An Update to “Why Are Professors Liberals?”: Jewish Influence Firmly Ensconced in Academia by the 1960s

Recently a blog titled “Ideas and Data” posted a very interesting and important article by an anonymous blogger, “The Jewish Question: An Empirical Examination.” I’ll have more to say about this blog in the future, but here I discuss a study on Jewish academic influence that I was unaware of.

This is the video version:

First, some introductory material from my paper, “Why Are Professors Liberals?.

Gross and Fosse point out that it was during the 1960s when universities became strongly associated with the political left in the eyes of friends and foes alike — enough to result in self-selection processes in which conservatives would feel unwelcome in the university:

Higher education was a crucial micromobilization context for a number of left social movements in the 1960s and 1970s, which further enhanced the institution’s liberal reputation; with concerted cultural efforts by American conservatives, especially from the 1950s on, to build a collective identity for their movement around differentiation from various categories of “liberal elites,” not least liberal professors; with restricted opportunities for Americans on the far left to enter other institutional spheres; and with self-reinforcing processes by which selfselection into the academic profession by liberals resulted in a more liberal professoriate whose reputation for liberalism was thereby maintained or enhanced. (pp. 158–159)

Further, because elite universities attempt to most represent the zeitgeist of the field, Gross and Fosse point out they will offer positions to scholars they see as exemplary; political attitudes are a major part of being exemplary. As noted above, Inbar and Lammers (2012) found that many liberal academics openly acknowledge that they would discriminate against a conservative job candidate. This rigorous policing of the attitudes of professors at elite institutions in turn leads to elite institutions being to the left of lesser institutions. In the academic hierarchy, the result is that graduate students coming from elite institutions are most representative of the leftist academic culture, either because of their socialization in the academic environment or simply because of self-interest as a member of a group (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals) whose interests are championed by the left. This becomes progressively diluted as one goes to the second- and third-tier schools and eventually down to K–12 education. The result is a liberal social environment at all levels of the educational system which in turn has measurable effects on student attitudes. Public opinion surveys carried out since the 1960s show that going to college results in attitude change in a liberal direction compared to parents. If education level remained the same, there was little change in attitudes (Kaufmann, 2004, p. 191).

Thus, academia is a top-down system in which the highest levels are rigorously policed to ensure liberal ideological conformity.

I then presented material on Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities, based on a 2006 study.

Related to the importance of elite institutions in shaping the intellectual climate at universities noted above, they deem it relevant to point out that Jews entered the academic world in large numbers after WWII and became overrepresented among professors, especially in elite academic departments in the social sciences — that is, in the decade immediately prior to the triumph of the multicultural left in the academic world. They cite recent survey data indicating that 25% of faculty at research universities are Jewish compared to 10% overall; these percentages are even higher in departments of social science at research universities (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Correspondingly, conservative Protestants are underrepresented, especially among faculty of elite research universities. Further, and importantly, as noted above, the most liberal professors work at the most elite institutions — a point to be returned to below.

These findings fit well with the views of other social scientists. For example, David Hollinger (1996, p. 160) calls attention to “a secular, increasingly Jewish, decidedly left-of-center intelligentsia based largely but not exclusively in the disciplinary communities of philosophy and the social sciences.” He notes “the transformation of the ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews” (p. 4) in the period from the 1930s to the 1960s, as well as the Jewish influence on trends toward the secularization of American society and in advancing an ideal of cosmopolitanism.

The blog post and video cited above lend important support to this thesis by mentioning two studies from much earlier, showing that by the critical decade of the1960s and continuing in the 1970s Jews were well-established in departments of social science at elite universities.

An article by Lipset and Ladd (1971),[1] using survey data of 60,000 academics from 1969, shows that the 1960s were a critical period for the rise of a Jewish academic culture well to the left of non-Jewish professors. Jews represented around 12% of faculty in general, but around 25% of the younger faculty (less than age 50) at Ivy League universities—percentages that were much higher than in previous decades.  Jews were heavily represented on the faculties of other elite public and private universities as well, particularly in the politically relevant fields of the law and the social sciences.

Moreover, Jewish faculty were more heavily published than non-Jewish faculty, indicating greater influence. This is important because the academic world is a top-down institution: those at the top train the next generation of scholars and police the recruitment of new faculty—a professor at Harvard places his Ph.D. students at Wisconsin, Michigan or Berkeley, and they in turn place their students at Wisconsin State University—Oshkosh, etc. They therefore have more influence on the future of the field than less-published scholars. As indicated above based on recent research, liberal faculty are perfectly willing to discriminate on the basis of political views, and I think it’s quite likely that this also occurred in the 1960s.

Importantly, Lipset and Ladd also found that Jewish faculty were well to the left of non-Jewish faculty. Thus, a considerably larger percentage of Jewish faculty rated themselves as liberal or left, (74.5%) compared to less than 40% of non-Jewish faculty. In the social sciences, 84.9% of Jewish faculty compared to 76% of Protestants and 65.2% of Catholics described themselves as liberal or left.  59.1% of Jewish faculty approved of 1960s student radical activism, compared to around 40% for non-Jewish faculty. Jewish faculty were also more likely to approve relaxing standards in order to recruit more minority faculty and students.

Within the Jewish segment, the least religious Jews were the most liberal. This is interesting because, as documented in The Culture of Critique, in general left/liberal Jews were not religious but were strongly identified as Jews and saw their politics as advancing specifically Jewish interests. The leftist politics of the new academic elite was thus closely related to Jewish identification.

The other study mentioned by the anonymous blogger is from a book by Harriet Zuckerman which focuses on elite scientists.[2]

The blog also mentions the study by Charles Kadushin which is also discussed in Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique as follows:

Providing further evidence in this regard (ethnocentric biases in citation patterns), the studies by Kadushin (1974), Shapiro (1989, 1992), and Torrey (1992) of twentieth-century American intellectuals indicate not only a strong overlap among Jewish background, Jewish ethnic identification, Jewish associational patterns, radical political beliefs, and psychoanalytic influence but also a pattern of mutual citation and admiration. In Kadushin’s study, almost half of the complete sample of elite American intellectuals were Jewish (Kadushin 1974, 23). The sample was based on the most frequent contributors to leading intellectual journals, followed by interviews in which the intellectuals “voted” for another intellectual whom he or she considered most influential in their thinking. Over 40 percent of the Jews in the sample received six or more votes as being most influential, compared to only 15 percent of non-Jews (p. 32).

Relevant to the academic world, the blogger adds this from Kadushin: “56% of social scientists (RR= 20.7) and 61% of humanity scholars (RR= 22.6). Thus, if you use a sufficiently elite criterion there is a sense in which certain fields in academia could be described as being mostly or largely controlled by Jews.”

Although I try to avoid the word ‘control’ in talking about Jewish influence, I certainly agree that Jewish academics were a critical component of the dominance of the left in academia. In my paper, I then go on to show that the Jewish intellectual movements I discussed in CofC fit the criteria for a successful intellectual movement as described by Gross and Fosse: (1) those involved in the movement had a complaint (anti-Semitism, cultural exclusion); (2) they were able to form cohesive, effective networks; (3) they had access to the most prestigious academic institutions.

I conclude:

As Eric P. Kaufmann points out in his account of the general decline of Anglo America, once the new value set was institutionalized, it became the focus of status competition within the boundaries set by these movements (Kaufmann, 2004, p. 247). The emergence of the new intellectual elite was facilitated because it possessed “social capital,” in the form of social ties to the mass media, corporate cultural intermediaries, and the state intelligentsia—where dominant interpretations of reality are generated (Diani, 1997; Kaufmann, 2004; Diani & McAdams, 2003). In general, the mass media was an important source of favorable coverage of intellectual and political movements of the left, particularly psychoanalysis and 1960s political radicalism (Rothman & Lichter, 1982). For example, “Popular images of Freud revealed him as a painstaking observer, a tenacious worker, a great healer, a truly original explorer, a paragon of domestic virtue, the discover of personal energy, and a genius” (Hale, 1995, p. 289).

Moreover, as implied by Gross and Fosse, once an organization becomes dominated by a particular intellectual perspective, there is enormous inertia created by the fact that the informal networks dominating elite universities serve as gatekeepers for the next generation of scholars. Aspiring academics are subjected to a high level of indoctrination at the undergraduate and graduate levels; there is tremendous psychological pressure to adopt the fundamental intellectual assumptions that lie at the center of the power hierarchy of the discipline. Once such a movement attains intellectual predominance, it is not surprising that people would attracted to these movements because of the prestige associated with them. And, as Gross and Fosse argue, conservatives who are turned off by these ideas, simply self-select to go into a different line of work.

I propose that once the Jewish left came to dominate the academic world, the next step was to broaden the basis of the left and consolidate their power by promoting other aggrieved groups—groups with complaints against the culture. It is certainly the case that the triumph of the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements in the academic world was followed in short order by the establishment of these other pillars of the cultural left, and making alliances with non-White ethnic groups and sexual minorities has certainly typified Jewish political behavior in the United States.

Indeed, as noted throughout Culture of Critique, a common pattern for Jewish intellectual and political movements has been to reach out and make alliances with non-Jews, who often attain highly visible positions in the movement.[3] This is necessary because Jews are a relatively small percentage of the population and cannot dominate academic discourse (or influence the political process) without allies. The culture of the left became solidified with the university when it was able to recruit these other the sexual, racial and ethnic victims who are such a large and committed portion of the leftist culture of the university.

This leftist cuiture is now so well ensconced that I suspect that it is on autopilot: Even if Jewish representation at elite universities declined, the culture of grievance is firmly established and would be continued because it is manned by academics with other real and imagined grievances against the traditional people and culture of America.

Further, it’s noteworthy that the Jewish movements that came to dominate the academy are not at all different from the wider Jewish community in making alliances with ethnic and sexual minorities. The organized Jewish community has made alliances with non-White ethnic groups and has championed the cause of public visibility for sexual minorities.[4] Charles Silberman notes, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”[5]

Conspicuously missing from the list of Jewish allies are lower- and middle-class Whites. These are the groups that were most vilified by the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School, and they have suffered the most by the multicultural revolution. These people are being pushed out economically and politically. They are the enraged participants in the Tea Party movement that is so visible right now and they voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-White private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Their fortunes will continue to decline as millions more non-Whites crowd our shores. Those among them who wish to become professors will perforce have to turn their backs on the political and economic interests their own people.

The result of this revolution is the American university as we see it now. Conservatives need not apply. And heterosexual White males should be prepared to exhibit effusive demonstrations of guilt and sympathy with their oppressed co-workers—and expect to be passed over for high-profile administrative positions in favor of the many aggrieved ethnic and sexual minorities who now dominate the university.

[1] Seymour Lipset and Everett Ladd, “Jewish Academics in the United States: Their Achievements, Culture, and Politics,” The American Jewish Yearbook (1971): 89–128.

[2] Harriet Zuckerman, The Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States (New Brunswice, NJ: Transaction, 1996; orig. published 1977).

[3] See also MacDonald, “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement.”

[4] Kevin MacDonald, “Jews, Blacks and Race.” In Samuel Francis (ed.) Race and the American Prospect (Atlanta, GA: The Occidental Press, 2006); Kevin MacDonald, “The ADL: Managing White Rage,” The Occidental Observer, December 7, 2009.

[5] Charles E. Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (New York: Summit Books, 1985), 350.

60 replies
  1. joe Six Pack
    joe Six Pack says:

    Jonathan Haidt who is Jewish talks about this in a lot of Youtube vids.His reason is the WW2 generation of Profs left/retired in the 90s and the Vietnam generation replaced them. These new Profs went to grad school to avoid VN or fight Civil Rights so they were ardent libs. Haidt says the academy went from obviously lib, say 4 to 1, to Orthodoxically lib like 20 to 1.
    Haidt does not mind it is liberal, he just does not like the orthodox quality, the sacred aspect of lib opinions. Haidt has a blog titled Heterodox to get all the Profs to sign on to a little more diversity in the academy. He does a good job on these vids stating the nonlib side without ringing too many of the Left’s microaggression bells.
    Another Jewish guy who dealt with the subject way back in 1997 when Gerlernter wrote ‘How the Intellectuals Took Over’ in Commentary(he dates the beginning as 1965) but i think his point is how the entire society has changed and now we take direction from the Intellectual class(I think he mentions Jews as a marker) , rather than pragmatic people, and as a result the West Side Highway gets torn down and we wait ten years for something perfect to take its place while all the brainiacs debate our future.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Thank you for mentioning this because it is an important read:

      “…in 1997 when Gerlernter wrote ‘How the Intellectuals Took Over’ in Commentary (he dates the beginning as 1965) but i think his point is how the entire society has changed and now we take direction from the Intellectual class (I think he mentions Jews as a marker) …”

      Actually, this Jewish computer scientist explicitly states that it IS Jews who have been pushing this. I’ve cited his essay (in the Jewish magazine Commentary) many, many times. It’s as valuable as Ben Stein’s essay (later book) “The View from Small-Town America” (or something close to that).

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Yes, Gelernter is certainly correct: 1965 is far closer to the revolutionary mark than the 1990s. What was then afoot in the academy had become so plain, indeed blatant, that even Bill Buckley spent a considerable number of column inches fretting about it in his rag and several hours doing what then passed for close analysis of the phenomenon on Firing Line.

        Incidentally, I first became aware of Gelernter when he appeared on Booknotes in 1997 to discuss his book about surviving a bomb sent to him by the Unabomber. I came away from the program with a positive impression of the guy.

        As for Haidt, here as often elsewhere, one can’t fail to notice Haidt’s inability or unwillingness to think of or respond to the past—in the sense of that vast expanse of time before he reached “maturity”—as having any content worth differentiating or, more important, learning from in a meaningful way. He is the sort of guy for whom, for all practical purposes, Lysander of Sparta and FDR might as well have flourished contemporaneously.

        Incidentally, I typed “maturity” thus—that is, in sneer quotes—because it is difficult to regard seriously any man who needs to spend three years in India on a Fulbright to study what morality is.

        • Tom Watson
          Tom Watson says:

          I suspect most of us knew about the Jewish leadership of the left both inside and outside academe and how the rhetoric of victimhood and fighting hate was developed by Jews to talk about anti-Semitism and then extended to their narratives about blacks, gays, women, Hispanics, and so on. To counter their strategy it is important to see that the Rainbow Coalition’s main purpose is to deliver votes for Democrats. The Dems have NEVER won the high school graduate vote in a national election. They rely on 70 – 95% majorities from the various oppressed groups (save women, many of whom will stand by their deplorable men.) Democrats win elections by showering flattery and benefits on minorities. Once elected, the politicians carry out a Jewish-left social agenda favored by Jewish donors but largely opposed by minority voters who nonetheless don’t care enough about such stuff to abandon the party over it. It’s hard to see Jewish left academic domination continuing if Taft Republicans won all the elections.
          I conclude that a great strategy would be to wedge apart the Rainbow Coalition by creating interest in issues that divide the victim groups. An obvious starting point is black-Jewish tension and the Nation of Islam. I was amused to see that the Starbucks plan to pump millions of bucks into the ADL for anti-racist indoctrination drew howls of protest from NOI sympathizers. Just imagine ADL being told, Sorry, Brother Muhammad here will be handling the diversity training and pocketing the $10 mil with which we will fund the next edition of Secret Relationship. Recently a black candidate in Manhattan deployed the slogan “Defeat the Jewish landlords” (something like that) for a time. The late Jack Kemp combined social conservatism with a willingness to keep the government bennies flowing to minorities. David Frum hints that this made him appear dangerous to “the party’s big donors.” There are also potential wedges with animal rights (Kosher slaughter), Hispanic Catholicism and pockets of the Asian community being strongly anti-communist. Ann Coulter has stressed the black interest in checking Mexican immigration.
          This populist strategy is not available to white nationalists, who frame the political struggle as whites against all others and don’t even dare to explain that Jews are not whites, in their scheme of things. Sounds like an awfully hard road to hoe.
          All problems with minorities can be traced back to their role as a vote plantation for the Jewish radicals. This is not to deny that Jews also have a grip on the GOP, but in that case the main result is unquestioning loyalty to Israel.

      • Junghans
        Junghans says:

        The ‘Media Elite’ video was excellent, though I don’t know why such ‘rapid fire’ speech was ever used to narrate it. A more normal speech cadence surely could have been possible, and would have been much more enhancing.

        As regards Michael Gelernter, I would love to see a well written critique of his preposterous, disingenuous, and ludicrous book called “Americanism”. Talk about dissimulation to fool the ‘Goyim’, that book has to take the proverbial kosher cake ! Kevin, maybe you or Andrew Joyce could take a shot at reviewing it?

      • Tom Watson
        Tom Watson says:

        To E. Connelly – I just read Gelernter’s article (1997) online and I don’t see where he says Jews are the ringleaders. He does say that Jewish representation is an indicator or marker of the ascendancy of the intellectuals, which only commits him to saying Jews are one group involved and among the beneficiaries of the death of the older class attitudes.

  2. Marian Van Court
    Marian Van Court says:

    I read a study long ago in which undergraduates were rated on a liberal – conservative continuum, and then asked their majors. Literature, journalism, social science majors were much more liberal, and engineering, hard science, math majors were more conservative. To me, this is interesting because if it’s a robust finding, then it shows how people with certain temperaments are naturally attracted to compatible fields, like self selection. But it seems like a problem because journalists may always be considerably more liberal than average.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Even liberal journalists prefer put aside Marxist ideology to use elevators and fly in planes rigorously serviced by competant individuals. Similarly, air-traffic control is not going rainbow as long as politicians and bureacrats are in the boarding lounge.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        I have an acquaintance in Iceland whose father is a flight mechanic for the largest airline in the country.
        By the sounds of it, these “…types…” (i.e. people who sign-off their names to papers that control the machines that hundreds, if not thousands of passengers depend on daily) MUST take their responsibilities very seriously otherwise they face very harsh legal penalties should they “…look the other way for a quick buck…”.

        These professionals possess a god-like authoritarian nature, regularly telling people in very powerful positions, who would have them bend the rules for convenience sake to “…take a flying F***…” (no pun intended).
        No amount of coercion can induce them to risk the lives of their passengers.

        Compare the above to the discount air line staff and service people, and one quickly realizes that the former is based on long term sustainability while the latter is based on short term profit and an administrative model that ultimately profits the owners at the expense of practically everyone, from customers to staff, else.

        IMO, discount air lines are for “…discount people…” and higher-paid-employee and higher-priced-ticket air lines are for Whites.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Marian Van Court – correct that certain types are attracted to certain professions and gravitate to them, just as the tiny stones in the road gravitate to the traffic islands. In prehistoric times one type, a ‘maker’ type (now the engineer you mention), would have spent his time trying to make the tools better and the harvest bigger. Another type, the ‘takers’ would have spent their time plotting away on how to steal and pillage and take what the others had. This latter was actually quite a viable lifestyle provided there were plenty of better types to parasite upon, and provided they remained a small proportion eg 15%

      Modern society has allowed everyone to follow their calling. The takers are just following their instincts of hostility towards those who are productive, and going to the professions where they spend their time doing political plotting.

    • Tom Watson
      Tom Watson says:

      That math, science, and engineering majors are more conservative than liberal arts and social science majors has always been my understanding. But how then to explain the politics of the Silicon Valley companies, enforcing conformity with far left opinions on pain of firing, blacklisting, or eventually worse? I suspect mechanical engineering specialists are quite a lot more conservatives than software developers, even if both have high mathematical ability.

  3. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    01 Additionally, does not this described exact selection, vertically and horizontally, also hold true for the vast majority of reciprocating journalists and their editors/publishers; lording it over a vastly greater circle of influence; from cradle to megaphone ?

    02 Some years back, Vanderbilt issued a statement, that it prefers Jewish student applicants, will privilege them [ and, by extension, Jewish faculty ] because they have a higher IQ; are more widely read and contribute an inordinate degree of original intellectual stimulus.

    Vanderbilt continued to deem itself ‘ liberal ‘, and rebuffed accusations of racism, by throwing a few crumbs of scholarships under the table; burning the candle at both ends. As always.

    The size of their on-campus synagogue, rivalling that of larger cities, can only lend credence to their announced intentions to broaden their influence.

    Self-serving policy straight from the horse’s mouth: others may suggest from its other end; but definitely shorter.

  4. Henry
    Henry says:

    Let’s get this straight…It doesn’t matter how many Jews are awarded one, there really is no “Nobel Prize in Economics.” Just like the mythical practices of ‘intermediate’ and ‘fractional reserve’ banking, the idea of a ‘Nobel Prize in Economics’ is an obvious LOL at the goyim, created and funded by the Swedish Central Bank with money it creates in-house, ex nihilo: its very own fairy dust.

    The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (officially Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne, or the Swedish National Bank’s Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics

    For more on this BS see here:

    And people still wonder how and why we’ve come to accept that choking to death on debt is a good thing!

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      Prominent economists from a Jewish background have severely criticized the federal reserve and fractional banking. Murray Rothbard, of the Austrian School, has done so. Milton Freedman won a Nobel Prize for his work, which included a land-mark book which compared the 50 years before the federal reserve and 50 years after. He found that the fed failed to stabilize the money supply, since it fluctuated more after the fed came into existence.

      • Henry
        Henry says:

        George, except in theory and mythology, “fractional reserve” banking doesn’t even exist. So (((they))) would say that (criticise) wouldn’t they…

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        N.b.: Friedman was critical of Fed policy, not the institution per se. Nor did he object to FRB. Above all, he was a technocrat, responsible, among other things, for the innovation of withholding taxes on wages.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Parenthetically, economics, is logically the science most subject to intellectual corruption in the service of power. “Give me control of a nation’s money and i care not…”.

        • George Kocan
          George Kocan says:

          That is good to know. However, his book, “The Monetary History of the United States…” destroys the entire basis for the Federal Reserve. Yet, it is still with us with a perfectly intact reputation.

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            George Kocan, Friedman’s “reputation is not “intact” where I come from. That being a former Industrial powerhouse which now produces little more than takeaway food and debt. A joke economy based around the crackpot ideas that Friedman conjured up when he (and his like minded pals) manged to convince Mrs. Thatcher that Britain should switch to a national economy based on “service” and “leisure”, not production.

            Trenchant mentioned his (Friedman’s) involvement with US Income tax and it was indeed Friedman who advised the introduction of such a tax via his novel idea of “gradualism”. Thus, by starting with a rate that was almost insignificantly low Friedman said that people would not mind or even notice too much, and be blissfully ignorant of the long-term intention of steady increase in the rate of taxation…softly, softly, catchee monkey, advised Rabbi Friedman.

            No, I’m afraid the Jigs up! The old “cranks” Soddy and Co had it right and told the truth, while Friedman and Rothbard, had it wrong and peddled lies.

            Here are two recent studies (there are more) from Professor Richard Werner of The University of Southampton:

            Paper 1: Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence

            Richard A. Werner


            This paper presents the first empirical evidence in the history of banking on the question of whether banks can create money out of nothing. The banking crisis has revived interest in this issue, but it had remained unsettled. Three hypotheses are recognised in the literature. According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out. According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction. A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking).

            The question which of the theories is correct has far-reaching implications for research and policy. Surprisingly, despite the longstanding controversy, until now no empirical study has tested the theories. This is the contribution of the present paper. An empirical test is conducted, whereby money is borrowed from a cooperating bank, while its internal records are being monitored, to establish whether in the process of making the loan available to the borrower, the bank transfers these funds from other accounts within or outside the bank, or whether they are newly created. This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, “out of thin air”.

            Download pdf/study here:

            Paper 2: A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence

            Richard A. Werner


            How do banks operate and where does the money supply come from? The financial crisis has heightened awareness that these questions have been unduly neglected by many researchers. During the past century, three different theories of banking were dominant at different times: (1) The currently prevalent financial intermediation theory of banking says that banks collect deposits and then lend these out, just like other non-bank financial intermediaries. (2) The older fractional reserve theory of banking says that each individual bank is a financial intermediary without the power to create money, but the banking system collectively is able to create money through the process of ‘multiple deposit expansion’ (the ‘money multiplier’). (3) The credit creation theory of banking, predominant a century ago, does not consider banks as financial intermediaries that gather deposits to lend out, but instead argues that each individual bank creates credit and money newly when granting a bank loan. The theories differ in their accounting treatment of bank lending as well as in their policy implications.

            Since according to the dominant financial intermediation theory banks are virtually identical with other non-bank financial intermediaries, they are not usually included in the economic models used in economics or by central bankers. Moreover, the theory of banks as intermediaries provides the rationale for capital adequacy-based bank regulation. Should this theory not be correct, currently prevailing economics modelling and policy-making would be without empirical foundation. Despite the importance of this question, so far only one empirical test of the three theories has been reported in learned journals. This paper presents a second empirical test, using an alternative methodology, which allows control for all other factors. The financial intermediation and the fractional reserve theories of banking are rejected by the evidence. This finding throws doubt on the rationale for regulating bank capital adequacy to avoid banking crises, as the case study of Credit Suisse during the crisis illustrates. The finding indicates that advice to encourage developing countries to borrow from abroad is misguided. The question is considered why the economics profession has failed over most of the past century to make any progress concerning knowledge of the monetary system, and why it instead moved ever further away from the truth as already recognised by the credit creation theory well over a century ago. The role of conflicts of interest and interested parties in shaping the current bank-free academic consensus is discussed. A number of avenues for needed further research are indicated.

            Download pdf/study here:

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            I tried to make the point that the federal reserve’s reputation has remained intact after all the years of recessions and depressions. I did not know anything about Friedman’s tax theories. However, he has advocated free market policies, which necessarily mean low taxes, in the popular books on capitalism. Libertarians do argue for low taxes. The critique of fractional reserve banking comes from Murray Rothbard of the Austrian school, a source on economics for most libertarians.

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            But George, I’m not a libertarian. Indeed for 45 years (since the age of 16) I’ve been openly fascist. Fascism lives in the blood. The body draws it in just as it draws in air, and it is not to be found in the pages of some pseudo-economic treatise designed to exploit that faulty gene which is such a curse to the many selfish whites today, and exploited to deadly effect by Jews like Rothbard and Mises, who was brought to America and put to work for Rockefeller banking interests

            In 1940 Mises and his wife fled the German advance in Europe and emigrated to New York City in the United States.[6]:xi He had come to the United States under a grant by the Rockefeller Foundation.


            I’m sorry but they sold you a pup. There is no fractional reserve banking system and there is no “Nobel prize in economics.” Banks (not governments) issue our money and sell it to us as unlimited ‘credit’. It really really is as simple and as risible that.

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            Fascism as a concept is broad enough to include any blending of market and government activity. Fractional reserve banking means that banks lend money they do not have, on the basis that they will eventually have revenue from the interest coming from lent money. I understand that is legal, in principle. But it does lead to inflation and other evils. I do not care who financed von Mises move to the US. Such a claim is simply an ad hominem argument. I read his book, “Human Action,” and it made perfect sense to me, unlike other writings in economics. That is what counts.

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            George Kocan said:

            “I do not care who financed von Mises move to the US. Such a claim is simply an ad hominem argumen.

            It wasn’t an “argument” it was a statement of fact. How you choose to deal with a fact is your business but please don’t claim I’ve made an “argument” when I haven’t. If an attack had been my intention then I should have mentioned David Rockefeller’s close association with Mises’ protege, Hayek. And Mises’ and Hayek’s earlier role in helping to crap out the Austrian economy. I might also have launched a personal attack on Mr (“do as I say not as I do”) Rothbard and his day-to-day indolence; his crackpot ideas (e.g; the theoretical right of parents to sell their children) along with his own dubious source of financial support, using his wife ‘Joey’ as my witness, But I didn’t.

            As for fractional reserve banking and the alleged Nobel Prize in Economics? You seem intent on ignoring the empirical evidence that neither exist. Well never mind. That they forged such a prize for achievement [sic] in what Thomas Carlyle called “the dismal science” and a great scientist (Frederick Soddy) called “a confidence trick” really is, I think, entirely fitting. This year the Swedish Central Bank should fire the Nobel crowd and instead get Bibi Netanyahu to present it using his hilarious but previously unknown PowerPoint skills.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        “…prominent economists…” indeed.

        Q: How does one spend 4 years as an undergraduate, 2 years doing a Masters degree, and another 3 or so to get a Ph.D. in Economics, yet during the entire time NOT ONE SINGLE WORD is mentioned about the Race of Cunning Perpetrators…, yet JEWS MORE OR LESS PROXY-CONTROL THE ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY?!

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        01 The Fed Act was passed on December 23, 1913, when all normal members were en route home for Christmas and those few remaining, initiating New Yorkers could jump a short train ride not to celebrate Christmas.

        02 Commencing briefly thereafter, enormous sums were funneled to the revolutionaries in St. Petersburg via Sweden and Finland: through the ‘good offices’ of Germany’s Four-D banks: Deutsche; Dresdner; Dortmunder and Diskonto.

        03 Paul Warburg set this en scene, while dad-patriarch in Hamburg, the Kaiser’s {{{ national-security adviser }}} did the same, including Lenin’s sealed train.

        04 Several exemplars of these Bills of Exchange [ Transfers ] from the US to Russia, can be viewed on the web.

        05 Their own writings disclose, that this ” uprising of the Russian masses ” could only materialize within the context of a major East-West struggle, which conveniently ensued a mere eight months after the Act, itself providing unlimited funds.

        06 That was some 100 years and ca. 110 million corpses ago: rendering any current professorial pattern recognition through a microscope redundant.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          My above, at best, is suitable for Revolution 101, but hopefully useful to younger and newer visitors to this site: victims of academic disinformation.

          The superbly informed but disenchanted retired CIA analyst Philip Giraldi recently wrote, approximately, that he saw the unrelenting attacks on Putin as a precursor of regime change.
          I shared his thesis before reading his.

          Barbarossa threw, quite literally, a wrench in Stalin’s plan to attack Germany on May 15, 1941: rescheduled for July 15 due to the flight of Hess. [ Extant texts of his addresses to his Military Academies and hic code Icebreaker, signifying the conquest of Germany, then Europe and the world, purposefully ascribed to Hitler; stood on its head by academia and msm ].

          Pursuant to {{{ buy one and get one free }}} , I firmly believe, that they are attempting to replace Putin with one of their own choice, once again promising the Russian public the blue out of the sky: their campaign profusely spiked with words like Democracy, writ large in the handwriting of Soros.

          The Qatari, etc. gas and oil lines running through Syria will be cut, on that field of the chess-board, as will those originating in Central Asia, making Germany largely dependent on Russian, Jew-controlled energy supplies, with severest political implications for the remainder of all of Europe, including Orban’s enclave.

          Then we will see an almost identical replay [ …get one free ]of where we left off after the erection of the Iron Curtain: this time bringing a reordering to the originally intended, pursued, but luckily thwarted conclusion.

          If not, I owe everyone here one of Pierre’s ” virtual ” beers.

          • T. J.
            T. J. says:

            Barbarossa threw, quite literally, a wrench

            Any photos or documentation of this “literal” wrench throwing?

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      It means Achievement Quotient, defined as a fraction where the numerator is the percentage of Jews and the denominator is the percentage of Gentiles.

  5. White Cornerback
    White Cornerback says:

    The key to Jewish power is simply education and making sure to promote their own. When the pressure comes to make things more “diverse” non Jewish whites get dumped instead. That is their game. Many jews will outright tell you to your face that they cannot be with you nor set you up with other jews. Meanwhile they flirt with the goyim like crazy. The women are the most comical regarding the issue. But their supremacism rules the day. Not for all…. but for many.

    Jewish money will forever fund communists at all levels.. Who is funding all these communists? Blacks? Browns? Don’t make me laugh. Just like with Hollywood, they can’t make all the people being hired be Jewish but they will grossly inflate the figures to make sure the tribe has huge power. The goyim that are hired are simply going along with the program. Why is Hollywood a cesspool? J.. E… W..S.. Not all but many… A jew like Michael Savage wins no awards as he always says because he is not the typical leftist Jew. And for that he is a renegade Jew on most issues..

    Now we see heavily Jewish led tech companies leading the charge for repression of opinions on social media. It never changes be it academia, Hollywood, controlled news and on an on.. A sports company like ESPN is yet another social justice anti white station. Why is this? Jews.. That simple. When does it ever change?

  6. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I spent 12 years in higher education, with a conservative outlook on politics and morality. I remember well talking to conservative teaches who spoke softly so no one would hear complain about the prevalent Marxism. A few, notably in the engineering department actually wrote to the student paper arguing against abortion and related evils. I had a class in educational philosophy taught by a two-man team, both admitted Marxist. This was a class in a teachers’ college mind you. The conservative students I came to know were among the brightest students but a small minority. We tried to organize into a student club and thereby receive funding but were shut down by the Democrats who ran the student council. Yet, now, from what I have read the situation is even worse in so-called higher education.

  7. Tom Sunic
    Tom Sunic says:

    “The culture of the left” that started in the 1960s in European/US academia, is referred to, euphemistically, by Gentile scholars in France, as “la révolution circoncise » (“circumcised revolution”).

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      TS, they are still ahead of the game, having circumcised us much further to the top — around the upper portion[ of our necks. [ Caution: Unsuited for visualization ].

  8. Joe
    Joe says:

    You know… most people – when they think of “professors” – have this image of a person who is highly intelligent and worthy of undue respect.
    In fact, as MacDonald points out… these people – more than most of the “uneducated” population are devoid of the most important asset in life – COMMON SENSE. They truly live in Ivory Towers, immune to the truth of the world. Their opinions should be – at the very least – taken with a grain of salt.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      Wonder where these views [epistemologies] come from? Ask George Berkeley [yes, that Berkeley]. His philosophy is called immaterialism. . .that tree that you think you see out the window. . .it does not exist. . .a total, in yer face assault on common sense- your senses are wrong. . .are you gonna believe your lying eyes, or your profs’ lying mouths? A World-Class University- more like a World-Ass University- Anus Mundi. . .

      Epistemology- the branch of philosophy dealing with the source and validation of knowledge. . .

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        ” Any photos or documentation of this ” Anus Mundi ?; or, for that matter, your ‘ gonna’ or ‘ yer ‘ ?

        Every reader here understands what you are trying to convey by your deliberate misspellings. Ponder what this site were to degenerate to [ oops ! a dangling participle ] if this gutter discourse were to become the rule.

        Concentrate on your other valuable contributions; not on whether useful turns of phrase must comply with rules of composition: such as my Barbarossa wrench.

  9. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    “Their unions have been destroyed …”

    By whom/what? COULD it be economic forces exploiting the too-high labor costs imposed on employers by those very unions, in concert with a government staffed by incumbents all-too-eager to bamboozle them into voting for them?

    Yes. their unions have been destroyed – by their own members’ unemployability at any sort of competitive costs.

    Consumers (that is, ALL of us) have benefited from this “destruction.”

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      I believe that labor unions have become obsolete because the government, at various levels, has incorporated their major demands into the law. They now seem to function as money laundering organizations for the Democrat Party.

  10. Like you/Guilty Too
    Like you/Guilty Too says:

    I recently read a Wall Street journal article about how Amgen, a biotech company, has only been able to replicate some 20 percent of landmark papers in oncology. I wonder how much of so called analytical, hard science might be equally creative as literature or Freudian psychology. I am not completely familiar with the academic peer review process—is it blinded both directions?—but this could be a system easy to job, in addition to other sorts of nepotism.

    • Guilty Too
      Guilty Too says:

      To continue, I was in a hard analytical science for a couple of years early on. Part of what caused me to switch was that I felt pressured at one point to call something obviously artifactual “data.” I thought either my advisor was setting some sort of trap for me or maybe that’s how that business rolls—results equal grant money equal junkets, etc

    • Guilty Too
      Guilty Too says:

      The point being, if something as practical and important as clinical medicine is mistaken or being faked, imagine those cerebral fields that no one will ever bother to check on. That could 99% make believe for all we know.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Indeed, the peer-review system is inherently jobbable. Twenty-plus years ago, Peter Duesberg analogized it to a man’s according veto power over a new product he has developed to his competitors.

      The idea that all those who inhabit the “realm of ideas,” generally speaking, or more specifically the “scientific community” reflexively accord paramountcy to the disinterested, impartial, dispassionate pursuit of truth is something between a gross exaggeration and an outright falsehood. Men and women who meet this high standard certainly exist, but as mothers used to say to their daughters in the dim and distant past, you have to expect to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          If you don’t agree with Duesberg, you simply don’t know enough about his work or the nature of the massive criminal conspiracy he fought to reveal. Duesberg’s exposition of the AIDS fraud is as critical a blow for truth as the work of Arthur Butz or that of our own Kevin MacDonald. The vicious, unrestrained vilification visited upon the work and the person of all three of these heroic men is striking in its parallelism, too.

          • Guilty Too
            Guilty Too says:

            Really? You don’t believe HIV is the cause of aids? What is then? Explain the contraction of aids by hemophiliacs if it’s not caused by blood transfusion. Most of these people lead normal lives outside their disease. Are u a medical professional?

          • Guilty Too
            Guilty Too says:

            There is no left wing motive behind the HIV virus hypothesis. I rather would think liberals would detract from the idea that gay activity spreads a terrible disease.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Guilty Too:

            Having just admitted above that “u” don’t know how the peer-review system works, “u” then announce that “u” have willingly pledged allegiance to the science-lite conclusions of a rigged system. Did “u” truly never notice that what constituted an “AIDS”-related disease was redefined more than a score of times, the better to corral ever more soi-disant research bucks? That politically driven tactic has as much to do with science rightly understood as, say, assembling a committee to decide by majority vote whether Pluto is or isn’t a planet. (Yes, that happened, too.)

            If “u” aren’t willing to read either of Duesberg’s books, Inventing the AIDS Virus and Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled, or any of the dozen or so scientifically oriented studies they engendered that were published, like Duesberg’s, for a nonspecialist reading audience, perhaps “u” should consider relocating to Quackwatch.

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            I recall reading the Duesberg said that syphilis explains all the symptoms of AIDS. The auto-immune failure comes from the medications used to treat the disease. I did not know that Duesberg was still active as a writer and researcher.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            @George Kocan: Your recollection is faulty. Duesberg never said anything of the sort. What he wrote about syphilis is that what used to be called tertiary syphilis was actually the result of poisoning from the methyl mercury compound used to “cure” the disease.

    • ariadnatheo
      ariadnatheo says:

      Reviews are not double- and sometimes not even single-blinded in practice for the following reasons:
      (1) Highly specialized fields of research make up small communities (albeit global) in which most everybody nows what everyone else is working on. The editor typically selects a minimum of two “peers” to review the article submitted from an even smaller segment of that community, i.e., “experts” and willing to review. (My impression– no hard data– was that more Jews volunteer for this work than non-Jews.)
      They are known to the researchers. The editor may direct his staff to opaque the names and academic affiliations of the authors but the reviewers can still guess with high accuracy who the authors are.
      (2) The authors receive from the editor the reviewers’ questions (90% related to the statistical methods used), recommendations for change, critical opinions with the reviewers’ identity hidden. Nevertheless, the authors also can often guess who the reviewers are based on the critique that often reflects the reviewers’ research hobby horses, verbal tics, etc.
      (3) The reviewer of a given piece of research is often the author of a study that may be/may have been sent to this author for peer review.
      In my experience and personal opinion it is an incestuous relationship in which, unless there is direct competition, one hand washes another. Criticism can be mellow if the author’s and reviewer’s names end in “berg” or “stein,” even for mediocre papers.

Comments are closed.