What I'd Sound Like, With An Accent

I never heard of this guy - Nigel Farage - before...

And I don't quite know all the circumstances of the following clip:

BUT it's always delightful to witness 'old coot' bastards getting smacked down!

Morons Discover We Have A "Ruling Class"

People keep sending me this essay, so I will highlight in hopes that the emails stop!

America's Ruling Class - And the Perils of Revolution

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government's agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about "global warming" for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

The Political Divide

Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg's tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

That's only a fraction of the essay. And no, I haven't had neither the time nor the inclination to read the rest.

Unedified by the preceding...I reiterate that the only chance this country has to regain its footing is for the Republican party to dissolve, permanently.

See also:

Children of the UN?

Unity, A Ruse

On The Elite

A Guy I'd Like To Have Punched

Anyone who's read much of Marginalizing Morons is familiar with the my conspiratorial history of Big Government and one-world elitists.

I just came across a fellow by the name of Lord Bertrand Russell.

Check out what this *Nazi* said/wrote some 60 years ago:

"Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men, Pavlov and Freud, have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt. I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called "education." Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.''

Russell continued, "The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship....The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray."

Russell concluded with a warning: "Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."

What an elitist butthole!

Sadly he was also a prescient butthole.

A guy this depraved should probably have been sterilized AND life-sentenced to a bucolic paradise where his mind-poison could be contained....like ANWR.

But instead, on the contrary, he was actually given a Nobel Prize...."in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought." !!!

See also - A Junk Debunk.

More Crackpot Conspiracies On AIDS

This stuff is great. And it'll really get an open-minded person thinking:

HIV does NOT cause AIDS. HIV does not cause anything. A staggering statement given the hype and acceptance by the scientific establishment and, through them, the public that the HIV virus is the only cause of AIDS. HIV is a weak virus and does not dismantle the immune system. Nor is AIDS passed on sexually.

There are two main types of virus. Using the airplane analogy, you could call one of these virus strains a "pilot" virus. It can change the nature of a cell and steer it into disease. This usually happens very quickly after the virus takes hold. Then there is the "passenger" virus which lives off the cell, goes along for the ride, but never affects the cell to the extent that it causes disease.

HIV is a passenger virus!

So how on earth did it become the big boogy man virus of the world? The person who announced that HIV caused AIDS was an American, Doctor Robert Gallo. He has since been accused of professional misconduct, his test has been exposed as fraudulent, and two of his laboratory executives have been convicted of criminal offenses. Tens of millions of people are tested for HIV antibodies every year and Dr Gallo, who patented his "test", gets a royalty for every one.

Luc Montagnier, Gallo's partner in the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, has since admitted in 1989: "HIV is not capable of causing the destruction of the immune system which is seen in people with AIDS". Nearly 500 scientists across the world agree with him. So does Dr Robert E Wilner, author of the book 'The Deadly Deception. The Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS'.

Dr Wilner even injected himself with the HIV virus on a television chat show in Spain to support his claims. Other doctors and authors come to the same conclusions, among them Peter Duesberg PhD and John Yiamouyiannis PhD, in their book, 'AIDS: The Good News Is That HIV Doesn't Cause It. The Bad News Is "Recreational Drugs" And Medical Treatments Like AZT Do'. That's a long title, but it sums up the situation. People are dying of AIDS because of the treatments used to "treat" AIDS! It works like this.

Now it is accepted by the establishment and the people that HIV causes AIDS, the system has built this myth into its whole diagnosis and "treatment". You go to the doctor and you are told your HIV test was positive(positive only for the HIV antibodies, by the way, they don't actually test for the virus itself). Because of the propaganda, many people already begin to die emotionally and mentally when they are told they are HIV positive. They have been conditioned to believe that death is inevitable.

The fear of death leads them to accept, often demand, the hyped-up "treatments" which are supposed to stop AIDS occurring. (They don't.) The most famous is AZT, produced by the Wellcome organisation, owned, wait for it, by the Rockefellers, one of the key manipulating families in the New World Order.

AZT was developed as an anti-cancer drug to be used in chemotherapy, but it was found to be too toxic even for that! AZT's effect in the "treatment" of cancer was to kill cells - simple as that - not just to kill cancer cells , but to kill cells, cancerous and healthy. The question, and this is accepted even by the medical establishment, was: would AZT kill the cancer cells before it had killed so many healthy cells that it killed the body? This is the drug used to "treat" HIV. What is its effect?

It destroys the immune system, so it is CAUSING AIDS. People are dying from the treatment, not the HIV. AIDS is simply the breakdown of the immune system, for which there are endless causes, none of them passed on through sex. That's another con which has made a fortune for condom manufacturers and created enormous fear around the expression of our sexuality and the release and expansion of our creative force.

Many deaths incorrectly attributed to AIDS
What has happened since the Great AIDS Con is that now anyone who dies from a diminished immune system is said to have died of the all encompassing term, AIDS. It is even built into the diagnosis. If you are HIV positive and you die of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or 25 other unrelated diseases now connected by the con men to "AIDS", you are diagnosed as dying of AIDS. If you are not HIV positive and you die of one of those diseases you are diagnosed as dying of that disease, not AIDS. This manipulates the figures every day to indicate that only HIV positives die of AIDS.

This is a lie.

Many people who die from AIDS are not HIV positive and the reason that the figures for AIDS deaths have not soared as predicted is that the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed HIV positive have never developed AIDS. Why?

Because HIV has nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS.

Anything that breaks down the immune system causes AIDS and that includes so-called recreational drugs. The vast majority of AIDS deaths in the United States involve homosexuals and this perpetuates the myth that it has something to do with sex. But homosexuals in the US are among the biggest users of drugs which genuine doctors have linked to AIDS. Prostitutes who take drugs often get AIDS, prostitutes who do not take drugs invariably do not get AIDS.

The rise in the AIDS figures in the United States corresponds perfectly with the increase in the use of drugs - most of which are made available to people on the streets by elements within the US Government, including Bill Clinton and George Bush. In Africa, the breakdown of the immune system, now known as AIDS, is caused by ill health - lack of good food, clean water and the general effects of poverty. Haemophiliacs do not die from HIV-infected blood, they die, as they did before the AIDS scam, from a quirk in their own immune system. Their immune system locks into foreign proteins in the infused blood and on rare occasions it can become confused during this process and attack itself. Their immune system, in effect, commits suicide. HIV is irrelevant to that.

Yet how many people today who have been diagnosed HIV positive are having their lives blighted by the fear that the symptoms of AIDS will start any moment?
AZT is the killer. There is not a single case of AZT reversing the symptoms of AIDS. How can it? It's causing them, for goodness sake. The AIDS industry is now worth billions of pounds a year and makes an unimaginable fortune for the drug industry controlled by the Rockefellers and the rest of the Global Elite.

I saw article on my new favorite website Natural News today. Apparently it's the work of one David Icke, an alleged grandmaster of *conspiracy theories* - in league with that Alex Jones guy I once highlighted.

I'm generally unmoved by the whole, oft-heard *crazy* accusation. Every single one of us you is NUTS about many things, minimally.

In his State of the Union address in January 2003, President Bush announced the creation of PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a commitment to significantly increase US spending on HIV/AIDS initiatives around the world.6 Planned to run for five years, PEPFAR intended to direct US$15 billion to places where it is most needed. PEPFAR was renewed in July 2008 with the intention of spending $48 billion from 2009 to 2013 on programmes to tackle HIV and AIDS as well as tuberculosis and malaria.

That's almost $9 billion per year....$9 billion in welfare for Big Science. Naaaaahhhhhh....there's no fraud on that gravy train!

Obviously, the government has no business being in the *disease business*. If I were President dictator, I'd chop that number to ZERO in a heartbeat.

(And, of course, I'd eliminate every penny of research subsidies to universities and colleges!)

So go ahead and scoff at *conspiracy theorists*...

I'll bet AGAINST Big Government on everything, every time with the comfort that empiricism, i.e. the only science, is on my side.

See also my recent post - On AID$.

Children Of The UN?

Does that pic make the poor woman look like Michael Jackson or what?

Getting back on track - from her article:

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and opened to nations across the world for ratification in 1989, may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise and homeschool their children. Crucial parental decisions such as who our children associate with, what type of discipline is used, whether we take our kids to church, what they read and whether we homeschool, would be decided by the state and possibly international law.

Currently, family and education laws are state-based. However, the UNCRC can be ratified if it gains a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate. It would then transfer the jurisdiction for making family and education law to the U.S. Congress. Congress would, in turn, be obligated to follow the UN mandates and the UNCRC will automatically supersede all state laws and U.S. judges will be obligated to follow the provisions of the treaty.

That article is light on specifics, so exercise some personal responsibility and do your own due diligence.

Make no mistake, this is a ruse by and for international elites - those scumbags who do exist, do wield considerable power, and are hard at work pushing for one GLOBAL COMMUNIST ORDER.

Consider this from the UN *treaty*:

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

What?!?!?!

The State will protect children from the *beliefs* of their parents!!!

I've written, and many of y'all have no doubt laughed, about the *global elite* before.

See my prior posts - On The Elite and Unity, A Ruse.

Jesse "The Mind" Ventura

Interesting interview with former Navy Seal, pro wrestler, and Minnesota governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura":



I guess I kind of knew the CIA had no authority to operate within the United States. And in the video (watch it!) Jesse offers evidence they do so anyway. I guess what's to be surprised? Every arm of Big Government has become a mandate-enlarging, self-perpetuating monster, right?

I just read some of Jesse's Wikipedia entry. It's pretty interesting.

Note that from the 3 min 50 sec mark to the 5 min mark in that clip Jesse discusses how the CIA interrogated him after his election victory. "How did you get elected?", they wanted to know. *Independent* governors are hardly welcome in our political duopoly. And this point gives credence to that weird Alex Jones video I posted in On The Elite.

If you remember, in that clip he talked about the two parties propping each other up.

Independents aren't welcome anywhere in the realm of Big Government - not even in grade school classrooms!

Unity, A Ruse

Few take seriously the notion that there is a conspiracy of global elites attempting to concentrate power and subjugate all humanity.

It's laughable, right?

I recently broached the subject with On The Elite.

Read this:

UK's Brown: Now is the time to build global society

LONDON (Reuters) - The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.

In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.

"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."

"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."

Unity sounds great, does it not?

The reality is, unity sucks. We don't need *one world order*, we need several competing orders.

Make no mistake, one *order*, one set of *laws*, one *international court*,....these are all ruses to enthrone One World Government.

Here's collectivist Barney Frank from an old post:

Financial regulators on both sides of the Atlantic may not be able to resolve policy disputes through co-operation and the creation of a global regulator should be considered, according to Barney Frank, the senior Democratic congressman.

Asked if a supra-national regulator would be needed, he told the Financial Times: "I don’t know. At this point that’s something to look into."

The same goes for *financial* and *accounting* standards. Optimally, the world will have many different exchanges and sets of standards vying for capital and human energy. Barney Frank's call for a *supra-national regulator* ought to be reckoned an act of treason!

Again, you can ignore the rhetoric if you like, if it settles your stomach and sedates your brain, but it all points to One World Government - one way to live.

Unity ain't all it's cracked up to be. In fact, post-Civil War, that shibboleth was used to create (among other things) the mandate for hideous, compulsory, state-run schooling.



What's deeply ironic is the fact that the global elite, the dissembling Communists, have co-opted the term *diversity* for themselves.

So what would a small group need to *co-opt* the literal meaning of a well-defined word in the dictionary?

That's right. They'd need to possess considerable power in the first place.

More Evidence Of The Worthlessness Of The Harvard PhD

Into the face of commonsense, two of Greg Mankiw's chums recently concluded that watching television enhances academic achievement:

...children who lived in cities that gave them more exposure to television in early childhood performed better on the tests than those with less exposure.

The economists found that television was especially positive for children in households where English wasn't the primary language and parents' education level was lower.

The idiot box helps ESL minorities the most? So I guess taxpayers should be subsidizing all those satellite dishes we see in the projects - after all, it'd be *for the children* and for their *education*.

And, it's got to be cheaper to buy $100 televisions than to pay unionized bureaucrats and educators, right?

Go to the Wall Street Journal and read the full article. It's one thing to waste taxpayers money with a vapid study and erroneous conclusions, but these Harvard clowns also posited a most disgusting point.

They tried to argue that television lowered fertility in Brazil.

During the 1970s and the 1980s, when television expanded rapidly in Brazil, fertility rates declined dramatically, to 2.8 children per woman in 1990 from 5 children in 1970, according to the World Bank.

The disgusting presumption, of course, is that fewer children is somehow an ideal worth striving for.



This *too many kids* garbage I hear from Harvard and Cambridge types ALL THE TIME. In fact we heard it just last week from one of them at a dinner party. All these clowns do is project.

Deep down they know they shouldn't reproduce; they know they'd make horrible parents....

So they just assume the rest of us are the same!

The supreme riposte to these Morons, as I've said before, is:

Yeah, I totally agree. YOU really shouldn't have too many kids.



Cynics of yesteryear argued that pornography and television were elitist devices to dampen the reproductive output of the wretched lumpen masses.

Now as a fail-safe we have a what, $500 million annual subsidy to the abortion industry?

Economists - Useless BUT Harmful

Here's Greg Mankiw proving a critic's point.



He quotes economist James Galbraith:

It’s an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession [re: their failure to predict the mortgage crisis]. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.

And now here's the esteemed Greg Mankiw's commentary:

Like his late father, Galbraith the younger is highly critical of mainstream economics. This is noteworthy in part because Galbraith is listed as an Obama economic adviser.

One of the more telling things to look out for in the coming weeks (assuming the seemingly inevitable Obama victory) will be which economists get which jobs in the new administration. Will the important positions be filled with people like Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman, who are essentially mainstream economists with slightly left of center political views, or with heterodox economists like Galbraith who are deeply skeptical of the economics found in most textbooks? If the administration is filled with prominent members of both groups, the internal battles over the heart and soul of the new administration's economic policy should prove fascinating to watch.

Actually Greg, economic policies have REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES - people gain or lose jobs, individual liberties are at stake, fortunes are made and lost, standards of living shift, etc.

His nerdy hunger for FASCINATION just proves Galbraith's point about economists and their *fundamental uselessness*!!!



Yes they are useless, but far from innocuous.

Just think how many budding little socialists have passed Mankiw's courses.

Just think of how wannabe elitists he's helped teach the heinous crafts of confiscation and redistribution.

What about their negative externalities, Greg?

If ONLY they were just *useless*.

On The Elite

First off, I have no idea who this guy is. Do any of y'all?

I agree with his thesis - that there is an elite concentrating power over the sheeple.

I also think his paradigm of the two parties holding each other up was masterful imagery.

But his real world examples were scant, weak, and poorly articulated. I could easily have given him meatier fodder.

More on this later.

We, The Public, Ain't So Dumb

My buddy Forbes editor Rich Karlgaard busted on the lumpen masses today. He wrote about that email floating around (we've all gotten it) whose essence is this:

"I'm against the $85,000,000,000 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend.' To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/-, counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion. That equals $425,000. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It Dividend.'"

Rich points out that mathematically, the correct quotient only amounts to $425 per person. He then goes on to rail about *innumeracy* in our society; how the Chinese are laughing at us; and so on.

But concentrate here. Why were the lumpen masses so eager to believe the bailout would cost 400k per adult?

Well maybe they are aware of the per-pupil costs of their local public schools. (New Jersey's $15,000 per year exceeds the poverty line for income!)

Maybe they remembered that 'old coots' get $27,289 in ANNUAL government benefits.

Or maybe the rubes, buffoons, and Joe6Packs recalled that Katrina Relief alone amounted to $425,000 (or higher) per New Orleans resident.

The taxpaying public KNOWS it's getting screwed by the proposed bank bailout - I'd hesitate to discount their view solely on inarticulation.

Plus, from where I sit, a simple mathematical error is at least on par with the illogic of:

1) Being for a blank check, no-oversight $700 billion+ bailout for Wall Street.
2) And being for a "strong dollar".

The two are completely irreconcilable. See Rich's other post.



"Criticizing others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves." - Will Durant

Self-Segregating, Hypocritical, Bigoted Anuses

They aspire to live here.



From Forbes:

If exclusivity is everything in luxury real estate, 303 Third Street, a cooperative of new apartments in Cambridge, Massachusetts, represents something of a coup: Only faculty, staff or alumni of MIT, Harvard or Massachusetts General Hospital (included for its research ties to both universities) may buy apartments here. According to Bob Simha, former director of planning for MIT and one of the principals behind University Residential Communities at 303 Third, the goal is to create "an academic community, a place for people with shared cultural interests and an affinity for the intellectual life."

"It's for like-minded people connected to a university," says John Cetra, describing his design of the building's interior and amenities, which will include a library with an eco-friendly fireplace, a club room outfitted for lecture series, a round-the-clock concierge and a fully staffed private dining club.

"We're facing a group of Nobel Prize winners and university presidents," recalls Cetra. "This was not a golf community. The questions were not just what's the color of the carpet, but what are the chemical emissions from the carpet? How many air changes per minute in the bathroom and kitchen? I was taking questions from the world's authority on off-gasses from paint. It was an educated buyer."



"Like-minded peope"???

So much for diversity!

Note that these are "educated buyers" - they aren't the Cro-Magnon Morons who inhabit "golf communities"!

These smug bastards just ooze with condescension AND bigotry. One of the only justices in this world is when I get a hold of such an elitist at a social event and decided to patronize the sh*t out of them. I'm quite good at it too - if I do say so myself. My best Marginalizations are always live and in-person.

These like-minded scumbags have never shirked from coercing others to assimilate via ethnic quotas, sensitivity training, affordable housing mandates, etc. but obviously they are different special. For example, here's a 2002 Harvard Crimson editorial on Augusta National's male-only membership policy:

Although Augusta National and other private clubs have the legal right to restrict their membership along gender lines, it is morally repugnant to do so. To base membership decisions in any institution along gender lines, whether it is explicitly stated in membership rules or not, is discrimination pure and simple...

Hah!!!

"Morally repugnant"??? ....at least it is when rubes, NASCAR fans, and the rest of us Morons decide to self-segregate.

With the Harvard/MIT pedigree mandate and units priced from $465,000 to $1.5 million, 303 Third Street will be a veritable monument to hypocrisy.

If and when this project gets built and completely sold, I have to remember to go up there, infiltrate the "gated community", and do a minority headcount.

Click here for a follow-up post.