|August 15th, 2008||#1|
Jews Dominate Top Law Schools
Time to rebuild this thread. Constructive posts only. We lost the original thread due to faulty wiring.
The point of this thread is to prove that the top ten law schools, from which the lower ones take their lead, discriminate against heterosexual White men and in favor of jews and coloreds. It will be seen that jews as a percentage of the law school professoriate at these schools never falls under 25% and usually is around 50%.
The top ten law schools are:
6. U. of Chicago
7. Berkeley (Boalt)
Here are the top ten's deans and their race
1. Yale - Harold Koh - Asian
2. Stanford - Larry Kramer - jew
3. Harvard - Elena Kagan - jew
4. Columbia - David Schizer - jew
5. NYU - Mordechai Revesz - jew
6. U. of Chicago - Saul Levmore - jew
7. Berkeley (Boalt) - Christopher Edley Jr. - black
8. Michigan - Evan Kaminker - likely jew
9. Pennsylvania - Michael Fitts - white
10. Virginia - John Jeffries - white
Last edited by Alex Linder; August 15th, 2008 at 08:35 PM.
|August 15th, 2008||#2|
[From Chain's thread here: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t...ghlight=Volokh ]
As taken from Alex Linder's post citing the 10 Top Law Schools-
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=201065&postcount=7 [this is the thread that was lost]
Dink Dean Koh-
Jew Dean Kramer-
Jewess Elena Kagan-
MORE DETAILED REFERENCE-
Jew Dean Schizer-
Jew Dean Revesz- http://www.law.nyu.edu/prospective/welcome.html
SECOND PHOTO HERE-
Jew Dean Saul (a lovely first name) Levmore- (How about some "Lev" LESS?)
Nig Dean Edley-
8. University Of Michigan At Ann Arbor
Jew Dean Caminker-
MORE CAMINKER PHOTOS HERE-
9. University Of Pennsylvania
White Man Dean Fitts- (and "Bernard G. Segal" professor of law)
10. White Man Dean Jeffries-
John C. Jeffries refers to Vanguard News Network-
|August 15th, 2008||#3|
Join Date: Dec 2003
This may not be very constructive but when I try and point out the heavy infestation of jews in top law schools or any law schools for that matter to friends, acquaintances, family, etc. I almost always get a patented response: What does their religion have to do with it?
It's enough to make your average White Nationalist go postal.
[That point will be addressed up top: why it matters. I'll write that once the thread is ready for permanent archive in the jews: white family's worst enemy section. AL]
Last edited by Alex Linder; August 15th, 2008 at 09:17 PM.
|August 15th, 2008||#4|
[From Craig Cobb, slightly edited]
Let's move on through the top 19 law schools...
For numbers 11 through 19 (9 spots) we have:
1 white feminist feminist,
and 3 White men.
11. Duke Law
Dean White woman Jewized feminist, Bartlett-
REFERENCE Bartlett's "Feminist Legal Theory"-
12. Northwestern Law
White man lawyer and PhD in sociology, Van Zandt-
13. Cornell Law
White Dean Schwab-
14. Georgetown Law
Jew Dean Aleinikoff
15. University Texas, Austin Law
White Dean Powers
16. UCLA Law
Jew Dean Schill
Here our old Lefkow speech expert, Jew Volokh, trumpets the Jew news-
Jew Dean Rubin-
Rangutan Dean Johnson
19. George Washington University Law
Kike Dean Lawrence
20. University of Notre Dame
White woman Dean O'Hara
21. Washington University (at St. Louis) Law
White Dean Keating
22. Boston University Law
Maureen A. O'Rourke (presumably White)
23. Emory Law
White Dean Alexander (affordable housing expert)
24. University Iowa Law
White woman Dean Jones
25. Washington & Lee University Law
Nominal White man Dean Partlett (MAY be a Jew- CERTAINLY at least a shabbez goy- based on his writings...see below)
White woman Dean Hurd-
[post from "Fritz Kuhn"]
Chain, you're ahead of the curve as usual. The Jew York Times reports on a Georgetown Law School study of elite law school professors and has found them to be overwhelmingly . . . Democrats! You didn't think they'de use the dreaded J Word, did you? Some truths are too dangerous to mention outside of VNN.
PROFESSORS at the best law schools are generally assumed to be overwhelmingly liberal, and now a new study lends proof. But whether the ideological imbalance matters - to the academic environment students encounter, to the kinds of lawyers the schools produce and to the stock of ideas the professors generate - depends on whom you ask.
The study, to be published this fall in The Georgetown Law Journal, analyzes 11 years of records reflecting federal campaign contributions by professors at the top 21 law schools as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Almost a third of these law professors contribute to campaigns, but of them, the study finds, 81 percent who contributed $200 or more gave wholly or mostly to Democrats; 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.
The percentages of professors contributing to Democrats were even more lopsided at some of the most prestigious schools: 91 percent at Harvard, 92 at Yale, 94 at Stanford. At the University of Virginia, on the other hand, contributions were about evenly divided between the parties. The sample sizes at some schools may be too small to allow for comparisons, though it bears noting that by this measure the University of Chicago is slightly more liberal than Berkeley.
. . . I don't think the liberal bias of law school faculties has much impact on the students," said Richard A. Posner, a federal appeals court judge who teaches at the University of Chicago. "Law students are careerists, and for them law school is career preparation, not Sunday chapel."
The profession itself, said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, may moderate the influence of the academy. "Insofar as an elite law school might push students to the left," Professor Persily said, "corporate law firms might bring them back to the center."
John O. McGinnis, a law professor at Northwestern who prepared the study along with two New York lawyers, Matthew A. Schwartz and Benjamin Tisdell, said it was meant for the most part to present data rather than draw conclusions.
But the study does note an arguable inconsistency in the way law schools approach student admissions and faculty hiring.
When the United States Supreme Court endorsed race-conscious admissions policies in 2003, it based its decision on the importance of ensuring the representation of diverse viewpoints in the classroom.
Law schools that take race into account in admissions decisions, the study says, "open themselves to charges of intellectual inconsistency" if they do not also address the ideological imbalances on their faculties.
The most serious problem pointed to by the study, Professor McGinnis said, is that the ideas generated by the law schools are both uniform and untested.
"It may be," he added, "that the rise of conservative think tanks counterbalances this effect to a degree. As one who believes in markets, I think that alternative institutions in the long run will arise to supply ideas." Even so, he said, "liberal ideas might well be strengthened and made more effective if liberals had to run a more conservative gantlet among their own colleagues when developing them."
Last edited by Alex Linder; August 15th, 2008 at 09:51 PM.
|August 15th, 2008||#5|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Midwestern "United States of America"
Conservative estimate: 30 jews.
Edit: Correction, "only" 29, out of 90 total. Estimate based on internet search
for [name] + jewish.
1. David Barron
2. Lucian A. Bebchuk (alumnus: University of Tel Aviv, University of Haifa)
3. Yochai Benkler (alumnus: Tel Aviv University)
4. Gabriella Blum (alumnus: Tel Aviv University)
5. I. Glenn Cohen
6. Alan M. Dershowitz
7. Noah Feldman
8. John C.P. Goldberg
9. Morton J. Horwitz
10. Elena Kagan (Dean)
11. Daniel J. Meltzer
12. Frank I. Michelman
13. Martha L. Minow
14. Todd D. Rakoff
15. Benjamin Roin
16. David Rosenberg
17. William Rubenstein
18. Benjamin Sachs
19. Steven M. Shavell
20. Jed Shugerman
21. Joseph William Singer
22. Robert H. Sitkoff
23. Kathryn Spier
24. Matthew Stephenson
25. Cass R. Sunstein
26. Laurence H. Tribe (Honorary LH.D., Hebrew University)
27. Lloyd L. Weinreb
28. Jonathan Zittrain
29. Michael Klarman
29/90 = 32%
An anti-semite is someone who knows what's going on.
Last edited by M. Kraus; August 16th, 2008 at 08:47 AM.
|August 15th, 2008||#6|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
I had never encountered a jew-wise person 'till I started reading Stormfront, then VNN. As radically racially conscious as my family was toward niggers, there was no one who understood the jew underpinnings of the nigger menace.
We've got to figure out some way to make the average white person cognizant of what jews really are and what motivates them.
The jews' best defensive weapon is their white appearance. There has to be a way to make the average Kwan see through it.
Last edited by Marse Supial; August 15th, 2008 at 09:29 PM.
|August 15th, 2008||#7|
What if your worst enemy were given Godlike power to rule your life? Would that suck or what?
How would you go about messing up society, if that were your goal? What would you do? What kind of laws would you pass?
Don't start with jews, end with jews.
Meet them where they are, bring them back to the truth.
|August 15th, 2008||#8|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
|August 15th, 2008||#9|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sure ain't Kansas, Dorothy!
Make sure to double-check those links, Alex:
East Coast White Unity
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake
|August 15th, 2008||#10|
[From The Aryan Alternative #3]
Jews Occupy Over 50% of Top-Ten Law School Teaching Slots
HOW COME 2% OF THE POPULATION IS 60% OF
THE FACULTY AT UCLA LAW SCHOOL?
Say hello to the hook-nosed face of “American” law
They’re barely two percent of the population, but research indicates that jews occupy slightly more than half of the teaching slots at America’s top ten law schools. (By ranking of U.S. News & World Report, these are: 1. Yale; 2. Stanford; 3. Harvard; 4. Columbia; 5. NYU; 6. Chicago; 7. Berkeley; 7. Michigan; 7. Pennsylvania; 7. Virginia.) The same people who give you the endless song and dance about overrepresentation of white males in every sector they haven’t yet commandeered for themselves have nepotistically positioned their racial crime syndicate to decide who becomes a power player in 21st-century AmeriKwa -- and they breathe not a word of this prodigious legal enormity to the mass public. The simple fact is, jews and people trained to think like them exercise an effective monopoly over the legal profession. In a country in which you can hardly pick your nose without counsel, that fact is grounds for some very serious thought about where we’re headed, and what’s going to be left of normal whites like you and me when we get there.
VNN researched the matter online (you can verify all the findings, the names and pictures, online at vnnforum.com ). This was easy to do, since all these schools list their professors by name. It is clear from the very look and feel of these sites that the attitude of the folks training our top lawyers is the same as the jewish business owner who said, “I only hire jews, women, and gays.” Normal white males need not apply, and the ones who do attend these schools, are either self-hating liberals to start with, or bent that way after Prof. Selznik’s “words mean what they have to” course. Simply look at the graphics used by these top ten schools to see the future this type envisions: women and coloreds and jews, with nary a white male to be found. This is the utopia the jew prepares for our race. When they say “abolish,” they mean it. White genocide is very plainly the agenda of the jews who control our law schools.
Funny thing about jews. When they’re what they call underrepresented (the term
they use when they’re not overrepresented to the degree of their liking), it’s because evil white males discriminate against them. But when they’re overrepresented, it’s because they value education, and work harder than anyone else! You can’t win with these jews! If you describe their games, you’re an anti-semite. You begin to see how it was that Matt Hale was denied his earned law degree solely because of his politics. If we don’t live in under a Jewish Tyranny, then what would you call it? Says one analyst, who you can bet you’ll not be seeing on CourtTV anytime soon: What has happned is Weimar all over again. The jews flocked to America, and whined, worked and wheedled until they took over all positions of power. Now they discriminate against others, and nobody talks or writes about it. But we all pay the price, and the price, in time, is our genocide. Everything in society pushes the same way. We face a coordinated but concealed oppression. It is the purpose of this newspaper to remove the cover from AmeriKwan society, and reveal to you the shrieking stringpullers and their shenanigans. Have no doubt: the complete jewish takeover of law schools is one of the major unreported stories of the 21st century.
How does the process work? We asked one anonymous expert: Jews are uniquely favored in the admissions process for a number of reasons. Firstly they are obsessive - they will study for ten hours for an exam which may require only a single hour of work. They are also scheming and sly - they will identify classes where the professor gives out high grades and avoid hard sciences where the class average is a B, or even a C. They will go out of their way to pad their resumes, get recommendations from powerful friends and family and defer their (limited) social lives to ensure that they ace the entrance exams. It's not so simple as the Dean saying Feinberg in, Flynn out. Jews are socialized from a young age to focus on fields where they can keep their fingernails clean, earn a lot of money, impress the relatives and use the argumentative skills. Many Whites who could intellectually wipe the floor with these jews have decided that the Talmudic world of legal "scholarship" is a waste of life - these Whites are scientists, engineers, builders, inventors, designers and business owners.
Why do the “top ten” matter? They don’t, necessarily. If you want to hang your shingle in Tucson, a U. of Arizona degree will serve. But if you want a federal clerkship, a job at a major corporate law firm, a chance to practice appellate law, the opportunity to be published in a major law journal or a shot at a job teaching at a law school, you better be in the top 10 or 20. And if you want to sit on the Federal bench or even the Supreme Court, you better be from Harvard, Yale or Stanford.
The nazis in Germany, as “haters” in America today, were inspired by just the sort of jewish takeover of institutions described above. They didn’t like the jewing of their native culture, and they reacted to vomit the jews. A similar reaction builds today in America. (Again, for background on all this see vnnforum.com .)
The subject of extreme, almost unbelievable, jewish overrepresentation in law schools is a subject that jews are extremely touchy about. We first got into it with a jew Volokh at UCLA. After receiving some snotty comments, we decided to take a look at just how many hooknosed profs there were at this public institution. Turns out that over fifty percent of this PUBLIC SCHOOL’s law slots are held by jews. An newspaper called Inside Higher Education wrote an article about our posting the photos and names of a few of the dozens of jews polluting UCLA’s law school. Said Volokh, with his race’s characteristic brazenness: “So, yeah, we’re Jews. Yeah, we’re overrepresented on university faculties, in law and medicine, in the Senate, on the Supreme Court.” But only because they’re so smart, you see. Certainly not because they’re ethnic nepotists who discriminate against others. It’s only the whites who built this country and its institutions without any jewish help guilty of that. We encourage you, the college student receiving this paper, to test what we say. Check out your own school’s jew level, whether undergrad, graduate, or law. Your real education has just begun.
[html version of PDF of TAA #3]
|August 15th, 2008||#11|
[Inside Higher Education wrote an article mentioning our expose after jew Eugene Volokh started crying.]
Hate Group Casts a Wider Net
A few weeks ago, participants on an anti-Semitic Web site became angry when a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles refused to participate in an exchange of e-mail messages.
The professor was Jewish, and the Web site responded by placing photographs of and biographic material about UCLA professors and anti-Semitic diatribes online. In recent days, the Web site — Vanguard News Network — has expanded its campaign, which it says is designed to draw attention to the high percentage of Jewish professors on law schools’ faculties.
The Web site is now publishing a variety of information — photographs, results of Google searches, phone numbers — of faculty members who are Jewish (or have Jewish-sounding names) at leading law schools all over the United States.
Among the institutions who have faculty members discussed by name on the Web site are Georgetown, Harvard, New York, Stanford and Yale Universities; and the Universities of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Most of the comments attack Jewish faculty members at law schools, with a theme being that they make up a larger share of law school faculties than do Jews in the U.S. population, and that this over-representation signifies Jewish control of American society.
But some of the professors attacked are not Jewish or law professors. A black female professor is described as “Mammy Stormtrooper for Jooz.”
And a few professors who are listed teach in other disciplines. Harry Jaffa, a professor emeritus of government at Claremont McKenna College, is described by one of the Web site’s authors (verbatim) as “a troll jew at CMC, next to my school, Pomona, in Claremont. He’s the major Lincoln liar — the leader of the school that refurbishes reality to fit current jewish political needs, ie claiming lincoln was a liberator rather than dictator.”
Jaffa, author of such books as Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, says that he is Jewish and he does believe Lincoln was a liberator. The site on which he is listed generally sickens him.
“These people are old-fashioned racists who are defenders of slavery,” Jaffa said, adding that it was “a badge of honor” to be hated by the people who produce Vanguard News Network.
Several professors contacted said that they were just learning that they were being discussed on the Web site, and some said that they were shook up by being there.
John C. Jeffries Jr., dean of the law school at Virginia, which had a number of professors named, said in a statement: “Despicable hate-mongering is facilitated by the Internet. For reasons both technological and legal, such speech is impossible to control. It should nonetheless be condemned and, to the extent possible, ignored.”
Carl C. Monk, executive director of the Association of American Law Schools, said he was “very concerned” about law school faculty members being singled out for being Jewish — or for any discriminatory reason.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the Web site’s tactics were particularly offensive because of the pattern of anti-Semites’ first trying to publicly identify Jews, and then waiting for others to attack them in various ways. “History has taught us that this is the way it starts, and then all it takes is one crazy person.”
The Vanguard News Network, he said, “is all about hate, to facilitate bigotry, prejudice, racism and anti-Semitism.”
— Scott Jaschik
|August 15th, 2008||#12|
Get them to agree on one thing, then lead them step by step to your conclusion, drawing it out of them socratically.
"Would you agree that lawyers have a lot of power in our society?"
Who wouldn't agree to that?
Then it's just a matter of working your way back. Their reaction will tell you how to do it, what speed, which words to use.
You don't persuade people right off. What you do is, if you do it right, is show them that they already know the truth, agree with you, they just hadn't made the necessary connections. The data were there. They know society sucks. They know lawyers made it that way. What they don't know is that most of those lawyers are jews; all of those lawyers are trained to think like jews; the jews are pushing an anti-white agenda. It's your simple job to teach them the proper connections and new associations.
|August 16th, 2008||#13|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
|August 16th, 2008||#14|
What was it Jefferson said, something about a long train of abuses directed at the same end? That's the way to pursue the argument. The same agenda is pushed, right? Never varies. Give them examples and parallels, ask them if their experience is different from yours.
Things are bad?
Something made them that way?
Jews are that something.
If not check, then at least you've opened them to the idea, whether or not they can admit it at the moment. Most men, white men, are extremely egotistical, especially when it comes to their own opinion. They like to think they come up with their own opinions, bu this is usually not the case. Women know how to manipulate men by MAKING THEM THINK THEY CAME UP WITH IT. The same technique works to teach them about jews. Be humble and show them they ALREADY KNOW what you're saying. They agree with you. You're just reminding them. There's usually some fear, and felt need to keep up a facade. But if you get that reaction, you've accomplished your mission. They have intellectually accepted your point. They just have to let it germinate for a time. To digest it in private.
|August 16th, 2008||#15|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Let's take a look at Yale
Here's a list of Yale Law School Professors - A to B
1) Howard E. Abrams
2) Bruce Ackerman
3) Dapo Akande
4) Ian Ayres
5) Jack M. Balkin
6) Aharon Barak
7) Lea Brilmayer
8) Richard Brooks
I left out the visiting professors, both from Yale and those imported for a semester.
Looks like in our A to B catagory, we have jews with a smattering of magic negros.
No Whites to be seen.
If you'd like to view the entire Yale Law School Faculty, just give this link a click
|August 16th, 2008||#16|
If they didn't hear it on Fox, or it goes against what Fox says, then it's going to scare them. You overcome this by dealing with them in private, patiently, and presumbaly they trust you and your character. These can overcome the built in, animal, Authority-is-right bias in the type of men we're trying to reach.
There's no one way to do it - it depends on the specific person you're trying to reach, and the circumstances of your conversation.
If I'm with a farmer, I would talk one way. Slowly, patiently. If I'm with a smartass like me, then I'll try a little mocking, to get his competitive spirit up. Oh, you didn't know that 6/10 law school deans were jews. Yeah, I'm sure that doesn't affect anything, with an appropriate chuckle. Smart people hate to be thought not hip to what's REALLY going on, and this angle can be played to.
Footnotes, documentation, proof - these are just playing parts. The game is in using them, yes, but more so ourselves, to get the message across in the way best fit to serve the specific person we're one on one with.
|August 17th, 2008||#17|
Join Date: Jan 2007
The whole legal industry is a scam, it is the only industry a working adult cannot train for since there are no true part-time school, now that we have nurse practitioners. Why is it necessary for 8 years (including licensing exam prep) to write a will?
It is also the only industry to control a branch of government. Originally most lawyers were farmers that did law in the winter as a side business so many trades were represented.
Kikes control the legal industry, so they control a whole branch of government.
|August 17th, 2008||#18|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Last edited by Bardamu; August 17th, 2008 at 12:40 PM.
|August 17th, 2008||#19|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: u know where!
wouldn't it be better to focus on sections of our race having more potential?
like: white children under, say, 17yrs old and white people "on the verge" of becoming WNs (like: staunch Ron Paul supporters)
the above two groups PLUS some-one who has had/has @ least some connection(s) with some WP or WN group are the only white people that interest me.....when you expand that to include, say, some-one who has just stuck $50 in the mail for one of our "fund drives" or even sent such in the past to some-one like Klassen or Pierce, then, all those sub-groups constitute a pretty large 'target audience', wouldn't you say?
why waste our time on white adults who are 'tards, lemmings & couch spuds?
if they're not WNs by now.....wtf makes you think they'll EVER be?
i hate to say it, but that was the ghastly mistake that Matt Hale made...he seemed to think that, if you had a white skin, you were basically OK.....hence: his getting 'duped' by that Tony Evola (sic) character!
in this day & age, those white people who do not fall into one of the above three 'groups' are little better than ZOG-bots it seems to me.....how can they be trusted?
in a sense, they are MORE DANGEROUS to us than jews....they are 'sleeper agents'/'fifth columnists' just waiting to be 'activated' by a few ZOG-"word-triggers" like "hater", "nazi", "bigot", "white supremicist", "Holocaust denier" &c!
i know you have changed the format & approach of this Forum to try & appeal to "a wider audience".....but, honestly, do you think such people are even "worth the effort"?
i have no time or patience for them .... and would not trust them for ONE INSTANT un-less they engaged in some MAJOR ACTIVISM to "prove them-selves".....i'll leave it up to yr imaginations as to what such 'activism' would entail!
seems to me, it's "too late in the day" to accept 'last-minute conversions' from those who were just recently total ZOG-enablers!
yr a better man than me if you've got the patience, forbearance & fortitude to 'prosletyise' to such a crew!
|August 17th, 2008||#20|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Consider this: Edward I formally expelled the Jews from England in the 13th century...these measures were greeted with mass approval, not because the serfs were well-read, but because Jewish power hurt them in an everyday, physically ascertainable capacity. In other words, most men be them knaves, paladins, intellectuals or fools are only willing to assign enemy status to X if they can demonstrate ''X hurts me''. In 2008, if you wish to convince people that they are being hurt by Jews, you must appeal to values that are not material in quality...that is a rather daunting task I think.