Senator al Franken equals Senator al Qaeda

July 1, 2009

Senator al Franken policies:

Unlimited immigration by al Qaeda, Somalis, Hmong, and other non-whites.

Slicing at every universities.

Ricci v Stefano White firefighters, forget about it.

Sotomayor Sonyma Quote Queen is in.   She was the one who pushed quotas for undeserving slicers for mortgages at Sonyma.  She was the Slicer squealer who got Sonyma to adopt that as policy.  The result was that the Boston fed adopted it.  Then the Slicer DOJ under Clinton.

The Slicer Coalition is running riot under the Chief Slicer, Barack Hussein Obama.  Eric the Slicer Holder runs the Department of Jenocide (as in Jena 6).

The Slicer Coalition of blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews is debated here:

==Some comments posted at Guy White:

“In 2002 when the WSJ article was published, Vanderbilt had a Jewish population of 2 percent, a percentage that among top 25 schools was only greater than that of Notre Dame University. It was this fact that led Vanderbilt to focus recruitment efforts towards Jewish high school students.”

Affirmative Action Slicing.

Blacks and Hispanics get affirmative action on the bottom, Asians and Jews get a larger share from the top and that slices whites in the middle. If Jews get 30 percent at Harvard (from above link), Asians get 25 percent (a guess), blacks and Hispanics get 25 combined, then you are at 80 percent, leaving whites 20 percent (or Non Jewish whites, NJ whites).

Slicing divides the country into slicers, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews and the sliced, NJ whites.

Slicing is pushed by all 4 slicing groups and this makes them a coalition on slicing. There are 12 Jewish senators and many Jewish judges and justices. They almost all support slicing is my guess.

Harvard was founded to be a Christian university reflecting the people who found it. Jews created Jerusalem out of nothing, so its fair that it be their city. Euro-whites (to have another name for NJ whites) created Harvard out of nothing. But now its not theirs anymore.

Hypothesis: As Euro white share at Harvard has fallen, Harvard as become more hostile to whites. Moreover, it has promoted Asian entrance to weapons labs, etc. and the transfer of know-how to China. This has cost high paying American jobs. Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973, see p60-273.pdf.

You can look at the grades of the 12 Jewish senators on immigration. They are low, many are F. In cases of one Jewish senator from a state, the Jewish senator’s grades are typically lower than those of the non Jewish senator. In New York, Schumer is 2 letter grades lower than his colleague. These states tend to be low anyhow. But the Jewish senator may pull the other towards him/her.

The Jewish response to Palin. This response is a way to identify which race a person identifies with. Those who viscerally dislike Palin and feel she is alien from them are self identifying them as not identifying with her. This is in part racial. Overall, I think the Jewish reaction to Palin is they feel different than her.

Virgil Goode is another test case. He was against Muslim immigration. But my impression is that the Jewish react to him is revulsion and feeling alien. Goode is a Founding Stock American, who now at Harvard are 10 percent perhaps. Whenever an FSA appears in the news isn’t the main Jewish response negative? James Watson is an FSA. Wasn’t the reaction that way towards him? But Goode and Palin are not as smart as Watson, and are more typical of FSA’s and Eurowhites. The reaction towards them is revulsion, alienation and disgust?

Also the ongoing joke attacks on Palin come from whom? Are Jewish joke writers some of those writing those Palin jokes for Letterman? And if we grant them high IQ then they knew it was Willow the 14 year old who went with Palin to the baseball game in New York. (If Jews want credit for high IQ they have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.)

Immigration also harms whites. Slicing plus H-1b plus general immigration have brought whites down. Whites are a minority group now in some prestige universities, etc. Protestant whites are a minority on the US Supreme Court.

The consequences of affirmative action slicing are plain to see. The WASP, the FSA, they are being sliced out of the institutions they founded. Jews are the new verbal elite and they effectively control Harvard because of slicing. They are thus the leader of the slicing coalition. That makes them on the opposite side to whites. Its game theory.

The above is provisional and I reserve the right to amend or withdraw these comments as my thinking changes. I don’t have a settled view on this subject.


I take the point GW is trying to make is that he wants evidence based analysis. The phenomenon of Affirmative Action slicing has been noted by others including Jews like Ron Unz (IQ 214 he says). However, its lacked a name. Moreover, it lacks even a light game theory analysis.

Once we name it and name its parts, we see that slicing is a game in a game theory sense. The players in slicing are blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews on one side and non Jewish whites on the other side. Non Jewish whites (I will call just whites for brevity) are on one side. They are being sliced out. If you don’t like slicing, you can call it squeezing.

Jews are the big winner from slicing. They go from 2 percent of the population to the biggest cohesive group of the slicing coalition. Asians are not verbal enough to be leaders. Blacks and Hispanics are at the bottom and so aren’t leaders by definition. Thus Jews end up the huge winner. As the verbal elite, they get the ability to control institutions from slicing.

Slicing is essential to keep whites from stopping general immigration as well as H-1b immigration. Slicing keeps whites from organizing within institutions. Profs at non elite institutions are Ph.D.’s from Harvard, etc. If a person gets a Ph.D. at a lower level school, their chances at a faculty job are very low, and if they are white even lower.

Slicing means whites are afraid for their jobs. So they don’t speak up about slicing or about general immigration. It is an essential part of creating fear in elite whites to keep quiet and not be loyal to non elite whites. This allows immigration to continue.

Slicing and the removal of whites from elite institution control is an essential element of the ethnic cleansing of whites. Since Jews are the leaders of slicing, and Jews end up as the verbal elite in these institutions, Jews are thus the coalition leader of slicing. That makes them the leader of the general ethnic cleansing of whites. This is game theory. This is what Guy White wanted, rational argument based on facts and game theory and social science.

Game theory is the basis of microeconomics more and more. If you look at the top Ph.D. textbooks in microeconomics, they use a lot of game theory to base micro on. If you look at the expansion of econ into social science, it uses game theory.

Results 1 – 63 of 63 from for Jews

Results 1 – 100 of about 2,300 from for Jewish.

If you look at the above two blogs which have a law and economics flavor in both cases, they freely talk about Jews.

There is a map. You can click on states with Jewish and non-Jewish senators and do the comparison.

Not all are current. I went through the 12, and did notes but those are on a different computer.

You can do the search 12 Jewish senators and get the list.

Its not a matter of Schumer alone. The comparison test of in each state with one Jewish senator, which senator has the lower grade on immigration is a valid test. Its what Guy White is asking for as the basis of debate. So are the stats on Jewish enrollment at Harvard. So is slicing. So is applying game theory to analyze the results. This is Gary Becker (Jewish) type economics if you are a fan of Chicago economics. If not, Marx did it first. If you don’t like Marx, someone else did it before him.


The Affirmative Action Slicing Game is a game in which a coalition, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews act to divide up the benefit of elite education at Harvard and exclude non-Jewish whites. The link I gave far above at the start gave percentages of Jewish students at Harvard and other schools. The precise numbers vary both at school and in time, but are becoming worse for whites in both dimensions.

You can search on Ron Unz Jews Harvard to see a discussion by Ron Unz of the numbers in the 1990’s. Since then they have moved against non Jewish whites at Harvard, Stanford and other schools.
Ethnic Diversity
African American 10.5%
Asian American 19.8%
International 7.2%
Mexican American 7.9%
Native American 3.2%
Native Hawaiian 0.8%
Other Hispanic 6.7%
White 31.5%
Other 3.1%
Declined to State 9.5%

The link above with the Jewish percentage does not include Stanford. Harvard is 30 and many other schools are 20 or higher. So lets use 20. So non Jewish whites are 10 percent at Stanford is the implication.

Yet non Jewish whites are over 50 percent of the population. Affirmative Action Slicing has the effect of excluding whites, the majority of the population from elite schools except as a tiny minority.

To be hired on faculty at non elite schools, one usually needs a Ph.D. from Stanford or Harvard or other elite schools. Thus non-elite schools are subjected to an indirect effect or control through the slicing out of whites at elite schools. Thus whites have a difficult time being faculty at any school in the US even though they are over 50 percent.

H-1b and student visas help create the slicing effect at other institutions, including at universities which are not subject to H-1b caps. Thus they can employ H-1bs in unlimited number in TA and RA jobs and the like. The overall effect is the ethnic cleansing of whites.

The Slicing Game puts whites into a state of fear. They want their kids to get into Harvard or Stanford, but their chances are very low. If they get in, Jews will be the dominant ethnic group especially verbally. H-1b helps make that true in elite jobs, e.g. in programming jobs at investment banks or at high tech companies.

The game works by first taking out at the bottom. Let’s look at the Stanford numbers.

African American 10.5%
Mexican American 7.9%
Native American 3.2%
Native Hawaiian 0.8%
Other Hispanic 6.7%

This comes to about 30 percent or so. Then international takes out 7 percent. That is 37. Asians get 20 percent. That is 57. Other are 3 so 60. That leaves 30 white and 10 declined to state. Of the 30 white, 20 or so are Jewish. So whites are 10 percent. If we apportion decline to state pro rata, we might get whites up to 11 or 12.

Thus non Jewish whites at Stanford are 11 to 12. That makes them a minority. Jews dominate them. Thus non Jewish whites can’t organize to be for whites. That would include to stop affirmative action slicing, PC, immigration, H-1b, etc. The same logic plays through in the job market in elite institutions.

If the fast track people are hired from Stanford, there are almost no whites to hire. So whites are out. That means the people hiring and making promotion decisions are not whites. Whites are thus out at making admission, hiring, and promotion decisions at every elite university and every organization that hires its fast track from elite universities.

This means whites can’t ever be safe job wise to organize to stop the ethnic cleansing of whites by the Slicing Game or immigration or student visas. Non elite schools also have foreign students especially in professional schools and grad schools to make non Jewish whites feel like a minority. That makes them afraid to organize and speak up for whites. Thus the Affirmative Action Slicing Game is a key part of the ethnic cleansing of whites in general. Jews are the key player.

If we look at Asians, Hispanics and blacks in the US Senate, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General or higher, as federal district judges or higher as law profs, as law deans and university presidents, they are far fewer than Jews. Thus its Jews who are running the Slicer Coalition not the other members of the slicer coalition, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. So Jews are slicing whites at elite institutions and using that to keep whites from organizing to stop immigration, student visa, H-1b, etc. All of those then reinforce the slicing game to ethnically cleanse whites.

All of this meets the Daubert standard as admissible in federal district court for proving discrimination and ethnic cleansing by elite Jews of non Jewish whites. DOJ and FTC are shouldering the burden to prove that game theory meets the Daubert standard. Thus the Affirmative Action Slicing Game is admissible in US federal district courts as evidence for the above.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: