Jewish privilege

Last Sunday I attended the Jewish Voice for Peace members’ meeting in the Perelman Quandrangle at the University of Pennsylvania. Right across the way was Claudia Cohen Hall. Two days later I spoke at Temple, at Klein Hall, and when I got on the subway back downtown I saw posters for an arts festival taking place at Kimmel Center. This is one of the most fraught issues I deal with at this site, the extent to which Jews have become the new American mandarins.

I was grateful at JVP that younger Jews seem to be acknowledging Jewish privilege as a factor in Middle East policy and removing some of the emotion from the conversation.

Liz Shulman gave a talk on Jewish privilege at the meeting. Rabbi Brant Rosen was also at JVP, and he has said directly, here, “I feel as a white male American Jew, I feel very powerful. I feel part of a very powerful and privileged minority in the world.” Beautiful. Another friend I saw at the JVP conference accepts the idea that Jews are the new WASPS; he sent me a note about how many of the American ambassadors to the big European countries are Jews. I count eight. That’s real influence. The next ambassador to Israel is Daniel Shapiro, the aide who announced Obama’s Security Council veto was James Steinberg, Dennis Ross who headed an institute for the “Jewish people” is the Middle East envoy, the New Yorker magazine’s Jewish editor invokes “Jewish values” to oppose the occupation with the secure knowledge that his privileged readers will resonate to the phrase, and when NBC reports on the Arab world, it’s usually Andrea Mitchell and Richard Engel, both Jews, and at CNN it’s Wolf Blitzer…

And you wonder why Obama is worried about Jewish money in the next presidential race. Or why his Defense Secretary gives a meeting to Rob’t Kagan and Bill Kristol on Libya and they then walk out and publicly trash him–they have connections to the rich conservative wing of Jewish life that is enmeshed in Democratic Party life too and is so significant in shaping the new Establishment.

“When do we get to talk about this– when the entire Supreme Court is Jewish?” my friend at JVP joked. Right now we have only three justices, all appointed by Democratic presidents.

When I spoke at Villanova on Monday, a Jewish professor at the school, Dveera Segal, rebuked me for talking about the number of Jews in elite journalism. She said the same kind of talk was a theme of anti-semites. I said, Sorry, but this is my experience, I have to talk about the facts.

These facts are too prominent in our political life not to be discussed, we just haven’t figured out how yet. I’m trying. When Julian Assange had a conversation about how many editors at a top English newspaper were Jewish, enemies accused him of believing a “conspiracy” theory, and meanwhile, Jeffrey Goldberg titled a column on the issue Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews, a perverse declaration of his own race-man pride in Jewish achievement.

Of course Assange denied he had spoken about such things, but people think about these things and they have a right to discuss them, if only for the effect they’ve had on our Middle East policy. The last social order was described by one prominent American Jewish writer as the “Episcopacy,” and a member of it, E. Digby Baltzell, helped to bring it down in the 1960s by exposing the anti-Semitism in that order and urging his kinsmen to open the boardrooms to Jewish talent. My generation clambered aboard, god bless us. We called ourselves a meritocracy; and still, I wonder how much of the Jewish presence in important jobs has to do with Jewish kinship networks, i.e., we discriminated in favor of other Jews. I reflect that my journalism career was propelled by many Jewish editor friends (and yes, a few non-Jewish ones too), and our religious identity was important to all of us. Just as Jewish identity was a central element to the neoconservatives, who Jacob Heilbrunn has written were propelled by their ethnic “resentment” against being excluded from prestige positions by the WASPs.

The thing I liked about the conversation at JVP was a sense that the next generation acknowledges these facts and will be able to talk about Jewish privilege in less scary ways. A few weeks back on his public radio show, The Sound of Young America, Jesse Thorn asked the producer Jerry Hurwitz (who has since died) why so many black artists were elevated by Jewish producers. Hurwitz was freaked out by the question, he said it hinted at Jews-run-Hollywood. So it was left to Thorn to supply a meaning: It seems that you acted as mediators between oppressed blacks and the mainstream. It’s a good theory; it touches on Jewish political identity forged in eastern Europe. And let us remember: almost all those producers did very well.

The Jewish establishment is starting to fade as we speak. Happily, I sense that the establishment is growing more diverse by the minute.

And when the old one’s gone, we’ll finally be allowed to talk about it.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 126 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. pabelmont says:

    Hope that very-wide discussion of Israel/Palestine doesn’t have to wait until Palestine is a dim and unlamented (by many) memory. Hope that memory of Libya’s rebellion doesn’t have to wait a few more days (or hours) (written at: 3/17 noon NYC time).

  2. Kathleen says:

    “The next ambassador to Israel is Daniel Shapiro, the aide who announced Obama’s Security Council veto was James Steinberg, Dennis Ross is the Middle East envoy, the New Yorker magazine invokes “Jewish values” to oppose the occupation with the secure knowledge that its privileged readers will resonate to the phrase, and when NBC reports on the Arab world, it’s usually Andrea Mitchell and Richard Engel, both Jews, and at CNN it’s Wolf Blitzer… ”

    The other day during Hillary Clintons trip to the middle east Wolf Blitzer was making sure he was in clear view right behind her. Was this intentional I don’t know but it sure seemed to be so. A message I am not sure. But sure was odd that he was making sure his mug shot was clearly in the screen as Clinton spoke.

    And of course Andrea Mitchell seems to have special access on these trips.
    ————————————————————————-
    “I reflect that my journalism career was propelled by many Jewish editor friends (and yes, a few non-Jewish ones too), and our religious identity was important to all of us. Just as Jewish identity was a central element to the neoconservatives, who Jacob Heilbrunn has written were propelled by their ethnic “resentment” against being excluded from prestige positions by the WASPs.”

    Great that you admit this. In the early years of Firedoglake I shared how I had had a conversation with NPR’s Juan Williams (now former employee) when he came to speak and had also been able to ask him a question about former employees at NPR suits against NPR based on “pervasive cronyism” especially in regard to getting to host of NPR’s programs (how many have been or are Jewish now) or in the upper levels of production, management etc. I did get slammed over at FDL for bringing this up. And if people are unaware the I/P issue has bascially been wiped out over there.

    I had also read that NPR had an outside group come in and investigate these claims of “pervasive cronyism” and that there was a report that was the result of this investigation and that report had never been released. Have always wondered about that report.

    May or may not be a surprise to the Jewish population but many “goyim” refer to NPR as National Jewish Radio. There is some truth to this

    • fuster says:

      oh, fersure, Kathleen, fersure there’s some truth to the bigotry of many “goyim”.

      folks in Hymietown are hip to it.

      • Mooser says:

        Gosh, fuster, what a brave, herioc kind of guy you must be, to manage to survive when all that anti-Semitism is directed at you. Please tell us about it!

      • Chaos4700 says:

        You know, this trivializing of yours in the gross imbalance of power, what it does to keep certain ethnic groups like African Americans ground under one’s heel (especially since a lot of them have ancestors who were here in the US before any of ours, yours or mine, fuster) and what it means to grossly skewing foreign and domestic policy to favor the financial and economic whims of said minority (there’s only one country anywhere outside of North America in which a citizen or a corporation can make a “charitable” donation and get a tax deduction, can you name it?)

        It’s not anti-Semitism to point out that Zionists exert executive control both in the mainstream media and in government policy formulation, and that it benefits at tiny minority and a substantial cost to larger groups (and an extreme cost to specific minorities).

    • Yes, Kathleen, among non-Jews I have heard NPR referred to as National Jewish Radio. But more frequently the term I have heard in Middle America is Jewish National Radio. I don’t think that characterization usually is motivated by anti-Semitism; rather, it’s a wry observation on the evidence from the less-privileged 98 per cent.

      I do think the perception that NPR serves mainly Jewish interests was a significant factor in the House vote this week to strip the network of federal funding. Of course, that could not be mentioned anywhere within the Capitol.

  3. annie says:

    When I spoke at Villanova on Monday, a Jewish professor at the school, Dveera Segal, rebuked me for talking about the number of Jews in elite journalism. She said the same kind of talk was a theme of anti-semites. I said, Sorry, but this is my experience, I have to talk about the facts.

    it’s an important discussion and shouldn’t be feared. it isn’t something that is going to suddenly become stagnant. you can guarantee if the situation were reversed and jews felt locked out as they have in the past they wouldn’t be silent about it.

    there’s no stigma attached to calling out discrimination based on ethnicity so why should there be a stigma attached to recognizing favoritism? it is likely favoritism ebbs and flows culturally the way racism does, neither remaining stagnant. this phase of islamphobia will not last forever.

    anyway, great article phil. it’s not like this trend of influential jews in politics and foreign policy can keep growing and growing indefinitely without people noticing or mentioning it. either it (the growth) will level off (no indication of that any time soon) remain stagnant (fat chance) or expand.

    I wonder how much of the Jewish presence in important jobs has to do with Jewish kinship networks, i.e., we discriminated in favor of other Jews.

    quite likely but i think it is more complex than that.

    • Kathleen says:

      “and jews felt locked out as they have in the past they wouldn’t be silent about it. ”
      You bethcha and I respect that.

      • annie says:

        of course. most people feel that way which is why ‘there’s no stigma attached to calling out discrimination based on ethnicity’. but what if a growth in jewish influence led to the point where other ethnicities felt they were left out and they were not silent about it. how do you think that might be received? in a similar fashion?

        • MRW says:

          Annie, it’s going to happen.

        • “… what if a growth in jewish influence led to the point where other ethnicities felt they were left out and they were not silent about it. how do you think that might be received?”

          We are already well past that point for large numbers of Americans. The number of the discomforted or outraged, I’m sure, would be much larger were it not for one significant fact: Most non-Jewish Americans don’t know who among the national media and political luminaries are Jewish and who are not, and so they have no idea how disproportionately huge Jewish representation is. In addition, many Americans (and most foreigners, I think) would be quite surprised to learn that Jews comprise less than 2 per cent of the U.S. population.

          Most Jews, it seems. are well aware of these facts. If most non-Jewish Americans were so well aware, the relative calm which till now has surrounded this issue would no doubt quickly dissipate (in the name of effective democracy based on egalitarianism, not elitism based on ethnicity).

          That is why Phil has been urged to keep quite about it. Thankfully, he continues to express his thoughts, anyway. Among other reasons, I believe, he does it for the long-term good of “his community”.

  4. And, it still is a theme of paleo and neo-fascism.

    Are you sure about the prominence of Jewish elite, in fact? Or, is it an impression based on your personal experience?

    I’m certain that Jews do contribute considerably to political campaigns. They are engaged, they care (from all perspectives).

    I didn’t go to an elite college and didn’t get the benefit of the connections (Jewish and non-Jewish) that Phil and the meritocracy was able to acquire, and have a different experience of Jewish elite representation.

    I think the numbers of individuals in different professions in different locales is proportional to the interest expressed in the issues, to the commitment pursued.

    Phil’s center of gravity is urban New York, where I would expect many prominent Jewish journalists. In upstate New York, I doubt that there are primarily Jewish journalists. In Western Mass that is not the case.

    In Portland, OR (where I got my business degree), it wasn’t the case.

    Many used to talk about Jewish control of banking, when they meant only a few individuals. The large majority of bankers in really any locale are not Jewish.

    • annie says:

      Are you sure about the prominence of Jewish elite, in fact? Or, is it an impression based on your personal experience?

      what do you think might be the cause of so many american jewish ambassadors in europe for example. coincidence? phil’s impression based on personal experience?

      • Statistics Annie. And historical statistics.

        A year or so ago, Phil was writing frequently on the presence of Jews in the Obama inner circle. I wrote to him privately when most of them moved on, to get his comments on the new profile.

        He chose to ignore the question.

        • annie says:

          what do you think might be the cause of so many american jewish ambassadors in europe for example.

          Statistics Annie. And historical statistics.

          come again? could you flush this out a little further. i fear i’m missing the thrust of your argument.

        • fuster says:

          gee, annie, I posted that stormfront and jewwatch were the sites offering to explain why people with Jewish-sounding names were in ambassadorial positions.

          a simple google search for an answer to your question turned up those two sites in the first, second, third and fourth positions.

          answers to your question are obtainable over there if you can handle visiting them.

        • Phil is stating that per his experience, there are more than proportional Jews in the press, government.

          Is it the case in fact? Or, is it limited to a small circle, and misrepresentative of the whole?

          And, then, so what? (A new question.)

        • fuster says:

          Witty

          If Philip thinks that there are too many Jewish journalists, he has the ability to do a little something to lower the number.

          I don’t think that he’s concerned about the number of journalists who are Jewish, just those that he thinks fail to agree with his own opinions.

          It’s sort of like the black Michigan basketball players calling the black who are recruited to play for Duke “Uncle Toms”.

        • annie says:

          And, then, so what?

          we just chalk it up to eee’s probability theory, jews value education. makes perfect sense, no?

        • Cliff says:

          as a rule of thumb, you should ignore anything eee says based on the fact that he once said he was conducting some sort of experiment/research project by commenting here (and repeatedly calling us cultists while the guy himself is a rabid Zio like every other Zio).

          annie, you’re nice but you waste your time and energy feeding trolls like the frog/eee

        • annie says:

          fuster, i suggest a little trip over to the hasbara handbook, pg 22. the first topic listed under “seven basic propaganda devices” is name calling. name calling may sound like it’s calling people names but it’s more nuanced than that.

          Through careful choice of words, the name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try to get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative connotation, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea. the most common example is name calling -” they are a neo-nazi group” tends to sound pretty negative to most people.

          your handlers must be proud.

        • annie says:

          It’s sort of like the black Michigan basketball players calling the black who are recruited to play for Duke “Uncle Toms”.

          oh, more name calling. way to divert the topic and slander at the same time! good work fuster!

        • fuster says:

          the handlers are not impressed, annie.

          they think that I should find someone, how shall I say this………

        • annie says:

          annie, you’re nice but you waste your time and energy feeding trolls like the frog/eee

          actually i find it interesting the amount of effort going into silencing discussion of any perceived favoritism of jewish americans in the establishment. it seems the Jewish professor’s response ( Dveera Segal,theme of anti-semites) is fairly standard.

          i wonder if just screaming anti semite will suffice over the long haul? are people not supposed to notice? after all it’s perfectly acceptable for david brooks to blather all over the nyt how successful jews are but nobody is allowed to examine the long term impact that might have on american politics or american journalism or american foreign policy or elections or…anything presumably. other than just saying everything is dandy and flowing along marvelously.

          okkkkkayyyyy

          weird.

  5. eee says:

    If American Jews are 20% of Ivy League student bodies, why wouldn’t they be over represented in elite jobs and institutions? Are these universities showing favoritism?

    Just pointing at the fact that Jews are prevalent in certain occupations or institution is pure antisemitism. The Jews are prevalent in these places because these places hire mostly Ivy League graduates and therefore a large number of Jews. If you want a serious discussion, discuss why there are so many Jews in the Ivy League student bodies, before starting to hint at “favoritism”.

    • annie says:

      i get it. jews are just smarter than the rest of us, and not acknowledging that is anti semitic. thanks for the heads up eee.

      • fuster says:

        not smarter, annie. better educated….Jews long were the most highly educated group in the US…..

        they were only displaced from that position in the late 90s, when the most highly educated group in the country was found to be………….
        Palestinians.

        • annie says:

          not smarter, annie. better educated….Jews long were the most highly educated group in the US…..

          i’m sure that also explains why asian americans are over represented in positions of influence….oh wait, they’re not!

        • fuster says:

          annie, Asian-Americans most certainly will be in a decade or two.

        • eee says:

          Asian Americans will be over represented in positions of influence in the future. They have just not been over represented in the elite job candidate pool as many years as Jews.

        • annie says:

          another ‘most certainly’ answer eh. impressive/not.

        • annie says:

          They have just not been over represented in the elite job candidate pool as many years as Jews.

          oh please

        • fuster says:

          no prob, annie. I’m not interested in impressing you. my remarks are for a wider readership rather than just for yourself.

        • Cliff says:

          by wider readership, the frog means him and eee the IDF goon

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Methinks Kermit is schmoozing up to a strategy that isn’t ever going to be kosher.

          You’re not relevant anymore, fuster. I’m guessing you haven’t been for decades.

        • Mooser says:

          “are for a wider readership rather than just for yourself.”

          Blogger is free, and so are many other blog services. Trying to hijack another Jew’s blog is typical of Zionist parasites.

          The amazing thing is how fuster keeps his “wider readership” from crouding the Mondoweiss comment section with praise and agreement with his positions. Maybe fuster is modest and told them not to.

        • Mooser says:

          “my remarks are for a wider readership rather than just for yourself.”

          “A wider readership”? You write for the obese? Please, please tell us more of this “wider readership”. I know, you have a large disabled readership, poor folks, can’t use their hands to log in and support your views. Very compassionate of you.

        • fuster says:

          I write for those with a big well-spread set of antlers.

          link to image22.webshots.com

        • annie says:

          what image are you linking to fuster and are you sure it is a site available to anyone or is it private?

          Forbidden

          You don’t have permission to access /22/8/45/98/198084598LwBHYf_ph.jpg on this server.

        • annie says:

          by wider readership, the frog means him and eee the IDF goon

          no actually he doesn’t cliff. someone sent me a link this evening. this very conversation and fuster’s use of the tactics i pointed out in the hasbara handbook are being used months later as proof of what a vile anti semitic site this is over @ dkos, today.

          i welcome their scrutiny. this is a great site and it is growing. their rhetoric is what’s toxic, accusing people (me specifically and others) of jew hatred. the conversation is passing them by as they screech to contain it.

          pathetic.

          also note w/rare exception the pro p posters didn’t even engage them, didn’t even show up for their hatefest.

      • eee says:

        What you don’t get is simple probability theory. If I randomly pick people from a pool consisting of 20% Jews and 80% gentiles, of course Jews will be over represented relative to the their size in the population which is only 2%. No favoritism is needed whatsoever to create this over representation.

        So, what you need to do is explain why the student body of Ivy League schools is 20% Jews. Because the over representation in the elite schools explains the over representation everywhere else. So, what is your explanation? Is it favoritism at these schools?

        • annie says:

          i don’t need to explain anything, it’s your theory.

        • eee says:

          What theory? Do you really not understand that since Jews are over represented in the candidate pool for elite jobs they are over represented in elite jobs? This is a fact, not a theory. Why won’t you address the question why they are over represented in the candidate pool? Because it might change your views?

        • annie says:

          what theory? this one:

          What you don’t get is simple probability theory.
          …………….

          Do you really not understand that since Jews are over represented in the candidate pool for elite jobs they are over represented in elite jobs?

          i understand your theory, i’m just not sure i agree with it. let’s take wall street. for your theory to be applicable jews would represent around 20% of those in influential positions?

          do they?

        • annie says:

          do you think your theory also applies to jewish americans in influential positions in journalism? 20% you posit ? education probability theory?

          you’re the one positioned to support your theories, not me.

        • eee says:

          Annie,

          What evasion by you and Phil. You think there is a problem with Jewish over representation? You want to talk about it? Fine. You need to show that Jews are over represented more than what it is expected by the fact that they are over represented in the candidate pool for these jobs. YOU need to show that they are in positions in Wall street and other places more than one would expect even though they are ten times more over represented in the candidate pool. Just throwing anecdotal evidence around and hinting at favoritism is just plain low.

          You are also trying to avoid the simple question: Why are Jews over represented in the elite schools’ student bodies? If you want an honest conversation please take the lead. Why can’t you be honest about this critical question of the discussion? The “privilege” of the Jews comes directly from their over representation in the elite schools’ student body. So, shall we discuss this issue or not?

        • annie says:

          You think there is a problem with Jewish over representation? You want to talk about it? Fine.

          excuse me? where do you come up w/this stuff. what problem?

          You are also trying to avoid the simple question: Why are Jews over represented in the elite schools’ student bodies?

          i never said jews were over represented in elite schools, that is your argument. seriously eee, i think you need to reread the thread.

        • annie says:

          another thing eee. you say i’m evading your theory although when i asked you questions about your theory ( does it also apply to influence in wall street and journalism) you don’t respond to them. then you launch into some hypothetical about what i’m thinking completely unsourced and unsupported and claim i need to provide evidence. you make claims jews are ‘ten times more over represented in the candidate pool’ while acknowledging they are 20% of the educated pool. that’s 1 in 5. so how does that make them 10 times over represented in the candidate pool?

          really, you’re all over the map here. if you posit jews are influential based on their scholarship (20% of the educated pool) then it would stand to reason they would make up 20% of the most influential sought after positions.

          i really don’t know if that pans out. it’s not anything i’ve looked into. like i said, it’s your theory. something tells me david brooks would put that number a little higher although brooks didn’t address wall street or journalism. hmmmm. wonder why?

          it could be non jews are just not very ambitious?

        • eee says:

          If Jews are 2% of the population, 1 in 50, but in the top school graduates they are 20%, 1 in 5, they are 10 times over represented in the candidate pool for elite jobs. What is so difficult to understand?

          Now, if in some area the Jews are actually 15% or 30% that is not that surprising anymore because the relevant number is 20% not 2%.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          I think what’s difficult to understand, eee, is why. Why do Jews get placement over and above African Americans, Hispanics and similar significantly larger minorities?

          All this crap about how you guys suffer so much anti-Semitism? It’s bullshit. Discrimination is when a 15% minority clings to a 2% representation, as with African Americans.

        • Mooser says:

          “eee” don’t worry. At the rate Israel and Zionism is going, Jewish dominance and elite position in American society will be over soon.
          Isn’t that what you want? After all, all those Jews will have to move to Israel!

          Face it “eee” and “fuster” and the rest: you aren’t qualified to comment on these things, since the alienation of Jews from American society is what you hope for every day.
          Or maybe a nice balance where the prominence of American Jews is held hostage to Israel’s needs?

      • pabelmont says:

        Not ack’ing that Jews a re smarter is anti-Sem, but stating it is even worse anti-Sem. Phil is being blamed by the name-callers for ack’ing the predominance of Jewish ambassadors or press. Heads you lose, tails you lose. Don’t characterize Jews, it’s anti-Sem. But somehow it’s OK for the Zios to claim to speak for all the Jews, and they (who define what’s anti-Sem) don’t call THAT anti-Sem. go figure.

    • Danaa says:

      Regarding jewish people in Ivy league, two more pieces of information may be handy:

      1. In Harvard alone, the percentage among undergraduate according to one survey was closer to 32%. Over 20% are Asian (Chinese, Indians, etc, but this last percentage I am not o sure about because of the vagueness in the poll I read). In graduate school, a huge percentage are foreigner, whose governments pay their tuitions. I do not have a survey about how many graduate students are Jewish ancestry, but am sure it’s quite large.
      2. The full cost of tuition, fees and board at Harvard has just reached $52,000./year. Even with partial scholarship that leaves a substantial amount of 10′s of K to be paid out of pocket.

      They say that the breakdown statistics of any given social situation tell 90% of the story. In the case of harvard at least, it’s closer to 95%.

      Of course, the story of education in the US is complicated. For example, just how many people from rural parts of the country get to go to Harvard? my guess is that it’s under 0.5% as it would require probably 90% scholarship. Is there no merit in the students of the heartland?

      Having been in both super-tech, ultra-urban and deep rural places (one of each, for extended periods) and having taught students in each, I could not but notice the extreme divergence in opportunities as well as recognition of merit. Yet, I did get to know one [good] student whose family lived on an isolated ranch and which, improbably (and uncharacteristically) happened to be Jewish. He was the one student who had relatives in the east coast who helped him through the steps of applying for scholarships (and he did transfer to an east coast school (not harvard)). Three other students in the same class were even better performers but no one (other than myself) bothered to expose them to opportunities elsewhere. Yet, in my judgement, they were just as meritorious and industrious as comparable students in Silicon Valley who did successfully get into “top notch” universities.

      That’s how kinship and networks work in the real world. You be the judge a to how much of a meritocracy it is when a country’s opportunities are there but only for those few who know people who know other people, which at the very least means living in urban, well-to-do parts of the country.

      Exercise for eee: just how many journalists in the top papers of record hail from Texas? or Louisiana? or, to make it really tough – Nebraska? can anyone come up with the name of a single reporter at NYT or WaPo from Nebraska? how about South carolina?

      • Philip Weiss says:

        Thank you Danaa this is greatly appreciated and another dimension.

        • fuster says:

          a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          That’s perfect, coming from the man with the twilight mind.

        • Mooser says:

          Chaos, be nice! Remember “fuster” has a “wider readership” which he communicates with through this blog.

        • annie says:

          after reading Military’s ‘sock puppet’ software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
          i’m becoming more and more convinced we’ve been the guinea pigs for this project.

          The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

          A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

          ….

          The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations “without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries”.

          Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: “The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US.”

          i’ve speculated before some of the ziobots seem computer generated, now i’m convinced!

        • Sumud says:

          i’ve speculated before some of the ziobots seem computer generated, now i’m convinced!

          Well annie you remember the spectacular blitzkrieg launched by “Shamir” almost a year ago on Mondoweiss – 40 comments dropped in an hour, some quite long – that was definitely an “alpha” version of bot software, as was “DavidSiden” and a third avatar whose name I can’t remember now.

          The Guardian article you link to says:

          Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: “The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US.”

          He said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to “address US audiences” with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed.

          Even if they start off with only countering “violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US” mission creep will have them operating inside the US in English in no time at all. Once the Prez has reserved for himself the right to have Americans killed without due process or judicial oversight, the military are hardly going to lose sleep about using bots on Americans for propaganda purposes.

        • annie says:

          even if the US gov doesn’t do it directly it doesn’t mean ‘private interests’ can’t.

          oh yes, how could i forget shamir. those were back in the pre mod days.

        • jewishgoyim says:

          Amazing stuff! Thanks.

      • fuster says:

        RW Apple was the most prestigious reporter on the New York Times for decades.

        Bob Woodward from illinois

        Anthony Shadid is the most celebrated of the current crop of reporters and comes from Oklahoma.

      • eee says:

        Danaa,

        What is your point? Jews are concentrated on the coasts where the also the majority of best schools are found. So? Any person, Jewish or not, has a higher chance to go to one of these schools if he is from the coasts. It is not surprising that Jews are over represented in these colleges just as it is not surprising that Mormons are over represented in Utah universities.

        And let’s assume that the US is not a meritocracy. Is that the fault of the Jews, a mere 2% of the population? What are you trying to say?

        The rich are privileged in the US. Heck, they are privileged all over the world. And the Jews that are rich are also privileged in the US. The poor Jews are not. It is a class issue, not a Jewish issue as Phil tries to formulate it. It is not Jews that are privileged, it is rich Jews that are privileged. And why would that be surprising?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Any person, Jewish or not, has a higher chance to go to one of these schools if he is from the coasts.

          There are plenty of Hispanics and African Americans who live on the coast. So why aren’t there plenty of Hispanic and African American ivy league graduates?

        • Danaa says:

          So eee, how many really poor poor Jews do you know*?

          And how many poor wasps (let’s not even count Appalachians or ‘white trailer trash’)

          Next question: how large would you say is the legacy pool at Harvard? (hint: if you said 10% you’d be wrong, but keep guessing)

          And on to the final mystery of mysteries: Harvard’s acceptance rate currently stands at 7%. For those who indicate they need financial assistance it is even lower and is skewed towards certain minorities (not meaning Jewish or anything too white, of course – they do need some diversity!). So let’s say your name is Larry Johnson from a middle class family in Philadelphia, with English as a first language, a perfect 4.5 GPA, 6 AP classes, tennis prizes galore and a great essay telling of much commendable community service in Costa Rica helping poor farmers rebuild their huts. Then let’s say your name is David Brandeis or Matt Cohen also from Philadelphia with the same excellent records. Now let’s consider that poor admissions officer staring at a pile of superb applicants, each a veritable treasure in every way…. In desperation say he/she just happens to notice the letters or comments from David or Matt’s cousins or uncles who -coincidence of coincidences – happen to be Harvard graduates (or better still, Yale). Or it could be an aunt who is lawyer in a certain firm known for generosity towards their employee alma matters, etc. Whose name do you think gets pulled out of the pile of 1000′s of equally excellent over-achieving applicants, all with 4.5GPAs and stacks of commendations to become one of the lucky 7%?

          Of course, I do know a few Jewish people who applied to harvard and didn’t get in. Though come to think of it, they always seemed to be short of a couple of key attributes….I mean, Harvard is competitive…. (even for Jews and wasps).

          Now I realize that going through my little scenario requires some imagination on your part, eee. Give it the old college try though, won’t you?
          _____________
          *OK, other than some ultra-orthodox who choose not to work and live off their wives’s or parents’ hard labor – though nothing quite like in Israel, I admit, where parasitic existence is far better tolerated than in the US. Yes, I know what you are going to say Mooser. Don’t worry, me not rich either (which may be a good thing given that unlike eee, imagination I have, and that could be dangerous, so just as well…)

        • annie says:

          In desperation say he/she just happens to notice the letters or comments from David or Matt’s cousins or uncles who -coincidence of coincidences – happen to be Harvard graduates (or better still, Yale).

          who offer to make a generous donation to their alma mater!

        • fuster says:

          Danaa, where you living?

          poverty rates for Jews in New York City are high in the outer boroughs, even without counting the ultras in Brooklyn.
          the declared poverty rates for those lying sons of sea cooks are absurd, but for the rest of Brooklyn’s Jews the rates are higher than for the Bronx and Queens and the

          poverty rates for Jews in the Bronx and Queens run higher than the overall average for the city’s population and have been for long years.

        • Mooser says:

          “Yes, I know what you are going to say Mooser”

          You know it, Danaa! My continued existence is indeed proof that parsitism is alive and well in the good old USA. But look, I’m quite a bit older than my wife, and she’ll have alot to look forward to when she finally says “Free at last, Thank God Almighty, Free at last!”

    • Todd says:

      “Are these universities showing favoritism? ”

      The whole system of university admissions is open to favoritism, when rigging isn’t mandated by law. I don’t know how often Jews benefit from unfair standards, but to claim that admissions are based on merit alone is wrong.

      No matter what the truth is about admissions, the nation is being horribly managed by our Ivy League grads, no matter who they are. If Jews are the new WASPs, as Phil claims, they take the position in name only. Education and titles aside, these poeple aren’t very good at what they are doing.

      • annie says:

        wall street has been a real disappointment. if they’re pooling primarily from the ivy leagues maybe the should try some other outlets. something tells me some ho dunk business schools in the middle of nowhere could have done a better job over the last decade.

        • Keith says:

          ANNIE- “wall street has been a real disappointment. if they’re pooling primarily from the ivy leagues maybe the should try some other outlets. something tells me some ho dunk business schools in the middle of nowhere could have done a better job over the last decade.”

          If you think that our financial problems are the result of ineptitude, you need to think again. These guys know exactly what they are doing. “The (bank) bailouts have contributed to financing the restructuring of the banking system, leading to a massive concentration of wealth and centralization of banking power.” (Michel Chossudovsky, “The Global Economic Crisis”). Others have described this as the greatest upward transfer of wealth in all of recorded history. This is all part of what is known as neo-liberal globalization, part of which is to include IMF type structural adjustment for the US and other First World countries (This is what is happening in Wisconsin, Greece, Ireland, etc).

        • annie says:

          i don’t think it is a result of intellectual ineptitude keith, i think it is a result of bad morals. my point was that we’d be better off having people of lessor intellectual prowess or educational background influencing financial markets than those who are morally corrupt. economics isn’t rocket science although i admit it takes a certain element of creativity to bring a superpower to it’s knees in decade. it’s just not the kind of creativity i wish to emulate tho.

        • pabelmont says:

          How long would those farm-girls keep their jobs at the banks and hedge funds if they didn’t keep a steely eye on big profits? How long? Not long!

    • MRW says:

      Just pointing at the fact that Jews are prevalent in certain occupations or institution is pure antisemitism.

      It is not anti-semitism if it is the truth.

      • Mooser says:

        “Just pointing at the fact that Jews are prevalent in certain occupations or institution is pure antisemitism.”

        Ah, no wonder Zionists are always saying that Rabbis who don’t conform to their opinions aren’t really Jewish! Just trying to avoid anti-semitism!
        But then didn’t “eee” tell us yesterday that an awful lot of Jews aren’t really Jewish? Gotta admire such a staunch fighter against anti-semitism!

  6. fuster says:

    eee, maybe before you answer any more questions from annie, you ought to ask a few.

    where does she get information about how many US ambassadors are Jewish?

    why is she interested in that particular thing?

    • annie says:

      where does she get information about how many US ambassadors are Jewish?

      why is she interested in that particular thing?

      well, it’s very difficult for you to comprehend why this topic might even occur to me today right here right now in this thread but i think if you concentrate carefully you might even come around to understand my train of thought. it requires an open mind tho. here goes:

      often time on the internet the comment sections are related to the post. generally (but not always as is commonly the case here with particular posters) people read the posts, and then comment. so, when topics come up in the comment section first and formost try *reviewing the post and see if the topic is broached in the original post.

      (*top of page)

    • Cliff says:

      frog, stop acting like the ethno-religious component is non-existent.

      it matters, it’s not dna, it’s sociological.

      you wana call someone antisemitic, do it then, plain and simple then be on your merry way

      annie isn’t going anywhere, because SINCERE people like Phil – know her and know she’s not a hater

      you are dishonest and shallow

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Oh my gosh! Fuster is siding with eee?! What a surprising turn of events!

    • MRW says:

      why is she interested in that particular thing?

      (1) annie is American.
      (2) Elliott Abrams, 1997: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart-except in Israel- from the rest of the population.”
      (3) annie is American and has every right to question influence.

      • Mooser says:

        “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live.” Elliot Abrams.

        And he followed up with: ‘ So listen lantsmen, stay the hell out of Vietnam, let the American Gentiles die there. Sure, the Air Force is elite, but we’ve decided to give that to the Evangelicals.(Google: Mike Wienstein)” So stand apart, brethren!’

  7. yourstruly says:

    conversely black & latinos & rural dwellers are underrepresented at the top

    why is this?

    socioeconomic, inadequate networks, dna or what?

    affirmative action helped somewhat, but became unpopular with some and was quashed

    putting more resources into urban and rural public schools would help, but the current frenzy about lowering the oublic debt by cutting budgets precludes this

    meanwhile the rich continue to get richer, the poor poorer

    and the median income for us jews remains way above the mean

    rendering higher education more affordable

    how to level the playing field for education?

    same as in leveling the field for income, health care, pensions, protecting the environment

    the american equivalent of those magical eighteen days in liberation square

    perpetual revolution

    by popular demand

  8. Mooser says:

    I think what Phil is questioning is not the number of Jews in elite position. He is questioning whether those Jews, and their elite positions will always make themselves compliant to Zionist demands. Or whether Jews will be able to keep that elite status if they are seen as, or demonstrably act in Zionism’s interest instead of America’s interest.
    Whether Jews will go forward, or waste all the progress they have made in America by shilling and lying for Zionism.
    And again, we can’t trust anything Zionists have to say about this; nothing would make them happier then any wedge they could place between America and the Jews who live here.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      Or rather, is it possible for Jews to reach elite status without a record of Zionism.

      Of all the Jewish billionaires I’m aware of (not being good at Jew-spotting) the only one opposing the Zionist establishment is George Soros, and look what’s happened to him. 9 out of 10 Zionists would pardon Hitler, like Barabbas, and put Soros up on the cross in his stead.

    • MRW says:

      And again, we can’t trust anything Zionists have to say about this; nothing would make them happier then any wedge they could place between America and the Jews who live here.

      There’s a lot of wisdom in this. Because there is a two-tier system for Jews (at the very least). There is the regular one (just like all the other schmoes who live here) then there is the power group, who perceive their power, who know the effect of their money, and who only deal with certain people or groups and treat the rest (including the Jews who don’t count) as after-dinner cruft.

      • Mooser says:

        “Because there is a two-tier system for Jews (at the very least).”

        Think of the treatment of “black” and Arab Jews in Israel. Zionism has no scruples at all about using racism, even within Judaism, toward it’s ends.

    • “I think what Phil is questioning is not the number of Jews in elite position. He is questioning whether … Jews will be able to keep that elite status if they are seen as, or demonstrably act in Zionism’s interest instead of America’s interest.”

      That’s how I read his post, also. And I certainly would agree that it’s a legitimate concern.

      But it’s not the only concern I would have about the matter if I were Jewish, and I think (based on some of his previous posts) that probably it’s not Phil’s only concern.

      America is a land with two dominant political ideals: liberty and equality, the two being in constant tension with one another. Equality or egalitarianism, in this context, mainly means equality of opportunity, which faces inherent limitations because of the emphasis placed on the opposing ideal – freedom. Jews, perhaps more than any other American group, have been able to exploit both of these social ideals to their advantage.

      For example, in the first half of the 20th Century, American Jews were able to knock down barriers to unrestricted levels of entry to elite universities by appealing to the notion of equality. In the second half of the century, they were able to appeal to the ideal of freedom to gain extreme over-representation in those elite universities, as well as in elite media and political circles.

      As a result, as Phil frequently notes, Jews (about 1.8% of the population) have become the new American establishment, replacing the unmeritorious “wasps” (about 50% of the people).

      So why is this a potential problem for American Jews, regardless of whether they continue to embrace Zionism, with prejudice to the interests of the country which one would presume they regard as their homeland?

      I am confident that every American Jew knows why, in and of itself, extreme Jewish over-representation in the corridors of power is an intrinsic problem – not least for the American Jewish community. If you still don’t get it, let me know and I will explain it in terms of one of those inbred democratic ideals of this country: egalitarianism. It has nothing directly to do with anti-Semitism.

      • annie says:

        good comment thomson

      • Danaa says:

        Agreed. Well put argument. TR. Won’t you care to elaborate in a longer post?

        • fuster says:

          yeah, Rutherford really should try to explain some of the assumptions in that thing.

          it would be . . . very interesting.

      • Mooser says:

        TR, you have also got to think of this: who are the elite Jews non-Jewish contemporaries (since Jews did certainly not displace the WASPS completely) in replacing the WASPS? Well, what do you know, turns out those WASPS, sure they were replaced by Jews, but along with the Jews, as far as I can see the WASPS have been replaced by right-wing reactionaries, outright wanna-be facists, all kinds Gentile religious scammers and kooks, and now, know nothings and the Tea Party schmucks. That is the water these elite Jews are swimming in, and just as at one time their was a reciprocity of opinions between these (by comparison) liberal WASPS, and now there is reciprocity of opinion between the Jews and the new elite with which they work.

        Frankly, it’s horrifying.

        But again, all the crap from the trolls is a distraction, Phil is not questioning the number of Jews in influential positions, he is questioning what they are doing with that influence, or if they even wish to acknoeledge it. After all, it’s so much easier to just adhere to the myth of the persecuted or un-influential Jew. I gather that Phil might say that is an evasion, Jews must acknowledge who they are in America, and what they plan to do with it.
        But as I said, given the other people in which the latest influential Jews move it looks pretty bad.

        • Mooser says:

          Sure Phil. It’s just that, well, you are a complicated man, and nobody understands you but your woman. The kind of man who would risk his life for his brother-man. A cat that won’t cop out, when there’s danger all about.
          You remind me of somebody, but I can’t quite think who it is.

        • eee says:

          Jews in America are individuals. What each Jew does in his position is his problem and responsibility. “The Jews” as a group do not need to acknowledge anything or explain their “plans”. Your argument Mooser is just a subtle “Protocols of Zion” type of argument. How sad that you and Phil cannot even see that.

        • annie says:

          you are sending out mixed messages eee. you just said The fact is that Hillel represents Jews on campuses because more Jews join it than any other organization. That gives the right to Hillel to speak in their name.

          that was 10 minutes before you claim Jews in America are individuals. What each Jew does in his position is his problem and responsibility.

          so do jews speak individually or does hillel have the ‘right’ to speak for them?

        • Todd says:

          It sounds like you are claiming that Jews are the only sane and intelligent group vying for influence in the U.S. Some of your characterizations are unfair. The “religious kooks” are often heavily influenced by, or involved with, Zionist Jewish kooks and actual fascists. The Tea Party is largely a movement of middle and upper-middle class tax protesters with enough money to be tax targets, but not enough money to be of use to politicians, and has been so since the early days of the movement. Sure the movement has been co-opted to a degree as it has grown, but the fact that it is disorganized while growing shouldn’t be a surprise.

          I guess the “reactionaries and wanna-be fascists” are whites who don’t like immigration supporters within the government and MSM who state outright that whites are to be displaced for no good reason, without a vote, and largely illegally–and legally discriminated against through affirmative action until the displacement is official. Who would react against that?

          The fact remains that the Jewish elites are not doing a very good job for most Americans. I seriously doubt that America will be a more prosperous, law-abiding or tranquil place 30 years from now.

          I don’t see how America can exist as it does far into the future, yet we are supposed to safeguard Israel and affirm its right to exist as a Jewish state. Something is clearly rotten in the state of America.

        • eee says:

          What exactly do you not understand? If a Jew joins Hillel, he gives Hillel a right to speak in his name. No one is forcing Jews to join. If you don’t agree with its views, start another organization. I am not aware of one, so obviously Jews that want to be affiliated with Jewish organizations on campus support Hillel’s views. Otherwise, there would be an alternative.

          What organization are the Jewish supreme judges part off? Or the Jews in the State Department? Or on Wall Street? They are individuals and not part of any group.

        • fuster says:

          annie, an association with a very large membership voluntarily entered into and a published mission statement might have a representational role.

        • Thanks for your engaging reply above, Mooser. I trust that you did not mean to apply that elastic term, “troll”, to yours truly.

          Noticing that Phil commended your remarks with a “Thxs”, I assume that he thinks your interpretation of his post was more accurate than mine. So I am all the more intrigued by the differences in our expressed opinions. Basically, I think that it boils down to different views on the relative merits of elitism versus egalitarianism as the basis for establishment of a healthy social order. IMHO, diversity is a definite social good, while claims for “meritocracy” are mostly a red herring serving (in the case of Jews) to provide cover for privilege derived from tribal affiliations.

          It is a topic I would love to pursue further with you and others, but I think this comment is going to land at the bottom of the thread (for some damn reason) and so will lose its connection to the antecedents. Maybe we can pick up the thoughts later.

        • annie says:

          obviously Jews that want to be affiliated with Jewish organizations on campus support Hillel’s views.

          there are jews that want to be affiliated with jewish organizations on campus who do not support hillel’s views, like the ones who join jewish voices for peace. you made the claim earlier Hillel represents Jews on campuses because more Jews join it than any other organization. That gives the right to Hillel to speak in their name.

          what if i said to you the democratic party represents students on campuses because more students join it than any other organization. That gives the right to the democratic party to speak in their name?

          that’s how wacky you sound. you can’t even give me numbers to confirm 1/2 the jewish students on berkeley campus are members of hillel. in fact you have not linked to one hillel site that lists how many members it has on american campuses.

          students do not pay a membership fee, it is all free. maybe hillel automatically lists all the jewish students amongst their ranks whether they sign up or not. why no mention of enrollment?

          you should back up some of your claims before you go around claiming hillel represents all the jews on campus.

        • fuster says:

          annie, that’s all terrible.

          Hillel membership is voluntary and not automatic and Hillel doesn’t represent all Jewish kids on campus, but it’s swell to think that Jewish Voices for Peace has 5% the membership that Hillel has.

        • annie says:

          Hillel doesn’t represent all Jewish kids on campus

          there you go, making sense again.

          it’s swell to think that Jewish Voices for Peace has 5% the membership that Hillel has.

          jvp is a relatively new organization and only has chapters on a few campuses. it also doesn’t have outside funding of upwards 100 million a year unlike hillel. but more importantly hillel has primarily functioned as a social as opposed to political organization. also, are you ballparking on that 5% or do you have any figures?

        • Potsherd2 says:

          If the site had decent software with threading, we could actually follow these discussions.

  9. RoHa says:

    A side note. The ADL wants flight attendants to be trained in Judaism.

    link to desertpeace.wordpress.com

    Of course, principles of equity would suggest that flight attendants should be trained in the practices of all religions!

    Good sense would suggest that people keep all their stupid religions on the ground. I do not relish the thought of flying in a plane with Buddhists chanting, Molokan Holy Rollers speaking in tongues, and Catholic priests holding a Mass.

    (I’ll make an exception for those Voodoo ceremonies that involve a great deal of rum and lissom young women doing wild, abandoned, dances. As long as they don’t sacrifice chickens.)

    • Mooser says:

      “I’ll make an exception for those….”

      Nah, I wanna be on a flight with a mass Gospel choir, a couple of great lead singers and a hot band. The tambourines will be distributed as soon as the “seat belts” light goes off. How American Jews, who figure so prominently in American popular music, did not see the absolute necessity of adopting Jazz and Blues into Jewish liturgical music I’ll never understand.

    • Mooser says:

      “A side note. The ADL wants flight attendants to be trained in Judaism.”

      Absolutely necessary, and quite useful when dealing with passengers:
      “What? Another drink you want? So you should get off the plane in New York, and your Mother-in-law will think you’re a schvitzer?
      Your wife should be ashamed of you? Oh, you’re not married? Why don’t you give my niece a call when we land? Such a nice girl and “all three”, too! You’re not getting any younger you know!”

  10. Potsherd2 says:

    How much explosive could you stuff into one of those little boxies?

    I mean, is this a credible threat?

  11. fuster says:

    you’ve heard of suitcase nukes?

    you assemble ten of those tefillen …….

  12. chris o says:

    It’s funny because I just heard a Planet Money report on NPR and it was excellent as usual. But as Siegel introduces Blumberg or was it Goldstein, and I thought: Are all those Planet Money people Jewish? How can I tell anyway, by name? What is that worth? But of course you have the double-barrel stereotype here, Money and Media.

    I think the Jewish focus on education has served them very well in this meritocracy (their skin tone doesn’t hurt, either). But on the other hand, I really don’t care if someone is Jewish of Muslim or Russian or Guinean. But Planet Moneydoes great work, that’s for sure.

    • Mooser says:

      “(their skin tone doesn’t hurt, either).”

      Maybe for some. Most Gentiles who meet me ask me if I’ll get over the hepatitis. I don’t stop traffic, but it tends to slow down.

  13. dbroncos says:

    “Are you sure about the prominence of Jewish elite, in fact? Or, is it an impression based on your personal experience?”

    Good questions Richard. The problem is that people are vilified for even asking these questions much less offering answers based on personal impressions or exhaustive research.

  14. Unless the presence of Jewish individuals in elite positions prohibits others from achieving, then the ethnic composition is a distraction, entirely irrelevant.

    There is NO useful purpose to its fixation.

    If 20% of positions are held by Jews at Harvard say, that does NOT prohibit others’ meritocratic entry (“Club” or not, another fascist theme that really does NOT represent what occurs in academia, which the VAST majority of time and energy is literally collegial, content based.)

    It should be a concensus of the room, every room, that that is irrelevant.

    • Danaa says:

      RW, please look at my post above which attempts to illustrate just how over-dominance of one ethnic group CAN and DOES prevent others from achieving, say admittance to certain colleges. It does not have to be any overt discrimination, a la “oh, it’s a Wasp”. It doesn’t involve open exclusion, not collectively and not even on an individual level. But denial of opportunity often comes couched in merit. Which is why there was affirmative action in the first place (see Thomson Rutherford’s posts above).

      The way it works, I think, is that when the percentage of any one group in an exclusive organization gets over a certain critical mass, a comfort zone is EFFECTIVELY created that invisibly and even unconsciously provides preference to more members of the same group. That is how a Madarin class is made, be it the Chinese in Malaysia or the Jews in the US. If I had more time I would love to elaborate on this kind of process (heaven forbid – my posts are already way too long…).

      As for Harvard, that 20% you refer to (wish someone would provide a link – I have a higher number from my sources) means that some who were just as meritorious did not get in. That’s how it works for any institute that can pick and choose from a pool of equally highly qualified applicants. The differences among the top 30% of the applicant pool to Harvard are no doubt minute. All sorts of considerations must be therefore brought in to bear in selecting the lucky 7% who are admitted. And those can no longer be only merit based, because that consideration alone cannot provide a sufficiently fine sieve through which to sort the qualifications.

      There was a book or two, I believe, written by people who were privy to admission considerations in exclusive schools. Wish I could recall the authors, but I’ll try and find them, now that I delved a bit into the subject. I do recall that one of the books was popular in the bay area since it was used to construct arguments pro and con the disproportionate share of Asians in the UC flag ships, Berkeley and UCLA.

      In the meantime, Witty, how about a different set of numbers to consider? just how many of the presidents of Ivy league schools are Jewish, you think? and what percentage of Harvard faculty is Jewish? and if you come and tell me that too is all about merit, then I have 10 acres of prime moon land to sell you. After you find the numbers come back and we’ll talk some more about privilege.

      • annie says:

        your posts are not too long for my taste danaa, just too few and far between.

      • eee says:

        Danaa,

        You assume that in the top 30% pool of applicants to Harvard the Jews make up only 2% of the pool. But of course that is wrong, the Jews end up being 20% of Harvard because they are over represented in the top 30% pool. They are 20% of that pool and that is why they end up 20% of the student body. No favoritism, very simple.

        You are just evading the fundamental question: Why are Jews over represented in the pool of top candidates to elite schools in the US?

        • annie says:

          You assume that in the top 30% pool of applicants to Harvard the Jews make up only 2% of the pool.

          source. i’m not seeing where danaa makes this assumption or any point she makes relying on it.

        • eee says:

          Annie,

          Fact: 20% of elite school student bodies are Jews.

          Your explanation: favoritism
          My explanation: the pool of eligible candidates to elite schools consists of 20% Jews so the result is as expected

          Now, which explanation makes more sense given the scrutiny under which admission officers work?

  15. Mooser says:

    Once again, what scares Richard and his ilk is not how many Jews there are in influential positions, a fact which under a different argument they would be(and have been) the first to trumpet!
    No, what scares them is that Jews may use their positions to benefit America first, and not Israel.

    • eee says:

      Really Mooser, what is your argument? That the brightest Jews are hoodwinked by the less smart ones??? Or that the brightest Jews are really stupid and therefore are Zionists?

      • Mooser says:

        Ah, “eee” I can see you have been following the argument very well.
        Anyway, you seem to be the expert in what “the Jews” will do. And considering the number of contradictory and self-serving things you have said, you’ve covered all the bases.

        • Mooser says:

          And please, “eee” please do not respond personally to me. I can’t stand you, think you are a pretty goddam worthless individual, and join Phil in saying “thank you for airing these views”.
          So please, just address your damaged blather to your “wider readership”.