Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:09 | #

I received an e-mail from one of our readers who reads the Economist (something I never do!) pointing it out to me.

The giant hole in that nasty diagram is that it doesn’t show what PERCENTAGE of whites and blacks fall in the bottom category. If anything, there is nothing in the diagram that refutes the Bell Curve.

If 10 percent of all whites and 40 percent of all blacks fall in the bottom catgeory, there is no gain saying that whites are as bad as blacks. But that kind of objectivity would be too much to expect from imbeciles that now constitute the journalistic profession.

The striking thing about this is that this is supposed to be a journal primarily devoted to economic analysis. Moral posturing ought not to be their forte.

The only question that remains to be asked is: WHY? Anyone wish to hazard guesses?

Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:13 | #

The Cover story is far worse by the way. That deserves a post in its own right!

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3758983

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:45 | #

“Something is going seriously wrong between the age of five and the age of sixteen,” says Diane Abbott, a Labour MP and long-time campaigner on the issue.

What if the Economist had cited the relevant science here?  How much of a difference would it make if Rushton’s work were introduced to the credulous reader?

Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:52 | #

It sounds like a trivial thing but it isn’t. The entire Liberal edifice, the interests of thousands upon thousands of ants in Government offices, NGO do-gooders, the careers of scores of academics, politicians, bureaucrats and various ethnic groups depend upon the perpetuation of the lie. Remove the lie, expose it for what it is before the majority and God knows what might happen next.

That really is the crux of the matter. No less.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:54 | #

I say this with the utmost sincerity:

One must read the centrally controlled media outlets with the same skepticism as the residents of the eastern Europe read their newspapers in communist times.

Some within the centrally controlled media outlets know they are intentionally spreading inaccuracies, others are so deluded by the misinformation they believe what they write.

The challenge for the centrally controlled media outlets, like the Economist of London, are blogs, like this one, that challenge the orthodoxy.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:58 | #

Blacks seem to do badly largely because they tend to live in bad neighbourhoods with bad schools. In Lambeth and Lewisham—the two districts with the highest concentrations of Afro-Caribbeans in Britain—just 35% of white children earned five or more good GCSEs in 2003. That was 16 points below the English average and not much better than the 30% of Afro-Caribbean and mixed-race children who achieved the same in those areas.

From lagriifedulion.com, regarding Baltimore and the IQ of whites living among blacks:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/city.htm

Effects of urban flight on IQ distribution

Maryland’s big city, Baltimore, saw its population peak just short of a million in 1950. It has been declining for nearly half a century, 17% in the last twenty years alone. Today it numbers about 651,000. White flight followed by black has drained the city of inhabitants. As its population dwindled, Baltimore like many other Northern and Midwestern cities without significant recent foreign immigration became blacker. Today, Baltimore is 65% African American, and 32% non-Hispanic white.

Baltimoreans who fled the city moved mostly to neighboring Baltimore County. The County, which surrounds the city, is the first stop on the way out. Thirty years ago Baltimore County was lily white. Today, African Americans are 17 percent of its 726,000 inhabitants.

***

Baltimore is typical of many Midwestern and Northern cities, whose demographics were forever changed by the great black migration of the twentieth century. Not unexpectedly we found a cognitive discontinuity at the city line. Surprising, however, was its magnitude. Whereas suburban mean IQs (86 for blacks, 99 for whites) conform more or less to national norms, city IQs are dreadfully low. With a mean IQ of 76, inner-city blacks fall about 0.6 SD below the African American average nationally. More than a third have death-penalty immunity on grounds of mental retardation. The inner-city white mean of 86 is nearly a full standard deviation below the national white average. By this measure, whites fared worse than blacks. Both groups are seriously deficient in human capital. Neither is very employable. To compound matters, we almost certainly have overstated urban IQs. City residents constitute a low-IQ group extracted from a more cognitively representative population. Their kids, whose test scores we analyzed, should have regressed toward their racial means, i.e., toward higher IQs. That is, inner city kids are smarter than their parents. Accordingly, our estimates of inner-city IQs are best regarded as upper bounds to adult values.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02 | #

COVER STORY CAPTION CONTEST
http://majorityrights.com/index.php?URL=http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3758983
Blair to peasant women ...

Alright, it’s looks small now but as soon as I stop thinking about debt relief it comes up to here. Honest.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:04 | #

LMAO

Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:10 | #

The idiocy of modern man never ceases to amaze me. We live in a supposedly enlightened age. But we have the prejudices and superstitions of the mayas and the incas. Mention the word “RACE” and 500 years of scientific advance beginning with Sir Francis Bacon gives way to superstition and stupidity.

I am fairly certain that knowledgeable Chinese and Japanese have a good laugh at this.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:37 | #

The challenge for the centrally controlled media outlets, like the Economist of London, are blogs, like this one, that challenge the orthodoxy.

The mainstream media is going to hemorrhage readers for years to come.  If they feel threatened now, I predict they ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  The influence of the Internet is still in it’s infancy (how’s that for alliteration? :p).

It’s difficult to predict what action the mainstream media (the First Estate) will take to curtail the growth and freedom of information.  It isn’t difficult to predict what will happen to the F.E. if it doesn’t take sufficient measures - it’ll be dethroned.  My guess is that fact alone predicts that the F.E. will be successful (enough).

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:42 | #

I am fairly certain that knowledgeable Chinese and Japanese have a good laugh at this.

Agreed.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:45 | #

Svigor,

If there is any potential in genetic engineering, the Chinese will exploit it at the first available opportunity. The Koreans and the Japanese wont stay far behind (or may even beat the Chinese to it).

In the meantime, our “leaders” will go wringing their hands in moralism about the black underclass in our crime infested, rotting cities.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:03 | #

Svy:

One tactic the Main Stream Media (or centrally controlled media) uses is the creation of blogs which appear as maverick or independent, but which are stooges for the MSM.

We now know that Encounter (Irv Kristol’s old Mag) and National Review were started with CIA help. (I’m not 100% on NR, though).

I suspect that FrontPageMag, NationalReviewOnline, and others are attempts by the MSM and other established interests to remain influential.

I’ve often thought FrontPageMag is an Israeli Zionist funded publication, while NR is funded by the Whitehouse. (Which is an adjunct of the Israeli state).

Yes, I really do believe that!

Posted by Effra on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:43 | #

Last year The Economist was hoaxed into reprinting the phoney table purporting to show that Democratic-voting states had far larger average IQs than GOP-voting ones.

It is rarely cited in Britain nowadays. I think it appeals mainly to bankers (for their waiting rooms) and Third World government ministers, who think they’ll get an inside track on what is afoot in the civilised world by subscribing to it.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:52 | #

Effra:

The United States has a stunted version of the BBC, called NPR.

Whenever NPR wishes to impress the ‘great unwashed’ of America they trot out a writer for the Economist.