Commentary on "Why Do College Administrators Lie About Race?"(by Robert Weissberg)

http://www.unz.com/article/why-do-college-administrators-lie-about-race/

Keep in mind that private heresies are irrelevant; nobody cares about private options provided the PC gods are honored in public.

Yep, it's a 'religious' war. It's about 'gods' and heresies.

It all depends on what we mean by 'lie'.

If a rational person says he believes in evolution based on facts, he is speaking scientific truth. But, if he then says that he, as a good Catholic, believes in God, in the Divinity of Jesus, and miracles, would he be lying? After all, there are no facts that support the existence of God or Jesus as the Son of God or miracles.
Also, we may ask how a rational person who accepts modern science could also believe in God and religion that have no basis in factual evidence. And yet, we are okay with such a person because we tend to separate Reason and Faith. We tolerate and even honor people who are, at once, rational & scientific AND religious & faith-oriented. It's as if we feel that leading a fact-based life isn't enough; people need some kind of 'spiritual' meaning or purpose in life.

Now, such consideration may not seem to matter in the academia that is supposed to be about reason, logic, science, and study of truth. And yet, every society is 'spiritual' about something. It holds certain narratives, icons, and dogma as sacrosanct. Marxism and Leninism were holy in the Soviet Union despite its official commitment to Scientific Materialism. Marx was god, Lenin was a moses-figure. So, a university head in the USSR would have gotten in hot water if he questioned the wisdom of Marx and Lenin.
Then, the same applies in the West. While all these academics claim to be rational, factual, and logical, the fact is they are ideological and 'idological'. They cling to certain Narratives and Dogmas as all-explaining, near-divine or prophetic. And most likely, they grew up worshiping certain icons and idols as sacred and holy-shmoly. In the presence of certain ideas or images, they've been trained to talk in hushed reverent tones.

So, what are some of the sacro-idols & ideologies of the West? Much of it has to do with certain favored groups. Blacks are deemed a holy race. Much of it has to do with 'white guilt' and 'white fever'. Historical guilt over slavery and racial discrimination. But also white 'fever' for Negroes as superior sportsmen, singers, and studs & biatches. So, blacks are prized as both the American moses and the Golden Calf. White attitude toward blacks is both of reverence and revelry. "I worship MLK as saint-matyr... and I wish he would hump my wife." But there is also the element of fear. Because blacks are vocal, loud, aggressive, and demanding, white folks wet their pants in fear of black rage. So, they figure the best way to calm blacks down is to appease them at every turn.

But there is another reason for White Guilt & Fever. Jewish Supremacist Power. Jews are rich and powerful but only 2% of the US population. As such, Jewish Supremacist Power relies on white support. But it is not natural for white goyim to favor Jewish interests over white interests. It is not natural for whites to favor Jewish identity over white identity. But without the support of whites, Jewish Power is like a head without a body. After all, even as Neocons cooked up Wars for Israel, it required white tax payers, white generals, white managers, white bureaucrats, white soldiers, and etc to carry them out.
It's like British Power was both awesome and fragile in India. Brits had modern guns and could mow down lots of people. So, they could strike fear into the Hindus. BUT, without the collaboration of the native brown masses, what could a few 100,000 Brits do in India for the long haul? So, the Brits did everything possible to suppress Indian nationalism and persuade the natives that the true glory of India depended on it being the Jewel in the British Crown. To serve British Glory was the duty of good Indians. At some point, Indians said 'bullshi*' and demanded their own identity and interests. And then, the Brits were finished in India.

Jews feel the same way in the US. It was never natural for white goyim and/or Christians to serve Jews who are only 2% of the population. It was even more unnatural for whites to favor Jews over themselves. And now, it is totally unnatural for whites to praise and honor Jews who are the main force behind anti-white vitriol in the US. Jews in NYT are now calling for the polyglotization of the US to replace whites with. Jews look upon whites like Zionists looked upon Palestinians. A people to replace. In Palestine, Jews alone could do it. But in the West, Jews need the globo-numbers of Diversity to replace whites. Of course, Jews don't intend to get rid of whites entirely. Indeed, if all whites were to vanish and if the West were made up only of Jews and non-whites, Jews would be in serious trouble as they can't guilt-bait non-whites(who also happen to be less competent and more dependent). Jews want Diversity to the extent that future whites won't be able to form a solid majority bloc and use populist democracy to challenge and overthrow Jewish Power. Hungarians could choose nationalism and drive out Soros-ism because they are the solid majority. But it's increasingly difficult for the White Party to win elections in the US. Jews figure that Diversity will undermine white electoral power. And PC divides whites into two camps, with both camps sucking up to Jews. In the US, the 'right' vs 'left' among whites amount to progs calling conzos 'nazis' AND conzos calling progs 'anti-semites' because, supposedly, the Democrats are only 100% than 200% for Israel(like GOP cucks are). Jews must be laughing at the white tards. Anyway, as whites lose out to Diversity, Jews figure that one bunch of whites will embrace Diversity as their salvation(from past 'racism') and another bunch of whites(the nationalists) will lose heart and just surrender since their power is lost forever. (Look at the state of conservatives in California. They are like the Palestinian minority in Israel. They figure, "if you can't beat em, join em." They got the Stockholm Syndrome.)

Still, the Jewish strategy is paradoxical. Jews are weakening white power because they rely on white power. If Jewish supremacism relies on white power, it would seem that Jews would want white power to be stronger. After all, it would be stupid for a rider to weaken his horse. Naturally, he wants a fast and strong horse. And yet, he has to destroy the will of the horse. He has to weaken the horse's independent spirit because if the horse is not broken-in-spirit and has horse-pride, it would run off by itself than being a servant-animal to a human rider. Likewise, on the one hand, Jews prize white power like a rider prizes a powerful horse. But Jews fear white pride + white power. Jews want white power without the pride. That way, white power can be manipulated into serving something other than whiteness. White Power + White Guilt means whites will feel a need to redeem themselves. Since whiteness = guilt, whites can only find redemption by serving another people(deemed morally superior to whites). And this is why Jews have pushed the Shoah Cult. Whites have been made to feel like they committed the worst crime of all time against the finest people on Earth, the Jews. But while Jews are accomplished in wit, intellect, and comedy, they don't excite whites in other areas. In contrast, Negroes have loud voices, athleticism, and bouncy booties & bigger dongs, the kind of stuff that can be packaged as entertainment for white folks seeking instant thrills. Also, blacks are the ONLY people who can weaken white male pride. While Jews can bait White Guilt, Jewish guys cannot rob white men of manhood. If the US had no blacks, whites would dominate idols of manhood. But blacks are more muscular and aggressive. And they got bigger dongs. And so, white manhood has been crushed. And that means jungle fever among white women. So, whites are paralyzed not only by white guilt but white cucky-wuckery. Since white males lose their manhood to blacks in sports, song, and sex, they try to regain it by joining the military; and then Jews can use such whites to fight Wars for Israel. John McCain Syndrome. Notice how McCain was a total cucky-wuck when it came to Jews, blacks, and browns. But he was so useful to Jews as a barking dog against Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Russians(people hated by Jews), and white patriots. Serving as a growling dog of Jewish Power was the ONLY way McCain could regain his manhood.

But, Jewish strategy may lose out in the long run. True, Jews are smart to subvert white pride and manipulate white guilt to make white power serve Jewish supremacism. White Power minus pride and plus guilt will serve something other than whiteness. It will serve what is deemed sacred and redemptive in the West. But when white power is made to lose so much pride & confidence and go into pathetic cucky-wuck mode, might it not be useful any longer to Jewish supremacism? There are signs of this already in the British Labour Party. Whites in the Labour Party are such self-hating whites that they've surrendered to Mass Immigration and Diversity. And that means cucky whites sucking up to Muslims and Africans who feel no sympathy for Jews. British Jews pushed Diversity in the UK to guilt-bait whites, but now, the guilt-infected whites in the Labour Party feel more sympathy for Palestinians than for Jews. They are committed to serving Diversity at any cost, especially to the detriment of whites. But such weakened and self-loathing white power(lessness) becomes not only useless but dangerous to Jews. If indeed Diversity is the highest good, then cucky-wuck 'good' whites must side with 'poor' Muslims against rich Jews(whom are regarded as white by Diversity).

As Jewish supremacists control media and academia, the Holy Three are Jews, blacks, and homos. Diversity is a sacred dogma, but it isn't identity-specific. After all, it is permissible in the West to badmouth Muslims and scare-monger about Yellow Peril. Also, poking fun at Mexicans isn't a cardinal sin either though disapproved. Jews prize blacks above other non-whites because black guys are the only ones who can kick white butt and rob whites of manhood. Also, the bellowing voice of blacks(as with MLK) is more effective in filling whites with 'guilt'. It sounds like god hisself admonishing whites for their 'sinful' ways. In contrast, Jews can't rely on oratory to guilt-bait whites. Woody Allen or Adam Sandler giving a "I have a dream" speech just wouldn't cut it. Also, Jews prize homos because both groups are heavily involved in entertainment and vanity industry that are central to the current decadent West and its culture of narcissism. Also, homo poopchutzpah has the same kind of egotism as Jewish chutzpah. Homos aren't no longer content with tolerance. They demand to be worshiped, and Jews have promoted this side of homo-ness to finally destroy Christianity, a religion they loathe, by having it replaced with Homomania.

So, returning to why universities lie so much. They are controlled by Jewish supremacists who've turned Jew-worship, Afromania, and Homomania as the most sacred neo-religions of America. Religions cannot be questioned. It's a matter of faith. It doesn't matter if the object of faith is true or false. What matters is it's SACRED, therefore unquestionable. Since Jews are holy, we must love Jews and never criticize Jewish Power. We must even shut down free speech as 'hate speech' for its blasphemy against Jewish holiness. And since blacks are the holy race of MLK-as-new-moses and Muhammad-Ali-as-new-hero, we must admire them and believe they got the midas touch. So, any problem arising from blacks must be the fault of some other group... namely white goy! And homos, oh homos, we must worship the homos and drape church after church with 'gay' symbols.
Matters of Faith are immune to charges of lies and mendacity. The fact is PC isn't merely ideological or political. It is about hallowing certain ideas into mantras, certain narratives into canon, and certain idols/icons into gods & heroes.

Now, surely there are goy elites in academia who know the truth but play along. It's often about craven careerism, but then, no one wants to regard himself as a coward. So, they rationalize that they really believe in the official lies. But then, when certain lies have been elevated as items of faith, it doesn't matter if it is true or false. All that matters is that it is HOLY, and what is deemed holy is self-justifying and doesn't need to be backed by facts... just like it'd be absurd to insist that a man of faith present evidence for God. Even though the academia is ostensibly secular and rational, it just so happens that human psychology, being what it is, always favors 'faith' over facts. After all, facts are cold and hard whereas faith is warm and fuzzy. Just as people prefer a warm soft bed over a cold hard floor, even secular and rational people are emotionally drawn to the sacral glow over the stark truth.

Also, the flipside of the warm fuzzy sacral glow is the vanity of virtue. It's hard to feel virtuous over facts. Facts determine something as true or false, not as righteous or wicked. In contrast, faith is about feeling not only holy but holier-than-thou. And in order to feel morally supreme over others, there needs to be witches, heretics, blasphemers, and goblins. And according to PC, the greatest 'sins' are 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'. (Sometimes 'misogyny' is included, but this is an off-and-on thing because Jewish-controlled music, movie, and sex industries rely so much on treating women as a bunch of whores and sluts.) In a world without God, the ONLY way that secular people can feel holier-than-thou is to throw fits about the neo-sins of 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia', matters which are not to be discussed or critiqued but accepted, worshiped, and obeyed. So, even facts can be denounced as 'racist'(blacks commit lots of crime because they are naturally stronger and more aggressive), 'antisemitic'(Jews have the commanding power in the West due to higher IQ and tribal networking), and 'homophobic'(the reason why AIDS spread like wildfire in the 80s was because of mass orgies of fecal penetration within the fruit community). They are facts but they run counter to the favored holy-shmoly image of blacks as eternal saints, Jews as eternal victims, and homos as perfect angels.

So, to deal with the lies of academia, we must first tackle the fact of how PC turned certain lies into matters of faith, therefore immune to facts and truth.

Could the Academia be More Ideologically Egalitarian because It is more Elitist in Setting? - Culture of Civility and Britain's Doom

Paradoxically, is the academia more egalitarian(ideologically at any rate) precisely because it is more elitist in culture and company?

In real life, it’s easy to spot racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. It’s plain to see that various groups talk, act, and behave differently not only in what they do but how they do it. You see this in all walks of life.

So, why is the academia blind to such obvious truth? One possible reason could be that, traditionally at any rate, the elitism of academia in admission and conduct(proscribed professional standards) has had a filtering and fostering effect. In other words, the academia attracted the smartest members from each and every group. The smartest individuals of any group tend to be unrepresentative of the whole. Smart Irish don’t act like most Irish. Smart Poles stand apart from average Poles. Smartest blacks don’t act like most blacks.
Also, because academic culture is cerebral, it requires teachers and students(esp those in graduate studies) to conform to standards of behavior most conducive to pursuit of knowledge and scholastic civility.
So, in aptitude and attitude, the result tends to be an agreed-upon consensus of conduct and manners among academics regardless of race or ethnicity. Whether Irish, German, Chinese, black, Muslim, Anglo, Mexican, and etc, most academics have to be well-mannered and well-spoken. They can’t act like rednecks, Jihadis, street peddlers, hagglers, or rappers.
Such a social climate is likely to create an impression among academics that all people are the same under the skin, i.e. given the right opportunities and under proper conditions, anyone of any group could become a rational learned person.

But in fact, the academic setting is highly artificial and sheltered from the real world. It’s like comparing a zoo or a garden with nature and wilderness. Elite Academia takes exceptional and unrepresentative people — the smarter and/or more intellectually curious ones — from all walks of life and then fosters them to adhere to strict standards of conduct that discourages impulsive behavior. Thus, the academism flattens the genetic personalities of various races into a generic persona. A white academic in an elite college who never lived with run-of-the-mill Negroes might rub shoulders with a smart well-mannered Negro and get the wrong impression that most blacks could be like him. Granted, it's also true that most whites are different from a well-mannered white academic, but it’s no less true that there is a huge discrepancy between a run-of-the-mill white person and a run-of-the-mill black person.

Anyway, as colleges become more ‘inclusive’ and diverse — esp with declining standards — , it’s very likely that more and more of raw reality will spill into the academic setting. Students and even faculty — and hack administrators — will more closely resemble and reflect the crudities of the communities from which they’ve sprung. Also, as the academic culture changes from one that's civil, self-restrained, and neutral — the favored styles of Anglo tradition — to one that is more strident, aggressive, egotistical, and radical, the academic consensus of conduct may well vanish, in which case professors may range from the civil and gentle to the loud and obnoxious. (Of course, many colleges have reflected such transformation since the late 1980s when boomer academics began to take over in huge numbers.)

Paradoxically, the ‘anti-racist’ egalitarian ethos that led to more ‘inclusion’ and diversity on the campus could very well make it more self-evident that races and groups are indeed naturally different. The fiasco at Mizzou — the setting of a massive chimpout by black students — was a clear example of this. And then, there were the screaming blacks at Duke University who took over the library to holler like apes. (I highly doubt if they ever took out a book. Maybe the rabid mania against 'white supremacism' is usefully therapeutic for so many PC whites and non-whites because of the mounting evidence of racial and cultural differences in their midst. By uniting their hatred against 'nazis', they desperately cling to the illusion of diversity = equality.)


Incidentally, the culture of civility may discourage honest discussion of issues, especially if the community happens to be diverse. Within a homogeneous community, it’s far less likely that anyone will take offense, so people are likely to speak more freely. But in a diverse setting, a thesis, argument, or opinion, even if expounded with the sincerest intellectual intention, might be deemed offensive to some people... like when Lawrence Summers upset a bunch of women when he spoke of male-female differences in IQ at Harvard. Summers was met with incivility from fuming academics, but the rage was to restore the culture of civility. The communal sense was that Summers had broached a topic that, in giving offense to certain academics, had disrupted the culture of civility. Now, if civility weren't a part of academic culture, Summers and his defenders may have shouted back and relished a fight. But the culture of civility leads to the fear of upsetting the apple cart.

Though the intention of civility in academia is to give everyone a fair voice that is to be regarded rationally and courteously, civility could go from a means to an end. So, instead of civil behavior as means to the truth, the truth may be suppressed to maintain civility if the truth may upset some people and make them feel sick and offended. Indeed, this is one reason why the UK has been so defenseless against the invasion and Diversity. Brit, elites and middle class alike, are so into the cult of civility that they are utterly allergic to the cardinal sin of being uncivil and giving offense. It’s like Benedict Cumberbatch profusely apologizing for having use the term ‘colored people’ than ‘people of color’.

When UK was officially and proudly race-ist, British culture of manners, civility, and conscience had a consolidating effect against aliens, foreigners, and invaders — it was about Brits being kindly and mindful of one another as a tightly enclosed national family — , but once the Jews altered the core code of British society and changed the themes of Britain from Queen & Country to Queer & Diversity, the Brits have become so afraid of giving offense to foreign elements(lest they be called 'racist')... and a result, UK now seems doomed as it bans white patriots and threatens white Russian while rolling out the red carpet to tons of Muslims & Africans and massaging their egos as bearers of holy diversity.

When John Lennon committed adultery with Yoko Ono and brought her to his house, and then, when Lennon’s then wife Cynthia found them together, SHE apologized for violating their space EVEN THOUGH it was her home and the hideous Japanese bitch had stolen her man. Why did she act thus? Because she was raised to prize proper manners and civility above all. Indeed, she'd gotten pregnant with John at a young age because, being too much of a ‘nice girl’, she didn’t have the guts to tell John to fuc* off and leave her alone.
The incident with John, Yoko, and Cynthia speaks volumes as to why the UK is turning into a third world hellhole. Just like Cynthia apologized to John and Yoko(even though they should have apologized to her and cleared out)because she was afraid of being ill-mannered and giving offense, today’s Britons are a bunch of Cynthias who would rather have Africans and Muslims ravage their nation than say BLOODY NO because doing so might be construed as ‘racist’ and ‘bad form’. Incidentally, if the dreadful Lennon(great musical talent but lousy human being) ended up with nasty Yoko, Cynthia later married a freaking Negro. The Lennon Case seems to sum up the fate of Britain over the years.

It now seems the culture of honest integrity is preferable to that of civility that can easily turn cancerous when Jews penetrate the cultural psychology of a people and change the inner-coding.

Did the Rise of Educated Parents Lead to Political Correctness?

We generally associate more education and higher learning with expansion of discourse and thought. The idea is that educated people tend to be liberal(in a good way) and more open to new ideas and contrasting perspectives. Such assumption is surely valid to some degree.
But, we must ask... Is current education-in-general more about open-mindedness and critical-thinking or about ideological dogmatism, secular idolatry, and political conformity? If the former, it’s very possible that more education will lead to greater exchange of ideas and honest discussion of power. But if the latter, more education could very well make people closed-minded and judgmental in their conformity to the prevailing Political Correctness.

Prior to the boomer generation, only a small section of Americans got higher education. Even the Greatest Generation, with their G.I. Bills, focused on learning skills to get jobs. It was with the boomers that a burgeoning number of young people went to college to expand their minds. However, the 60s were a time of extreme ideological and racial polarization, and many boomer students spent their college years getting radicalized than intellectualized. Their youth became defined and qualified by the level of commitment, determination, and self-righteousness. Even though they were more libertine in their socio-cultural attitudes(in regards to church, manners, and sexual mores) than their parents, they were more judgmental in their ideological views. In contrast, their parents were more uptight about sexuality and more likely to respect traditional manners, but because they were less educated, their views on politics tended to be less radical. Sure, parents of boomers could be political like Archie Bunker in defending the flag or hating communism. But because of their relative lack of education and ‘sophistication’, their attitudes were more about patriotism and sentiment. It was knee-jerk stuff. Because they didn’t have elaborately intellectual rationale behind their political views, they were less likely to be radical about it. After all, radicals are ideological extremists. For one to be truly ideological, there has to be intellectual pedigree behind one's commitments. The parents of boomers simply didn’t have a complex thought system behind what they believed. Also, even as they disagreed with their boomer kids radicalized by college and media, they thought maybe the kids knew better with their superior education. After all, they worked hard and raised their kids to get the kind of college education that they didn't get or got an inferior version of during the Great Depression or the crude era of G.I. Bill mass education. Parents of boomers felt patriotic feelings but lacked a thought-system. In contrast, their boomer kids were instilled with mind-systems to support their radical views. While political emotions ebb and flow, the cold steel of ideology is always present among those who've adopted an intellectual(or pseudo-intellectual) thought system. Even though both Archie Bunker and Meathead are prone to outbursts, the difference is Archie runs on emotions & sentiment whereas Meathead is energized by an ideology & agenda. Also, because Meathead is better educated, he is so sure that he ‘knows everything’. His intellectual supremacism leads to moral supremacism. In contrast, even though Archie Bunker is very sure about some things, he sees himself as a servant of God, nation, and tradition. He doesn't think HE himself knows everything.

Even though Archie Bunker disapproves of much that Gloria says and does, he left her alone to develop her own mind. Not being a thinker or intellectual, he played the conventional role of father, letting Gloria to develop as a person on her own by way of education, entertainment, and experimentation. Bunker trusted that the institutions would do a good job filling his daughter with the right kinds of ideas. He didn’t hover over her at all times. He saw himself as a undereducated man, so his main role was to provide for Gloria so she would get real knowledge from school and media. So, despite his cantankerous nature and abrasiveness, Gloria didn’t grow up under his shadow. She developed on her own.
In contrast, well-educated Meathead believes he knows all there is to know since he read so many books, got a college degree, and settled in an intellectual position as teacher. As such, he plays a much bigger role in the raising of his child. He’s not content to play the role of father who tells funny stories and provides food on the table. He wants to steer his son to think like him and judge the world as he does. And since there is no God as higher authority, there is only the power of ideology as the final word.

Thus, we end up with a conundrum. It’s possible that more free-thinking kids will come from undereducated parents and less free-thinking kids will come from overeducated parents. Undereducated parents don’t know much and leave their kids to learn stuff on their own. Now, it’s possible that these kids will come under power of PC at school. But because they are not under ideological domination at home, they are likely to develop a more libertine attitude about things. In contrast, kids of overeducated(which is to say over-indoctrinated) parents will get PC not only from school but at home from their parents. So, they got double-whammy PC. One thing I noticed is that many of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s were left alone by their parents when it came to ideological matters. Most of their parents were around 30 yrs old in 1967, so they were too old to be part of Counterculture(though too young to be part of WWII generation). These parents were not overtly ideological(for the most part) and left the kids to develop freely.

But things have changed over the years with new batch of parents, especially among the upper-middle-class and above, being very well-educated(which is to say well-indoctrinated). These parents are not content to just provide a nice and loving environment for their kids. They insist on instilling their children with their own self-righteous ideology and iconography(mainly around Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Wonderful Jews). This ideological domineering is all the more effective because of the passive/aggressive style of parenting. Parents prior to boomerism weren’t very ‘nice’, huggy-wuggy, and friendly with their kids. So, kids grew apart from their parents with the passing of years. But, the PC parents want to be ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’. This bonds them closer to their children and makes the children want to please their parents more. So, if the parents are boo-hoo weepy-poo about MLK and ‘racism’, the kids want to play along to please their ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’ parents.

And things have gotten much worse due to the rise of PC. At least throughout the 70s and even 80s, the prevailing value among many Liberal parents and teachers was freedom of speech. Consider the Liberal support of Salman Rushdie when Iranian clergy put a Fatwa on him over SATANIC VERSES. Back then, despite the campaign against ‘racism’, Liberalism was strongly defined by ACLU-style libertarianism that defended free speech and expression as a good in and of themselves. (Also, culture hadn't gone totally bonkers with stuff like 50 genders and homomania.) But with the rise of PC, the correctness of views became more important than freedom of speech or individuality. Also, because PC has become such a determinant in careerism — consider the fate of James Damore at Google — , ambitious parents who want their kids to attend elite schools and have successive careers apply extra pressure, consciously or subconsciously, to make their kids assent to the rules of PC.

So, what is the solution? The ideal of the less-educated parents? No, that would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, we need to create a new intellectual culture that favors freedom, honesty, and truth over correctness, self-righteousness, and craven opportunism.

The Idiotic Toxicology of Decalibs(or Decadent Liberals)

This is in response to a piece "Poison Ivy—The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action" by Blaine Greteman in the New Republic magazine.

Greteman writes:

Affluent black students found that well-intentioned faculty members assumed that they were poor, and more obnoxiously, the fact of racial preference in admissions led some white students to question the intelligence of minority students. Black students also reported judging by this same poisonous standard. As Christopher, an affluent black student recounted, he sometimes held his black friends in contempt when they failed to meet his academic expectations: “How did you get in here? It must have been because you’re black.”   

Greteman here employs the trick of adjectology to force his viewpoint on the reader. Notice the choice of words, "obnoxiously" and "poisonous". Now, liberals pride themselves for their reliance on reason and facts to make their (superior)case, but if you've noticed lately, liberals often take the short-cut of adjectology to end discussion via the toxicological method. (I will henceforth refer to this kind of liberals as decalibs as liberalism, as generally practiced today, is about as decadent and desperate as any ideology can get. And don't be fooled by the victory of Obama in 2012. It had nothing to do with the ideological or intellectual triumph of liberalism and everything to do with the demographic rise of anti-intellectual blacks & Hispanics who voted simply for more freebies and with the cultural dementia of a young generation bred on junk culture and politically correct indoctrination. I will not refer to today's so-called 'progressives' as 'leftists' for, even as I oppose the Left, leftism used to be a struggle for important issues such as workers' rights and greater justice for all under the law. What goes by the name of leftism today mainly serves the interests of globalist Jews, snotty pampered 'feminists', and privileged gays.) 

Notice Greteman doesn't explain why the views of white students are 'obnoxious' or why the views of rich black students are 'poisonous'. He offers no argument, no facts. He just condemns certain views as toxic. He doesn't want a debate or discussion. He fumes like a bitch and just wants us to shut up. What kind of liberalism is this? Just how are the ideals of reason and fact-based reality served by some self-righteous prick fumigating the readership with the notion that certain ideas--indeed certain attitudes and emotions--simply must not be allowed. And why not? Well, because Greteman finds certain views 'obnoxious' and 'poisonous', end of discussion. 

Now, I don't know if Greteman is doing this consciously or subconsciously, but he is part of the decalib movement to stamp out certain feelings, attitudes, and views by condemning them as diseased, infectious, pathological, or toxic. Indeed, 'toxic' is now one of the most oft-used words by decalibs--along with 'noxious' and 'odious'. So, you'll read an article by a decalib where something or the other will be denounced as being 'toxic', 'poisonous', 'noxious', 'obnoxious', or 'odious'.  The favorite words of liberals used to be 'rabid' and 'virulent', but maybe they're a bit worn. Maybe 'noxious' and 'odious' have a certain SWPL ring to it. 

You will notice that decalibs offer no explanation, no reason, and no facts as to why certain views, attitudes, or feelings are 'toxic', 'poisonous', 'noxious', 'obnoxious', or 'odious'. By the mere use of those adjectives, they feel they've won the argument, and nothing more need be said. 
Now, I ask you, since when does reasoned debate and assessment of reality work this way? And what is so open-minded about such use of adjectology if indeed liberals take great pride in their open-mindedness? 
And if indeed liberals care so much about facts, why are they so obsessed with adjectives, most of which describe emotional states than objective facts. I can say, 'gays are obnoxious and toxic', but what does that prove? It only means I feel that way. If I say, 'Jewish finance capitalism is dirty, filthy, craven, venal, odious, noxious, obnoxious, poisonous, toxic, and/or venomous', all I've proven is that how I FEEL about Jews. Unless I offer facts and reasoned argument to make my case, all my adjectives are just that: adjectives describing my emotional states. 
So, if liberals are rational and fact-based, why do they rely so much on adjectology? Why do they take a toxicological approach to ideas, speech, debate, discussion, and etc. as if certain views shouldn't even be argued with but simply gassed to death?  It's almost as if decalibs regard certain views and ideas as disease-carrying like sewer rats and must be exterminated by adjectological fumigation. Ideocide? 
But what does adjectology really prove? A Jew can say 'radical Islam is toxic' and a Muslim can say 'Zionist racism is toxic', so who won the argument? As the saying goes, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has them. But even opinions are better-formed and argued than the mere use of adjectives, which is what Greteman goes for.  
A Muslim and a Jew insulting one another with adjectives only proves that the Jew hates certain Muslims and that the Muslim hates certain Jews but without explaining the why and for what. 

I believe some decalibs know full well what they are doing when they employ adjectology. With the rise of the science of psychology, advertising, marketing, and the like, many experts in the academia and media now understand what works in swaying public opinion and manipulating mass sentiments. The controllers of the media and academia are less interested in using facts and reason to win us over to the truth than in pushing the right 'irrational' buttons in our psyche to make us conform to their agenda. Advertisers know all about subliminally toying with the circuitry of the mind. Hollywood has perfected the formula of blockbusters by offering the right combination of sound, images, symbols, and effects. Music industry approaches music less as an art than a science of what kind of rhythms and beats will produce the biggest hits. Indeed, the 'science' of celebrity-making has been perfected to such extent that a nobody can become a somebody simply by the way the media packages and hypes him or her. Indeed, even a president can be elected this way by the new scientific method of celebrity-oriented cult of personality. People can be made to believe that style is the substance if certain buttons in their psyche are pushed.  We are all guinea pigs in the new order. 

Even so, one would like to believe that in an intellectual magazine like the New Republic, a writer would offer sound reasons backed up with facts to prove his case that certain views, attitudes, and feelings are 'obnoxious' or 'poisonous'.  

I wonder, did Greteman use adjectology consciously because he knows of its effectiveness, or is he one of the guinea pigs indoctrinated by political correctness who 'thinks' without really thinking? Is he one of the lab scientists or just one of the guinea pigs? 
The dirty secret of the modern liberal understanding of human psychology is that most people, regardless of ideology/race/creed, are followers than free-thinkers. And this isn't simply a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of personality and human nature. The kind of personality that 'pathologically' insists on forming its own thoughts regardless of what others think is relatively rare. Due to human nature, most people wanna be liked and want to belong. They don't want to be shunned or left out of the community. Evolution made us this way, and so, even intelligent people who ought to know better will go along with the prevailing falsehood if it's to their social advantage and psychological well-being(and being liked by others is central to that feeling of well-being). 

Now, let us consider the facts. 'Affirmative action' does indeed favor less qualified and less intelligent blacks and Hispanics over whites and Asians. This cannot be refuted. All evidence points to this, and indeed, it is a defacto official policy. If Greteman denies this, he should offer evidence to the contrary, but of course, he cannot. 
Now, if universities admit a sizable number of blacks with considerably lower grades than whites and Asians, why would it be wrong, let alone 'obnoxious', for white and Asian students to feel that some of the black students on campus didn't make it on merit and don't belong there? Why would such a feeling be 'obnoxious' if it's based on facts and reasoned observation? It seems to me that the truly obnoxious one is Greteman who thinks he's so morally superior that he can condemn others as 'obnoxious' for the simple fact of noticing reality for what it is.

To use a counter-example, we all know that blacks, being naturally stronger and faster, dominate football and basketball. Suppose in the name of 'diversity', 'inclusiveness', and 'equality', a bunch of less qualified Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, and Arabs are allowed on college teams. Suppose black athletes believe that many, if not most, of the the non-black athletes have been favored for reasons other than athletic merit. Would it be 'obnoxious' for black athletes to feel that way? If we follow Greteman's logic, yes, it would be. But of course, Greteman--probably a Jew by the look of him--is probably the kind of decalib who plays the game of 'who, whom' when it comes to passing judgement on the world. Since blacks are part of the 'victim group', we must never ever have any negative feelings toward them, but it's okay for blacks to feel all the rage, hatred, paranoia, and hostility toward other races. 

Indeed, 'who, whom' applies to the entire world, and surely Greteman knows this as he writes for the New Republic, one of the biggest hypocritical Zionist mags in the world. As you know, Iran has no nuclear weapons--not a single one--and has complied with every international inspection. Israel, in contrast, has violated every law and has anywhere from 200 to 500 illegal nukes. Israel also oppressesd Palestinians just like Nazis oppressed Poles and Jews. But US, which is controlled by Jewish power, uses its muscle to economically destroy Iran while the criminal state of Israel receives billions in aid from American taxpayers every year. And the New Republic is fully behind this state of affairs. Now, THAT is obnoxious, poisonous, toxic, odious, noxious, and everything else under the sun. But do you think Greteman will ever approach the editors of the New Republic and ask for permission to write an article about how Zionist-Americans have perverted US foreign policy?  Of course not... as he's too busy pointing out that people who notice the truth on college campouses are 'obnoxious'. So, if white and Asian students rightly feel that a lot of blacks in colleges were admitted by racial preference, they are 'obnoxious'. And if smarter blacks in college who really made it on merit feel that blacks who made it on 'affirmative action' undermine the black intellectual brand, they are under some kind of 'poisonous' delusion. 

I don't know if Greteman is a Jew or not, but he sure looks and sounds like one. For starters, he's a total hypocrite as the real outrage in American higher education is that Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, hog an OBNOXIOUSLY disproportionate share of elite positions in academia, media, law, finance, entertainment, government, courts, publishing, and etc.  It's Jew, Jew, Jew everywhere. 
If Greteman really cares about fairness, he should call for Jews to be categorized as a separate group so that white gentiles can finally have more positions open up to them at the expense of overly privileged and powerful Jews. And if any Jew were to complain that a less intelligent white goy was favored over the smarter Jew, I mean let's not be 'obnoxious' and 'poisonous' about it.