tunc resolution follows, one after the other?

  24. Charles Keating
    May 6, 2008, 5:47 pm


    The average American taxpayers pay for it.

    Nobody's happy.

    Who thinks this won't have a very unhappy ending, given the historical cycles of hooded sheeps?

    In the end, the hooded sheeps will take a bite.

  25. neocognitism
    May 6, 2008, 8:19 pm


    just as a matter of statistics, what Philip says is true, but only as a function of what all donors tend to do — put on restrictions and threaten to withhold money if their pet interest isn't taken care of. It's completely safe to say that the large Jewish donors have a more Likudnik (immoral) view of Israel policy, and therefore that works its way into university policy.

    I'm a friend of someone very high up in HBS, and he/she spent years and years kissing donor ass like you must have had to do. If there was a diplomatic way to ask him/her about this, I would. But, as you know, there isn't.

  26. samuel burke
    May 6, 2008, 10:20 pm

    mm, here is where i read that quote i posted without proper acknowledgement.
    in the second half of this page im posting youll find the name of the book where this is cited.

    link to jewsagainstzionism.com

    this second page also cites some newspapers from the early 30's

    link to jewsagainstzionism.com

  27. Charles Keating
    May 7, 2008, 4:34 pm

    The world's Jews attacked Germany before the insular Germans attacked Jews.

    Let's see, how does this past public time log fits in with the current situation?

    The Germans past would say, so what's new?



    Lots of dead people.

    Great. Let's keep it all up.

Leave a Reply