NEWSER REPORTED A NEW RANKING SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITES, CHANGES AND SURPRISES

 Newser reported that on a new ranking of research at universities round the world, Harvard dropped to #3, and China won not only the top two spots, but 8 of the top 10, with universities unheard of by me.  I added a comment to the story:

 

Who cares? Does is really matter if China is doing better than the US in new research"  After all, China probably comes in last in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Of course admitting students and hiring faculty because of their race, their sex, their gender to get the proper stats so they look like America, that is far more important than what they know, or what they learn, or what they create. This is so much better than the days when white men imposed their standards all over the campus. Now, free of those restriction and difficult grading systems, students can enjoy music to rapp the ears, dances from near and far, and join the anti-racist, anti-microaggression movement, and put things in perspective. Harvard is now more loving than when it spent so much time on research.

 

    Strange, most of the others who made comments were attacking Trump, as if he caused the decline at Harvard.  Interesting.  I hope the readers enjoy satire.         

 Hugh Murray

 

HARVARD'S DR. GAY RESIGNS AMID COMPLAINTS OVER SHORTCOMINGS IN HER RESEARCH AND HER POLICY TOWARD JEWS

 We all make mistakes.  Should they cost us our jobs?  Of course it depends on what mistakes, and other pertinent information.  If a bank teller just forgets and walks out of the bank carrying a sack of dollar bills, and no record of taking them, surely that is grounds for being fired.  Soon, I will have an open confession on this blog about one or 2 of my mistakes in writing.  A few days ago Newser ran a short article on the resignation of Dr. Gay, and I made a comment, which I repeat below.

Newser had an article on the resignation of Harvard's first black, woman president, and there were many who commented on the case, including me.  Here is my short take on that case, and many similar ones.

Hugh Murray

 

humura 

The war is for basic civil rights, rights that have been denied in the name of diversity,, equity, and inclusion. The civil rights movement never used the term equity; the word was equality, to treat people equally. Some picket signs of the 60s simply had an equals sign. But the EEOC rejected that approach and pushed a quota-diriven - polixy instead. The role of the affirmative action officer was never to get the best qualified person hired, but instead a person to fill a quota (considering race, ethnicity, sex, etc.) The Affirmative action office would promote a quota person and force negative action against the best qualified person. In most cases these policies created systemic racism against white men in our society. Later the negative action extended to Asians, and now Jews.

Hire the best qualified, not by quotas, and Gay would probably never have been promoted as Pres. of Harvard. Moreover, if Prof. Carol Swain (who is black) is correct, Dr. Gay does not even deserve her doctorate. She cheated her way to the top, asserted Dr. Swain.  We all make mistakes, most of which are minor and inconsequential.  But if some mistakes are repeated and become a pattern, then problems do arise.

Ignore the quotas, hire and promote the best qualified, and America will begin to be America again, with civil rights, equal rights for all.

I am presently working on finishing the final chapter of a book on this very topic of hiring an promoting by quotas, whether it be called affirmative action (and its twin of negative action against the non-favored group). goals and timetables, disparate impact, diversity, equity, and inclusion, these are all cover terms for quotas and racial and other forms of discrimination.

MORE RACISM FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION & OPINION OF ANN COULTER

Many may find it hard to believe the teaching of hatred against white people now occurring in the USA.

 

The anti-white racism of the Democrats (and liberal Republicans) is more than teaching to hate whites in schools (like the Nazis did against the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. Indeed, in January 2021 I was already comparing the beginning of Biden's term in office to that of Hitler's term as Kanzler.) 

 

But it is worse than just teaching hatred. The hatred of whites was clearly shown by Biden's Administration early on when vaccines first became available. 

 

Who should be first to get the vaccines? All data indicated that the most vulnerable group was the elderly, for among the elderly, of those who got the virus, about 5% would die. 

 

So the medicrats thought that the elderly should be first to get vaccinated. But then the left-wingers noted, the elderly are too white. Can't give them priority. 

 

So the medical workers, many of whom are people of color, they would be #1 in line, and then the elderly.

 

Science does not rule in the medical bureaucracy - left wing politics does.   

 

Let more of the elderly die - they are too white anyway! 

 

That is only one aspect of life in Biden's America, where teen and young Black criminals are released from jails to cause more violent crimes, where some can walk into a store take what they want from counters, NOT PAY, and walk out knowing they will not be prosecuted, and will keep their stolen goods. 

 

The Black Lives Matter rioters and their allies, the Antifa(scist) groups set fires to stores, looted, injured many cops and others, even killed some, and got away with it. Kamala Harris (now VP) contributed to their bail funds. 

 

When I watch the TV news now, I see the decline of America, like a Roman in 400 AD watching the collapse of the Roman Empire. 

 

Biden is the worst President of the USA, and if the next election is stolen too, he will be the last President of the USA, as there

won't be an America left.    Hugh Murray

 

Enjoy Ann Coulter's article below.

 

Ann Coulter: Desantis Shocker—It’s Not OK To Hate Whites!

 

Ann Coulter

01/26/2022

Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing a bill through the Florida legislature to put a stop to the modern pedagogy of making little girls cry because they’re white. The bill, called “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (WOKE),” prohibits classroom instruction that contradicts these concepts:

• “No race is inherently superior to another race”;
• “An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex”;
• “An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”

The left has been having a sneer-fest over the proposed law, howling that it protects “white people” from feeling “uncomfortable.” SNOWFLAKES!

E.g.:

“A bill pushed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit public schools and private businesses from making white people feel ‘discomfort’ when they teach students or train employees about discrimination in the nation’s past …”—The Associated Press (emphasis added)

 

“The right likes to talk so much about, you know, snowflakes. It seems like they may be raising snowflakes because if they think people are going to be uncomfortable by the actual facts—facts are uncomfortable.”—CNN’s Don Lemon

“Ron DeSantis and his GOP allies are pushing a bill … that would prohibit public schools [from making] white people squirm. Those poor, wittle babies.

 

Their feelings are hurting. Some poor, wittle white people are uncomfortable about the hundreds of years of racism and hate that built this nation.”—Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times

(Saving the best for last …)

“[H]e’s trying to make it illegal, Governor Ron DeSantis, to teach history that would make white people uncomfortable. Does that law include saying you can’t make black people feel uncomfortable or indigenous people? The history of indigenous and African Americans could make one uncomfortable? Is that illegal too, or is it just white people?”—MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid

To know the answer to Joy Ann’s question, you’d have to actually read the bill. Or an article about the bill. Or commentary on an article about the bill. Joy Ann Reid: highly literate and well-informed Harvard graduate.

 

But, duh: A bill prohibiting the teaching of race hatred will primarily prevent the teaching of white hatred for the simple reason that it’s the only race we’re allowed to hate. Not merely allowed to hate, but taught to hate, encouraged to hate, paid to hate.

 

We’re now entering the sixth decade of open, widespread, official discrimination against white people on the basis of their race.

 

Even the Asians suing Harvard dare not stress the humungous advantage given to blacks and Hispanics. No, their beef is about white applicants getting preferential treatment over Asians.

 

This is odd, to say the least. According to the plaintiffs’ own expert witness, an Asian with a 25% chance of admission to Harvard would increase his chances to 36% if he were white—but to 77% if Hispanic, and to 95% if black.

 

Asians sure have assimilated to our culture!

 

Everybody’s copacetic with the idea that universities discriminate against white people—in abject defiance of the clear language of our civil rights laws. They have done so, loud and proud, at least since 1973, when Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, because he was white.

 

In fact, no one under the age of 50 has ever lived in an America where universities and other elite institutions have not discriminated against whites. Three generations of hating whites are enough.

School districts around the country teach white children that they were born racist and assign books like, “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” that portrays “whiteness” as a contract with Satan.

 

So yes, a race-neutral law that prohibits teaching race hatred will, in practice, prohibit teaching hatred of whites because that’s the only race-hate that’s taught.

 

Liberals jeer at whites who object to this constant disparagement, calling them “poor, wittle babies.” Does the left have any self-awareness at all?

 

A 6-year-old girl is a total pussy if she can’t take a little abuse for being white—at a school her parents are paying for. But our entire country has been turned upside down for the past half-century to prevent any other race from experiencing a fleeting moment of discomfort.

 

Historic Confederate statues are torn down and melted; newspapers refuse to identify the race of criminals—or even show photos of the arrestees; the Oscars will not consider a movie for Best Picture that does not have 30% non-whites.

 

Otherwise, black people might feel uncomfortable.

 

Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania Law School is routinely threatened with suspension or firing from her tenured position for stating facts about black students’ performance. Her remarks make black people feel uncomfortable.

 

Hey, where’s the rush to review Charles Murray’s recent book “Facing Reality” about black crime and I.Q.? Nope, might make black people uncomfortable.

 

A few years ago, Kansas City officials were advised not to impose a curfew in response to the violent mobs of black teenagers descending on a shopping plaza because, as the black mayor said, it would “make a lot of black kids angry.” His remark inspired the title of Colin Flaherty’s book about black crime, “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry”—a book that is currently banned from Amazon. It might make black people uncomfortable.

Anti-whiteness books are flooding the grade schools, but you aren’t allowed to spend your own money to purchase books on Amazon that make some people “uncomfortable.” Not only Flaherty’s book, but:

• Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment—might make transgenders uncomfortable.
• Jared Taylor’s If We Do Nothing, as well as two books he contributed to: Race Against Time and Face to Face With Race—might make black people uncomfortable.
• The Kindle edition of the widely praised 1973 dystopian novel by French author Jean Raspail, Camp of the Saints—might make third worlders uncomfortable.
• David Cole’s rollicking autobiography, Republican Party Animal—makes Debra Messing uncomfortable.

The FBI allowed the 9/11 attack to happen by blowing off an Arizona agent’s warning that a lot of Arabs were enrolled in flight school. Three thousand Americans had to die because noticing Arabs in flight school might make some people uncomfortable.

Last week, a Muslim terrorist, Malik Faisal Akram, seized a Texas synagogue and held four hostages for 10 hours.

 

The media universally identified Akram as: “British man.” He didn’t even call himself “British”! A week later, the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt went on MSNBC and tried to suggest “Republicans” were responsible for the attack. The truth might make Muslims uncomfortable.

 

A virus that originated in China cannot be called anything with “China” in the name. That might make Asians uncomfortable.

Before we go, here’s another “actual fact,” as Don Lemon put it, and “facts are uncomfortable” (especially for the black Harvard grad on MSNBC who can’t read a bill): By Harvard’s own admission, nearly 60% of the black students it admits are there only because they are black.

 

It’s so great that liberals have finally turned against snowflakes so we can discuss “actual facts” again! 

 

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Ann Coulter is the author of THIRTEEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.

 

 

RULE BY JUDGES IS THE END OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

To All,  Still working on a book, so doing less on the blog.  Here is an article similar to one of the topics I shall cover in my upcoming book.  This is from VDARE site.  Hugh Murray
Kritarchy: The End Stage Of Liberal Democracy—Unless We Start Impeaching Judges

By James Kirkpatrick     4 Oct. 2019
Liberal democracy isn’t “in crisis,” as journalists and academics keep saying, it’s already over. In the U.S., the critical 

decisions on immigration, Affirmative Action, and other issues are now made by judges, a system known as “kritarchy.” In the U.K., the British Supreme Court has usurped the monarchy as the font of law in a decision blatantly intended to prevent Brexit. Across Europe, judges simply overrule elected officials and formulate immigration policies. The illusions most Westerners have about their “free” political systems can no longer be maintained and we must purge ourselves of fantasies if we want real change.

Many Americans thought they were getting real change when they elected Donald Trump president on a platform of immigration restriction. In the teeth of Ruling Class hysteria, it’s still hard to believe that he was actually elected.

Yet it almost didn’t matter. Judges have continuously overruled his policy decisions, seemingly out of spite. One was U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, who in 2017 overruled President Trump’s executive order which mandated a travel ban for people from certain countries [Boston Federal Court Puts Hold On Trump’s Travel, Refugee Ban, by Shanoon Dooling, WBUR, January 29, 2017].

Allison Burroughs is also the judge who upheld Harvard’s affirmative action policy earlier this week. Her rambling, flowery judgment declares that “it is somewhat axiomatic at this point that diversity of all sorts, including racial diversity, is an important aspect of education.” Beginning from this questionable “axiom,” she justifies policies that harm Asian-Americans and whites because of the “compelling interest” of achieving “diversity.”

The government’s “compelling interest” in achieving diversity has already been established by the Supreme Court. Programs, policies, and trainings to achieve “diversity” are now staples of American life. “Diversity” dominates our discourse. Yet there is nothing in our Constitution that mandates this–courts simply asserted it, and the political and academic systems obeyed.

Somehow, Judge Burroughs thinks allowing colleges to discriminate will ultimately lead to a racially neutral society. “The rich benefits that flow from that diversity will foster the tolerance, acceptance and understanding that will ultimately make race conscious admissions obsolete,” she writes. Yet why would that happen when affirmative action incentivizes non-white students to organize based on race? Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren didn’t pretend to be non-white because they wanted to be oppressed. They did it because they wanted the material, economic benefits that “flow from that diversity”—if you can claim the right caste membership.  

Judges have imposed other sweeping changes on our way of life. In 1994, California voters approved Proposition 187, which would have massively reduced (if not eliminated) illegal immigration into the once Golden State by eliminating taxpayer subsidies. A District Judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, threw out the law on the grounds that California was enacting its own immigration policy, a power that properly belongs to the federal government. Governor Gray Davis, directly working with the Mexican government, abandoned the appeal.  Since then, California has been dramatically transformed into what is essentially a Third World state. Its political culture and way of life was utterly transformed in defiance of its citizens’ wishes.

Today, California judges like Dolly Gee pronounce verdicts defying federal immigration policy, essentially reversing the arguments used to destroy Proposition 187. In theory, judges interpret law. In practice, judges are political actors like politicians. They simply use whatever arguments necessary to justify the end they want.

The same thing just took place in the United Kingdom. Its constitutional monarchy has just been quietly abolished without many people noting.  The Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson unlawfully suspended Parliament several weeks ago [Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule, BBC, September 24, 2019]. Yet technically, PM Johnson wasn’t the one who suspended Parliament; the Queen did. The Supreme Court is essentially claiming that it can overrule the Queen and that it, not the Crown, is the font of law [The Curious Remainer Coup, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National Review, September 24, 2019]. In practice, this abolishes the unwritten British Constitution, which is why pro-Brexit MP’s like Jacob Rees Mogg claimed it was a “coup” [Jacob Rees Mogg attacks Supreme Court ‘coup’ in raging Cabinet phone call, by Nicola Bartlett, Daily Mirror, September 25, 2019].

Matthew Walther accurately notes:

Queen Elizabeth is head of state in name only, a kind of bejeweled notary public, and the prime minister, Boris Johnson, is merely the head of her government. His recent prorogation of Parliament in the hope of forcing a no-deal Brexit was declared null on Tuesday by the recently created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, led by "Red" Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond, with whom the British people are being told the buck ultimately stops.

This is lawless. Never in the history of the British Isles has the judiciary exercised any power over such decisions. The font of law is the monarch, who has given her assent to the prorogation upon the advice of her ministers. The Supreme Court's ruling is nonsensical on its face because it assumes a jurisdiction that it does not possess.

[Why Boris Johnson should be the next Oliver Cromwell, The Week, September 25, 2019]

Yet ultimately Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and others have simply accepted the decision.

This is the typical Anglo-American conservative attitude towards the courts; baffled rage that judges are simply asserting powers they do not possess, followed by meek acquiescence. Boris Johnson now finds himself negotiating with a European Union that has no interest in making a deal, meaning that the next few weeks will be consumed by utter chaos [E.U. rejects Boris Johnson’s Brexit proposal, raising prospect of chaotic break within weeks, by Michael Birnbaum, Washington Post, October 3, 2019]

There are similar cases in Europe. In August, a judge ruled that “international law” requires Italy to accept hundreds of migrants. In Denmark, a judge mandated family reunification in some immigration cases, undermining the center-left government’s ability to control immigration [EU court rules against Denmark in remarriage immigration case, Reuters, July 10, 2019] In Hungary and Poland, attempts by nationalist governments to assert control over the judiciary have to led to efforts by the European Union to sanction them [Hungary optimistic over swift end to ‘absurd’ EU rule-of-law row, by Valerie Hopkins, Financial Times, September 29, 2019].

Who rules? Not the politicians, and certainly not the people. It seems judges and journalists do. Indeed, it’s the mistaken belief that we rule which allows this situation to continue.

Thus Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug)’s return to political writing comes at the perfect time. Yarvin is revealing (and dispelling) many cherished political illusions in a five-part series, the first installment of which was just published at The American Mind [The Clear Pill, Part 1 of 5: The Four Stroke Regime  , September 27, 2019]. “Public opinion is an effect, not a cause,” he declares. He argues that the “civic core,” identified as the permanent civil service and “civil society” [i.e. journalists, academia, philanthropic organizations, etc.] directs the “political core,” the people who supposedly are sovereign.

Ravin also accurately notes that the “commoners,” i.e. the suburban middle class, are constantly opposed by the alliance between the “gentry” and the “clients,” the “votebanks” who support them. This elite/client alliance against the middle class has also been recognized by the late Sam Francis and Angelo Codevilla.

Of course, more than any other issue, the issue that defines the split between the elite and the middle and working classes is immigration. Big Business wants cheap labor, Democrats want “votebanks” of reliable non-white supporters, nonprofits want more clients. The rest of us just want to keep our country.

Yarvin has not addressed, yet, the role of the judiciary. It’s becoming clear that popular sovereignty is a myth and we are ruled by an elite as impenetrable as that any that presided over the Holy Roman Empire. And in some ways, elected officials benefit from judicial rule. They can tap into grassroots anger over bad decisions while avoiding the responsibility of making new laws. The Founders did not anticipate this.

Currently, judges make law, journalists police the Narrative and manufacture opinion, and politicians, even supposed “authoritarians” like Trump, go along with it. Kritarchy may represent the real end stage of “liberal democracy.”

To change this, we need to abandon the pretense that we are free and recognize that we are ruled by an elite hostile to our interests. We need to delegitimize the institutions that keep us in this situation. We need to strip away the aura of sanctity that surrounds these judges who are arbitrarily deciding our country’s most important policies. Judges are politicians, just like journalists are activists.

The Democrats want to impeach President Trump. But instead, it’s about time Republicans at the federal and state levels start impeaching some judges.

If they don’t, then we should frankly admit the Constitution has failed—because one branch of government has achieved supremacy above all others.

In that case, I hope journalists can spare us the moralizing about “liberal democracy.” It’s long gone—if indeed it ever existed.