Latest news with #OpenSociety
New York Post
31-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
FBI never probed ‘confidential' talks between DNC, Clinton campaign George Soros group, bombshell intel files show
WASHINGTON — Two high-ranking employees of liberal billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations held 'confidential conversations' with the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign team in 2016 to push the narrative of collusion between Russia and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, newly declassified intelligence files show. The documents revealed that Leonard Benardo and Jeffrey Goldstein — Open Society's regional director and senior policy adviser for Eurasia, respectively — held talks with then-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in early 2016 about smearing Trump as well as distracting from the 'growing scandal' surround Clinton's 'possible corruption' as secretary of state. In a January 2016 memo, the Soros operatives discussed with Wasserman-Schultz the negative fallout from Clinton Foundation donors getting preferential access to Hillary and the 'timely deletion of relevant data from mail servers.' 8 The files revealed that Open Society member Leonard Benardo (above) and Jeffrey Goldstein held talks with then-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in early 2016 about smearing Trump. Open Society Foundation The year before, the former secretary of state had nixed more than 30,000 emails from a private server. The FBI confirmed in a subsequent investigation that the messages included 'very sensitive, highly classified information,' but no charges were brought. According to another memo, this one from March 2016, then-President Barack Obama didn't want the controversy to 'darken the final part of his presidency' and apparently tried to pressure his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to meddle in then-FBI Director James Comey's investigation of the Clinton emails. 'Barack Obama sanctioned the use of all administrative levers to remove possibly negative effects from the FBI investigation of cases related to the Clinton Foundation and the email correspondence in the State Department,' the memo declared. 8 The DNC saw the scandals' threat to Clinton's campaign as 'minimal' and worked on developing a two-pronged counter-attack 'focused on discrediting Trump through debates and propaganda activities.' Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post As a result, the DNC saw the scandals' threat to Clinton's campaign as 'minimal' and worked on developing a two-pronged counter-attack 'focused on discrediting Trump through debates and propaganda activities' — with the help of 'special services.' Those included either the direct involvement of intelligence agencies or the use of a now-discredited dossier compiled by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele, alleging Russian leader Vladimir Putin had blackmail material on Trump. At the time, the files also disclosed, Lynch was communicating with Clinton campaign political director Amanda Renteria and the Democratic candidate was in the process of discussing a plan with adviser Julianne Smith that Benardo described as 'a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump.' 8 Jeff Goldstein appears to have died last year but had been based in Washington, DC, as the senior policy adviser for Eurasia at the organization. Getty Images 'HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] approved Julia's idea about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections,' a bombshell July 27, 2016, email from Benardo laid bare the plot. 'That should distract people from her own missing emails. … The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue.' Benardo currently serves as senior vice president at Open Society Foundations, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Goldstein's current status is unclear 8 In a January 2016 memo, the Soros operatives discussed with Wasserman-Schultz the negative fallout from the 'timely deletion of relevant data from mail servers.' Bonnie Cash/UPI/Shutterstock The memos and other intelligence files were handed over to the Obama FBI, and bureau deputy director Andrew McCabe shared them with senior officials at the Department of Justice — but the information implicating Clinton in the Russiagate scandal was never fully investigated. Comey later told the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General he didn't view the intelligence — which had been obtained by Russian hackers — as 'credible.' Former FBI General Counsel James Baker disagreed and told the DOJ OIG 'how personally bothered he was' by Lynch's interactions with Clinton's campaign, adding that 'he and other FBI executives had great concerns' about evidence in the memos implying Lynch would 'use her position to make sure that Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted.' 8 Special counsel John Durham unearthed the stunning disclosures as part of a multi-year investigation into intelligence efforts surrounding the 2016 election. Getty Images Special counsel John Durham unearthed the stunning disclosures as part of a multi-year investigation into intelligence efforts surrounding the 2016 election and maintained in his assessment that the 'Benardo emails were likely authentic.' When Durham interviewed Benardo, the Open Society employee said 'to the best of his recollection, he did not draft the emails.' 'The [Clinton] campaign might have wanted or expected the FBI or other agencies to aid that effort ('put more oil into the fire') by commencing a formal investigation of the DNC hack [by Russia],' Durham's annex noted. 8 Former FBI Director James Comey later told the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General he didn't view the intelligence — which had been obtained by Russian hackers — as 'credible.' REUTERS 'The Office's best assessment is that the … emails that purport to be from Benardo were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the U.S.-based Think Tanks, including the Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment, and others.' The CIA determined that the intelligence was also not 'the product of Russian fabrications' as early as 2017. The FBI received an investigative referral from the CIA related to the Clinton files after an Aug. 3, 2016, meeting at the White House at which Obama, Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were all present. 8 The memos and other intelligence files were handed over to the Obama FBI, and bureau deputy director Andrew McCabe shared them with senior officials at the Department of Justice. Getty Images The information implicating Trump was still 'disseminated through leading U.S. publications,' the intelligence files recounted, as part of 'the first stage of the campaign' by Clinton associates 'due to lack of direct evidence' of Trump's purported collusion with Russia. Attorney General Pam Bondi, CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director Kash Patel approved the release of the files Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). 'Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton's political gain, which was ultimately done through the Steele Dossier and other means,' Grassley said in a statement. 8 Attorney General Pam Bondi, CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director Kash Patel approved the release of the files Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post 'These intelligence reports and related records, whether true or false, were buried for years. History will show that the Obama and Biden administration's law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump,' he also said. 'This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history. The new Trump administration has a tremendous responsibility to the American people to fix the damage done and do so with maximum speed and transparency,. Reps for Clinton did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Fox News
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
ASRA NOMANI: How Socialist Muslims pulled off a 20-year takeover of the Democratic Party
Print Close By Asra Nomani Published June 29, 2025 Many people are wondering how Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old socialist Muslim who wants to defund the police, globalize the intifada, and destroy capitalism, has emerged as the Democratic Party's nominee for New York City mayor, with leaders like former President Bill Clinton fawning over him. To understand Mamdani's political ascent, you have to trace the red-green-blue spider's web that brought him here. This isn't a complete map — I've written a book, " Woke Army: The Red-Green Alliance That Is Undermining America's Freedom," to document that story — but it is a snapshot of key turning points over two decades of strategy, narrative manipulation, and activist training. CITY-RUN GROCERY STORES, DEFUNDING POLICE, SAFE INJECTION SITES: WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT NYC'S NEXT POTENTIAL MAYOR A critical moment traces back to a Friday night in 2008, according to investigative reporting I've done at the Pearl Project, a nonprofit journalism initiative. It reveals how socialists (red) and Muslims (green) seized the Democratic Party (blue) over a long 20-year campaign. At 9:28 p.m. on Dec. 12, 2008, former ACLU civil rights lawyer Ann Beeson sent an email to former Clinton administration senior advisor John Podesta. "Hi John," she began. Beeson was executive director of U.S. Programs at George Soros' Open Society Foundation, where she said she oversaw $150 million in annual grants to "promote human rights, social justice and accountability nationwide." In her email, publicly discussed here for the first time, Beeson wrote, "I'm writing to follow up on one topic we discussed — what the incoming Administration could do to address domestic national security policies and practices that unfairly target Muslim, South Asian, and Arab communities in America." She attached a memo from Farhana Khera, then executive director of Muslim Advocates , a group based in San Francisco, and Aziz Huq, then the director of the "liberty and national security project" at the William J. Brennan Center for Justice , both Open Society "grantees." As a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has investigated the convergence of radical leftist politics and Muslim political activism for decades, I have followed a paper trail of tax returns, grant lists and confidential memos, and this email represented the culmination of a decades-long ideological drive that began with Muslim international students arriving in the U.S. in the 1960s, not just to study, as my father did at Rutgers University, but to lay the institutional groundwork for political Islam, or Islamism, in the United States. By the 1980s, they had established a strategic base at 500 Grove Street in Herndon, Va., later investigated by the FBI for alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both groups seeking to destroy Israel and America and build a global caliphate. The transformation accelerated after December 2005, when Muslim governments convened at an "Extraordinary Islamic Summit" of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There, they launched a campaign to weaponize the term "Islamophobia" to silence critics of extremist Islam. American Muslim leaders seized the moment to re-engineer the national security narrative, using American philanthropic networks, like the House of Soros, as a Trojan horse to racialize Islam, frame Muslims as the "oppressed" and embed illiberal ideologies within America's liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party. DEM SOCIALIST'S NYC PRIMARY UPSET SIGNALS 'GENERATIONAL' SHIFT IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, STRATEGISTS SAY By January 2008, with Soros pumping money into Barack Obama's presidential campaign, his philanthropy staff launched a "National Security and Human Rights Campaign" with D.C.-based Atlantic Philanthropies, committing at least $20 million to "dismantle" Bush-era counterterrorism policies. One grantee, the Proteus Fund, based in Waltham, Mass., ballooned in revenue from $9.5 million in 2008 to $73 million in 2023. Soros dollars flowed to groups including Muslim Advocates, the Brennan Center, the ACLU and many others who set their sights on targets, including the New York Police Department . Today, Mamdani says he wants to "defund the police." A Pearl Project analysis of 38 documents detailing the operations and funding of the National Security and Human Rights Campaign revealed the coordinated efforts of progressive and Islamist activists to reframe post-9/11 narratives. The aim: clear the path for red-green candidates like Mamdani. Muslim Advocates grew nearly 10-fold, from $76,331.03 in annual revenues in 2005 to $992,892 in 2023. The Brennan Center's revenue exploded from $6.6 million to $57.9 million during the same period. Soros soon funded a new "Security and Rights Collaborative" at Proteus Fund to "restore civil liberties and human rights lost in the name of the 'war on terror.'" Headquartered in a one‑story building off Research Drive in Amherst, Mass., the new "collaborative" was run by Shireen Zaman, a Muslim activist previously at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Washington, D.C., group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their focus: America's "Muslim, Arab and South Asian community," called "MASA." Zaman now works at the Ford Foundation. Their strategy went beyond policy to narrative warfare. Starting in late 2008, Soros pumped some $20 million into a "fieldwide communications hub" to arm Muslim groups and leftist media allies with messaging tools. The recipient: ReThink Media , a nonprofit in Berkeley, Calif., co-founded by "progressive" political operatives Peter Ferenbach and Lynn Fahselt, then a consultant to Democratic donors, including Open Society, Proteus Fund, Ploughshares Fund, Carnegie Corporation, Piper Fund, Atlantic Philanthropies, and others "progressive" donors that have since pumped money into ReThink Media. ReThink Media became the loudspeaker for the red and the green. Last year, Proteus Fund paid ReThink Media $643,000 as a "communications consultant." Soros also backed Media Matters, run by ex-conservative-turned-Democrat David Brock, to shape media narratives about Muslims attacked by Republicans. Over the years, ReThink Media has hired and trained alumni of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, including staffers Zainab Chaudary and Corey Saylor, to promote an "echo chamber" for liberal groups. One narrative: Muslims were under attack in the West, and the Democratic Party would defend Muslims. This storyline took hold in the post-Obama political landscape. In late 2010, Open Society staffers in Beeson's U.S. Programs division distributed an internal memo , "Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civic Discourse," announcing they were giving Podesta's Center for American Progress $200,000 for a new "Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project" that would "document structures underlying the Islamophobia movement." The memo detailed plans to do "opposition research" on groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Middle East Forum, which track Islamic extremism. The project description noted that "progressives were caught off guard" earlier that year when New York City residents opposed the building of a "Ground Zero mosque" near the site of the former World Trade Center. "Progressives" were in "urgent need of high-quality opposition research so that they can switch from playing defense to develop a proactive strategic plan to counter anti-Muslim xenophobia and to promote tolerance," protecting "progressive counter-terrorism policies," they wrote. In another part of the memo, the authors detailed that Open Society was providing a "seed grant" to "New York Neighbors," a group that had hosted then-Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim American Democrat from Minnesota, and others for a "dignified candlelight vigil" on 9/11, that "provided the press with images of a diverse group of mainstream ordinary Americans committed to tolerance." The next year, the Center for American Progress released "Fear Inc.," a report co-authored by two Pakistani American Muslims, Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali, smearing national security experts as "Islamophobes" and portraying criticism of Islamist extremism as bigotry. Al Jazeera heavily promoted the report. Shakir later became presidential campaign manager to Democratic Socialists of America Sen. Bernie Sanders and co-founder of Justice Democrats, a Democratic socialist group that Sanders established, later propelling Muslim politicians Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar into Congress and now supporting Mamdani. In 2016, as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Palestinian American activist Linda Sarsour stepped forward as a surrogate for Sanders. As Trump won the Republican nomination, Iranian-American eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam funneled $500,000 through Democracy Fund Voice, a political arm of Democracy Fund Inc., into ReThink Media's "Security and Rights Collaborative" to "respond to escalations of anti-Muslim bigotry." The fund hires Arabella Advisors, which Atlantic magazine described as the "Left's Dark-Money Manager, giving it $678,750 in consulting fees at last count. In Brooklyn, Sarsour rose to lead Democratic "resistance" to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. SAhe was heralded by the New York Times as a "Brooklyn homegirl in hijab," the headscarf Muslim women sometimes wear to protect their "honor," according to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. Sarsour launched MPower Change under the umbrella of another big-money Democratic-aligned donor, NEO Philanthropy Inc., to advance "Muslim Power." She hired Yasmine Taeb, the "first Muslim woman elected to the National Democratic Party," according to her official bio , and got at least $260,000 in seed money, some of it from the House of Soros's Proteus Fund. Curiously, Open Society now backed PR campaigns by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, once named an unindicted co-conspirator in a trial, U.S. vs. Holy Land Trust, that convicted five Muslim men from the network at 500 Grove Street for terrorism financing. They gave $140,000 for its California chapter for "community safety workshops," $73,610 to its Texas chapter for a "Report Hate" campaign and at least $376,010 for "safety workshops" and PR. In Canada, Nakita Valerio, a writer at the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, wrote about "implicit Islamophobia," tapping "research on implicit bias" compiled by the Open Society Foundations. These ideas, shaped through critical race theory, merged with the narrative-building efforts of Soros-backed groups to portray Muslims as perpetual victims. By 2017, with Trump in office, past and present grantees of the National Security and Human Rights Campaign escalated anti-Trump protests . ReThink Media issued messaging like "#NoBanNoWall" that the Council on American-Islamic Relation, Muslim Advocates, Sarsour and others echoed. The Brennan Center tweeted: "#MuslimBan tarnishes American image as land of optimism & opportunity." Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and MPower Change circulated amicus briefs, petitions and social media campaigns like #RegisterMeFirst to stoke fears of a fictional Muslim registry. At the street level, the new red-blue-green alliance built up steam, with Sarsour and a cast of political operatives embedding themselves in racial "justice protests," chanting "From Ferguson to Gaza." This alliance isn't just policy and politics. It is street-level activism. According to our research at the Pearl Project, groups like Emgage, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and others that received Soros money teamed up with the Democratic Socialists of America, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, CodePink and Democratic Party operatives, including Indivisible, and others, to flood American politics with anti-Israel protests. With Trump's 2024 win, they have pivoted in an alliance of red-blue-and-green to also protest Trump, billionaire Elon Musk and Musk's electric vehicle company, Tesla. At a June 14 #NoKings protest, teachers' union president Randi Weingarten railed against Trump on center stage as red-blue-green protesters in the crowd chanted to "globalize the intifada," wearing t-shirts for the Democratic Socialists of America, emblazoned with their jingle: "SOCIALISM BEATS FASCISM." On June 22, Muslim Advocates shared a social media pos t from The People's Forum, a self-declared Marxist 501(c)(3) nonprofit in New York City that promotes the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party, this time celebrating Columbnia University anti-Israel protest leader Mahmoud Khalil's release from detention. This year, the Council on American-Islamic Relations directly contributed to Mamdani's political rise through a new political action committee – the Justice and Peace Fund – quietly giving him $100,000, helping legitimize his platform within a national strategy to embed red-green candidates into the Democratic mainstream. This isn't incidental. It's coordinated. Through two decades of funding strategy, narrative manipulation and activist training, the red-green alliance – with a vital blue thread – has redefined the Democratic Party. It doesn't merely tolerate the red-green alliance. It foments it. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION The receipts, nonprofits and political candidates like Mamdani are only the beginning. This network has trained a well-funded pipeline of red-green political operatives to be blue and take over the Democratic Party. Fast-forward to election day in New York. Shakir, co-author of Fear Inc., shared Sanders' message – "Let's elect Zohran the next mayor of New York." After Mamdani's win, Shakir posted a message : "Fight oligarchy." On cue, his Fear Inc. co-author Ali scolded "some in the Democratic establishment" for allegedly leveling "Islamophobic smears against Mamdani." Sarsour, who once led the Women's March and launched MPower Change, campaigned for Mamdani. She appeared on the Qatar-funded Al Jazeera TV station to crow: "It was us New Yorkers — New York Democrats — that demonstrated what the Democratic Party truly needs." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP This isn't a fluke. It's a blueprint. Through two decades of patient investment, narrative shaping and activist grooming, the red-green alliance — with the Democratic Party as its vehicle — has transformed American politics. The party no longer resists this movement. It accelerates it. The receipts, nonprofits, and candidates like Mamdani are only the beginning. A well-funded pipeline of red-green operatives now wears blue, ready to take over. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM ASRA NOMANI Print Close URL
New York Post
13-06-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Ex-Clinton aide Huma Abedin to marry financier scion Alex Soros at glamorous Hamptons wedding attended by lefty power players
It's the wedding of the summer for high-society liberals. Former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her financier scion fiancé Alex Soros will tie the knot at a glamorous Hamptons wedding attended by panoply of left-leaning power players Saturday. Abedin, 48, the ex-wife of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, will marry Soros, 39, the son of lefty billionaire investor George Soros, at the family's lavish $14.5 million estate in Southampton. Huma Abedin, 48, will marry Alex Soros, 39, at the family's lavish $14.5 million estate in Southampton. @alexsoros/Instagram Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton are on the guest list along with Barack and Michelle Obama and several European prime ministers connected to George Soros' grantmaking foundation Open Society, a source told Page 6. Some of the couple's A-list guests will be flown by helicopter from Manhattan for the festivities, which famed Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, banker James Rothschild and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt are also likely to attend. The big day will come after the lovebirds were set to host an exclusive rehearsal dinner, catered by Marie Eiffel, at Soros' mother's abode on Shelter Island Friday. Liberal power players like the Clintons are expected to attend the politically connected power couple got engaged in New York City last May after meeting at a birthday party thrown by Rothschild for his wife, Nicky Hiltonin, in the fall of 2023. They later celebrated the engagement with a trip to Italy. Before meeting Abedin, Soros, who sits on the investment committee for Soros Fund Management, had long been a bachelor, he told New York Magazine in April. 'I hadn't been in a relationship for a very long time — ten years or something like that — that had lasted for more than three months. And it's, like, the first time I realized I had been mistaking lust for love,' he said of their romance. 'There's a certain kind of stability and comfort,' Abedin said of the likeminded nature of their relationship. George Soros, whose estimated net worth is $7.2 billion, has been a major donor to liberal campaigns, organizations and causes. Earlier this year, the couple sent emerald green cards to friends declaring, 'Please save the date for the wedding celebration of Huma Abedin and Alex Soros,' on 'Saturday, June 14, 2025,' adding, 'Invitation to follow.' Weiner, who has a 13-year-old son with Abedin, will not attend the wedding.
India Gazette
30-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Elite Western universities form a corrupt and parasitic empire
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America's global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year,highly qualified students- many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores - are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, andoutright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged$1 billionto open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for "America's international standing" amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis whichspread like cancerto all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad - subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for atemporary restraining orderagainst Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption - how is this for irony? Astar Harvard professorwho built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! Concentration of wealth and alumni networks The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MITdominatelists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment ofPrinceton University- $34.1 billion in 2024 - translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this scale. Rankings, graft, and ominous trends Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top1% of wealthy families. According to theSocial Mobility Index(SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are oftenovershadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking - ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities whilereducing public fundingfor others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 - a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that "behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?" Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand The credentialism trap When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up theirlaid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit$8.452 trillionin unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projectedGDP of Indiafor the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds - all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj AsNorman Daviespointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India - a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks - including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war - which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone - the most destructive civil war in history - resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistanimilitary standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark exampleshere,hereandhere). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an "unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19." Just check out thecredentialsof the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of income inequalityis now worse than it was under British rule. A way out? As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during thevolatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use ofAI in educationwill be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runawayAI hallucinations- simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say. (
Russia Today
30-05-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing 'national security' and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America's 'intellectual leadership and soft power.' At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for 'America's international standing' amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that 'behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?' Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an 'unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.' Just check out the credentials of the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India's income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.
