According to the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, only 49 percent of Americans now believe that a four-year degree will lead to a good job and higher lifetime earnings. An overwhelming 47 percent claimed that they don’t believe a four-year degree will increase job and earnings prospects.
On Google’s integration with DC elite/deep state: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ Nothing nefarious, but dangerous to integrate business & politics.
State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto US military bases.16 In Lebanon he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the “Higher Shia League.”17 And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood.18
Three days after he visited me at Ellingham Hall, Jared Cohen flew to Ireland to direct the “Save Summit,” an event cosponsored by Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations. Gathering former inner-city gang members, right-wing militants, violent nationalists, and “religious extremists” from all over the world together in one place, the event aimed to workshop technological solutions to the problem of “violent extremism.”19 What could go wrong?
Gen Next’s “private sector and non-profit foundation support avoids some of the potential perceived conflicts of interest faced by initiatives funded by governments.”22 Jared Cohen is an executive member. . . .
In 2011, the Alliance of Youth Movements rebranded as “Movements.org.” In 2012 Movements.org became a division of “Advancing Human Rights,” a new NGO set up by Robert L. Bernstein after he resigned from Human Rights Watch (which he had originally founded) because he felt it should not cover Israeli and US human rights abuses.28 Advancing Human Rights aims to right Human Rights Watch’s wrong by focusing exclusively on “dictatorships.”29 Cohen stated that the merger of his Movements.org outfit with Advancing Human Rights was “irresistible,” pointing to the latter’s “phenomenal network of cyberactivists in the Middle East and North Africa.”
I began to think of Schmidt as a brilliant but politically hapless Californian tech billionaire who had been exploited by the very US foreign-policy types he had collected to act as translators between himself and official Washington—a West Coast–East Coast illustration of the principal-agent dilemma.35
I was wrong. . . .
On a personal level, Schmidt and Cohen are perfectly likable people. But Google’s chairman is a classic “head of industry” player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role.44 Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal, and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life. By all appearances, Google’s bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the “benevolent superpower.” They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of “don’t be evil.” They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem. . . .
Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of US power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).48 And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community. . . .
On the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ [110.7] and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.) … The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; the original NYTimes article is here.) Clearly anything less than 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism. The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. (see “Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained”) . . . .
“Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.”
Unz’s table on p. 31 (see below) shows that Whites are underrepresented compared to their population at all elite universities. Whites are therefore highly discriminated against: “Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population [18%] than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.” . . . .
Not only did these trends occur after the collapse of Jewish academic achievement, they occurred after Unz’s original Wall Street Journal op-ed of 1998 (“Some minorities are more minor than others”) which called attention to the overrepresentation of Jews and the underrepresentation of non-Jewish Whites in the Ivy League. “Since then Jewish academic achievement has seemingly collapsed but relative Jewish enrollment in the Ivies has generally risen, while the exact opposite combination has occurred for both Asians and non- Jewish whites. I find this a strange and unexpected development.”
I find it appalling. And it suggests that the patterns of massive Jewish overrepresentation and massive non-Jewish White underrepresentation will continue into the future because publicity makes no difference. The fact that these imbalances can be maintained despite public knowledge is an important marker of Jewish power.
Unz suggests that an important reason for the dramatic Jewish overrepresentation is the large number of Jews in faculty and administrative positions at elite universities. He points to the “massive overrepresentation is found throughout the … top administrative ranks of the rest of the Ivy League, and across American leading educational institutions in general.” He also points to the “overwhelmingly liberal orientation of the elite university community, the apparent willingness of many liberals to actively discriminate against non-liberals, and the fact that American Jews remain perhaps the most liberal ethnic community may together help explain a significant portion of our skewed enrollment statistics.” . . . .
The pattern of admission to Ivy League universities is an egregious example of Jews achieving elite status far in excess of Jewish IQ or any other personal trait. This phenomenon has occurred in other times and places, such as the conflict over Jewish cultural domination in the Soviet Union:
Beginning at least by 1942, there was concern within high governmental circles with the underrepresentation of ethnic Russians and the overrepresentation of Jews in key areas of the cultural and economic elite [because they needed ethnic Russians to fight the war against Germany]. The report noted that elite cultural institutions “turned out to be filled by non-Russian people (mainly by Jews)” (in Kostyrchenko 1995, 15). For example, of the ten top executives of the Bolshoi Theater—the most prestigious Soviet cultural institution—there were eight Jews and one Russian. Similar disproportions were reported in prestigious musical conservatories and among art and music reviewers in elite publications. Higher Jewish IQ seems inadequate to account for these disproportions, suggesting within-group collusion as a factor. (SAID, Chapter 2, pp. 51)
The arguments are so obvious, the evidence is so overwhelming. The leftist program so disastrous to the very people in whose name it is promoted. What do leftists think when they hear an interview like this? I can’t imagine. I really can’t.
What college student’s believe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OURq6xFE4l4 Shocking!
Study by Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
And most experience a twinge of excitement when, months later, they open a letter informing them that their article has been accepted for publication, and will, therefore, be read by…
… an average of 10 people.
Yes, you read that correctly. The numbers reported by recent studies are pretty bleak:
– 82 percent of articles published in the humanities are not even cited once.
– Of those articles that are cited, only 20 percent have actually been read.
– Half of academic papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.
So what’s the reason for this madness? Why does the world continue to be subjected to just under 2 million academic journal articles each year?
Well, the main reason is money and job security.