No learning if you’re liberal

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 06 June 2005 00:48.

There was a fleeting moment during my curious boyhood when it seemed possible that I might actually transmogrify into … an academic pupil. I treasure the memory. Purley Grammar School for Boys it was, on a September day in the late 1960’s. An upstairs classroom overlooking the quad. Chalk dust caught in the sunlight, rows of ink-stained desks, twenty uninterested, fish-eyed youths, Dougie Firmer and old Nicholson.

Dougie was the school genius. It was already accepted that he was on his way in two years to Cambridge and then some top-Gag career in the higher etherium of the State. Frankly, we were in awe not only of his intelligence but of his quite unreal urbanity. Not only was he all brilliant polish for a seventeen year-old but he was brilliantly funny, too, and a natural mimic and extemporiser. If by chance after the boiled ham and carrots he’d begin to extemporise in the lower sixth common room on the subject, say, of how old Jewitt got his limp or Rainforth his taste in shoes everyone quieted down instantly. You knew to shut your silly prattle when Dougie gave forth, and belly-laugh with the best.

Now, Nicholson - dear, vague old Nicholson - was our European History master. He was an intellectual sort of chap too, but down at heel and careworn in dull brown tweed trousers and the regulation, leather-elbowed check jacket. His only natural talent was the ability to put otherwise hyper-active male youths to sleep. He had, in fairness, been perfecting his technique for thirty years or more. He called it teaching.

So ... it wasn’t very far into my first term at Purley Grammar. Three months earlier at my sink secondary modern school, despite every effort to leave the education system forthwith by learning as little as possible, I had somehow pulled a number of exam rabbits out of the hat and got mistaken for university material. Here I damn well was, then, imprisoned with five hundred males for another two academic years. My driving ambitions to get a job, get some money, get a car and get laid – especially get laid - were all in the deep-freeze.

Well, my story involves the schoolboy’s bane, homework. At the close of a previous, excruciatingly boring, double-period investigation of the Hapsburgs in the 19th century old Nicholson had sent us off to write an essay at home. Most of us hadn’t the faintest idea what he wanted from us because we slept so soundly through all old Nicholson’s soporifica. But work was work, and the exercise books were scribbled upon just the same and handed in for marking. Now, in that sunny upstairs classroom on this September day, they sat in a pile next to old Nicholson, with old Nicholson himself languidly perched as usual half-on, half-off his table.

He was unhappy. More than unhappy he was, for him, exercised. It had been a perfectly straightforward task, after all. Yet there was scarcely any attempt, any attempt whatsoever, to answer the question we had been set. Now Nicholson was on his feet dispatching exercise books towards their errant owners with mounting disdain. Were we all deaf and blind? Or just lazy and useless? Even normally reliable students like Martin Smith, the Head Boy, had gone and answered the wrong ruddy question. Only one boy – one – from among the lot of us had got it right.

All eyes rested on Dougie Firmer. But old Nicholson’s were focussed, inexplicably, on me. He strode over and planted my exercise book in front of me. Horribly self-conscious I opened it up. Nice words in green ink. 87%.

“One boy here at least,” Nicholson was saying, “who shows some desire to get on.” Twenty pairs of hate-filled, gimlet eyes settled on me. Fuck it, I thought, I didn’t even know what I had done right. They can’t hate me for that surely.

It didn’t last long. It was my only moment in the academic sunlight. Thereafter, thoughts of fast cars and female flesh put a stop to all old Nicholson’s best efforts to rediscover my early promise.

I don’t know what became of Dougie. I never heard of him after I left the school. It’s strange that someone so evidently outstanding didn’t make his presence felt in the public arena. A couple of years after I left Purley Grammar the school was catapulted into mediocrity by Anthony Crossland and Shirley Williams, who amalgamated all the local schools into the disastrous leftist fantasy world of comprehensive education. It might have been dubbed, “No child left in front.”

Today, thirty-five years later, leftist fantasies about equality still complicate the education of hundreds of thousands of kids. But the ones the left agonises most over are black and male. Black educational failure is an experience common to the entire Western world. But, inevitably, the outcomes are absolutely not accepted as being all that black boys are able to deliver.

Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has boldly attacked the attitudes of “liberals like myself”, as he puts it, and “our historical bleating about racist teachers”. He points out that statistics don’t justify the usual presumption of racism in schools.

It’s true that only 27% of Afro-Caribbean boys leave school with five GCSEs at A to C grade, and this is far below the national average of 47% for boys and 57% per cent for girls. But 44% of Afro-Caribbean girls do reach that standard, many of them sisters from the same families. Poor Indian and Chinese boys do roughly three times better in exams than poor Afro-Caribbean boys. So another explanation is needed.

These are the words of Times journalist Minette Marin. And at this point in her argument you might, naturally enough, expect her to go on to talk about the ten thousand IQ tests conducted, among others, in scores of black populations. She might mention the striking incidence of small black skulls housing small, light brains. Stung by that word “skull, she might reserve a special mention for the malign influence of the liar Boas. She might apprise us of the narrowness of black women’s hips, and its implication for the head size of the babies they bear.

But instead she writes this:-

One of the most charismatic reformers in the world of literacy is Ruth Miskin. Once the head of a famously successful primary school in Tower Hamlets, east London, she’s now the creator of a programme called Read Write, which schools can buy to turn literacy problems round quickly and easily. She gave expert evidence to the Commons select committee that so galvanised Kelly …

The Ofsted reports her schools have had clearly bear that out. They back up her view that the black boys she sees doing her programme all over the country have no problem learning to read. “Black boys learn to decode just as fast as any white middle-class girl,” she says, if they are taught properly and have the joy of rapid success. There is, according to Miskin, no problem with discipline; they love learning and there is no gap between them and any other group.

I wonder if Ruth Miskin does genuinely believe there to be no gap between black boys and any other ethnic - or, indeed, tribal - group. Either way, the mere fact that she publicly affirms human equality with such enthusiasm returns us with one giant stride to 1910 and the unarithmetic Franz Boas. Somehow, in the public debate on black education we never seem to get past 1910. Boas still has us snared. None of the compendious evidence – and stupendous experience - that has been compiled to elucidate the reasons for black educational and economic outcomes has any real intellectual purchase on the situation because it is not read by the liberals who control the educational system.

But liberal denial goes much further than that. It goes deep in the bone. Nobody really needs to read Rushton, Brand or Lynn & Vanhanen because we have the greater teacher of life itself. In my case, for example, a determined effort to avoid hard work, though it cost me formal education, did not blunt my intellectual equipment. Such intelligence as I possess has served me passably well. So, where are the hundreds of thousands of tolerably competent black minds that, although like me lacking a university education, have risen in life just the same? Ah, white racism. Inevitable.

Round and round we go, giving more credence to yet more well-intentioned wastes of time. After Miskin has brought literacy to our, of course, always vibrant Afro-Caribbean and African Dougie Firmers we will have to shoulder the same burden of abject black failure. Another false ray of hope will briefly shine, and yet another. And on it will go because no public figure has enough courage to speak a simple human truth … and absolutely no courage whatsoever to address the awful, illiberal question which follows from it: since black mean IQ is so low what on earth are we supposed to do with our black population?

Tags: Education

Comments:

Posted by gay homosexual on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:58 | #

what about blk girls? how are they performing if u compare them to blk boys?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:50 | #

There are things it isn’t considered polite to notice. I once heard—would’ve been in the late 70s—a young English woman writer being interviewed on the BBC World Service who related a little anecdote to illustrate her respect for British upper-class manners. As a girl on vacation with her family in Ireland or Spain or somewhere she’d gotten into a pasture where a bull was grazing and been badly gored in the belly or rectum or something with its horn. That left her with loss of control over the passage of flatus but she’d gotten over minding the occasional social embarrassment—had no choice, since the situation couldn’t be mended surgically. What struck her as quite decent behavior on the part of one particular upper-class young gent whose flat she was in for some sort of meeting was that when the smell came, she recalled, he—though knowing it was her—made a show of pretending it was his cat so as to spare her feelings, and ostentatiously picked the animal up and put it out of the flat, grumbling about “his cat” as he went, then apologizing to her “for his cat,” as they resumed their conversation. She’d found that damned decent of him, she explained to the interviewer; a reflection of good upper-class breeding, she judged.

Anyway ... My point was ...

The way some whites react to the lagging-behind of Negroes academically is the way this chap reacted to this woman’s problem: out of instinctive “politeness” they’ll endeavor to find some “factor” other than what they know to be the cause, and pretend that other one is the cause instead. This is all well and good but they don’t know when the time has come for them to stop “being polite” and approach matters with frankness for the good of all, Negro and white alike.

Posted by Amman on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:11 | #

Guessedworker, your comments on the failure of black boys in the English school system has piqued my interest. What of black females? Do Negro girls perform as poorly as their brothers?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:56 | #

John,

They reflect the fact that I started this at ten-twenty last night, meaning to knock out a basic draft, but let memory get the best of me. Finished it at one with a post and inadequate energy to check it. Which brings me to another, strange matter. The post time is logged as 11.48pm but, as I was listening to Radio 3’s current round-the-clock Beethoven Experience, I know that ain’t right. Have to watch the clock.

I’ll check the post and correct the spellings. Thanks.

Posted by stari_momak on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:15 | #

But did you get money! and a car! and the other thing?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:15 | #

Yes, yes, er ... not really.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:01 | #

The black mean IQ range - abt 70 for Sub-Saharan Africa, 85 for US, 88 for Caribbean - is for the race, not for males only. Similarly, the European average of 100.

Educationally, black women may be better advantaged against their male counterparts than white women are against theirs, since black males labour under their aggressivity. But there is a yawning IQ gap between black and white women.

The educational establishment has a need to lever up perceptions of black female equivalence so the mirage of potential black male equivalence can be maintained, and those lovely departmental programmes and budgets too. That need does not make black female “performance” genuine. It makes it inflated.

The answer to my last question in the post is: segregation in America and repatriation in Europe.

To reach - eventually - the point where such a conclusion can be drawn we must begin by being honest about the IQ issue. We must do that even though it means challenging liberal values that go back to (and are made sacred by) the Enlightenment.

Then we need to take a long, hard-eyed look at the black presence in Britain. We must see with clear eyes if it brings dispossession, deracination, deculturation ... if it costs treasure through its economic unproductiveness ... if it costs life through its violence ... if it causes losses to our EGI in all these ways.

On the other side of the balance it contributes cheap rhythmic music that, anyway, we could acquire through trade with blacks living in the Caribbean and the US. Have I missed anything?

If there isn’t a case for repatriation there somewhere I’ll become a marxist in the morning.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:18 | #

“The answer to my last question in the post is: [...] repatriation in Europe.” (—GW, 11:01 AM)

Steve <u>discusses</u> what he distinguishes as “good ethnic cleansing” in a highly reasonable, civilized manner and leaves no doubt but that it can be preferable to forcing people together who don’t want to be forced together, number one, and number two, that it can be done in ways that aren’t nearly as traumatic as many imagine (namely, in ways that involve paying enough compensation to make the displacement agreeable to all parties). There would be nothing at all wrong with programs of financially well-compensated repatriation to restore the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante of European nation-states to what the balance was before this immigration insanity really got out of hand and began to accelerate starting in the late 70s. Giscard, in fact, launched a program with exactly this aim during the 70s: the French government undertook to pay financial compensation to any Arab Moslem family which had immigrated to France if the family members would return to the Maghreb and renounce their right to return to France in future. Because the compensation package wasn’t extremely generous, there were relatively few takers, and the project faded into oblivion. What’s the proper solution to that failure? To abandon the idea of humane, financially-compensated repatriation? No. It’s to revive the project, this time making the compensation package more generous. If still not enough takers, up the amount further until there are enough takers and those you wish to repatriate are satisfied they are getting a good deal.

What the anti-race-replacement side must aim for is threefold:

1) Close the borders to all illegal immigration and coldly, efficiently deport all illegals here, without any of the usual liberal-instigated shillyshallying permitted: they’re law-breakers and are to be rounded up and deported back to wherever they came from, no questions asked;

2) Legal immigrants (not illegals but those who’ve entered legally) who were let in by this alliance between the leftist-type race-replacers (hate white Christians as incorrigible “mean oppressors of non-whites” and want them permanently race-replaced) and the Wall-Street-type race-replacers (want slave-wage docile workers to replace whites who are neither docile—they know their workingmen’s rights and are apt to fight for them—nor willing to work for slave wages) in wildly excessive numbers given their racial, ethnocultural incompatibility with the host populations (the deliberate, coldly-calculated strategy being that once a certain threshold percentage of the population be made to consist of these alien races and cultures there’d be no turning back politically and it would be a done-deal) are to be encouraged to return to their countries of origin through humane, generously-compensated repatriation programs aimed at restoring the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante which obtained before the leftists and Wall-Streeters got their paws on the levers of power;

3) The laws on legal immigration are to be amended so as to accord with ordinary common sense, meaning a national-origins immigration policy, which is a diplomatic way of saying a racial/ethnocultural policy, and a recognition that immigration isn’t needed by any country in order to keep population numbers up or “diversify” the population, and where birth rates are too low the government is to amend those governmental tax and social policies which are exerting downward pressure on the native white birthrates rather than contemplate importing incompatible foreigners “to keep population numbers up.”

If repatriation be not a part of our side’s program we’ll attract fewer allies because many will say, “The damage is done—the other side’s won, and we might as well accept the situation and try to deal with it as best we can.” Humane, generously-compensated repatriation shows the damage isn’t already done, so more people will take heart and fight to have this mess rectified.

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:49 | #

Humane, generously-compensated repatriation shows the damage isn’t already done, so more people will take heart and fight to have this mess rectified. - Fred

Aren’t we Whites so stupid? The lengths we have to go to in order to get people “on board”. You forgot number 4 Fred, namely track down and identify all the accomplices of the infamous 1965 Immigration Act and hang them from the highest public gallows and left there long after their bodies decay in order to remain as a memorial and deterrent to future potential genocidal Marxists. Bush should hang the highest for his treasonist behaviour without a doubt.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:38 | #

“the infamous 1965 Immigration Act” (—Kubilai)

The 1965 Kennedy-Celler Immigration Holocaust Bill was a coldly-calculated act of attempted genocide. Prof. Kevin MacDonald documents massive involvement, over decades, on the part of Jewish organizations and individuals in the pushing-through of that bill. (I haven’t read his book on the subject, but I’ve read excerpts from it and shorter articles by him on the topic.) To the extent organized Jewry was involved, their involvement was a calculated act of attempted genocide against the white Christians making up the majority population of the U.S. In the story of very heavy Jewish involvement in the passage of that bill we see that Jews as a group aren’t as innocent as they may seem, or as they may like to depict themselves, in the racial/ethnic conflicts that have shaken the world over the last, what—hundred-and-fifty years or so? Something like that. They themselves have favored extremely aggressive genocidal legistlation aimed at rival tribes, white Christians being one such rival tribe. The question in everyone’s mind in regard to the 1965 Holocaust bill must of course be, Where were those who were supposed to defend the white Christian majority against what was a transparent genocidal attack? Why weren’t they defending us? When one reads the documentation amassed by Prof. MacDonald showing the Jewish involvement in that outrage, one says to oneself, “OK, but obviously the Jews weren’t the only ones who saw this act of genocide as beneficial. Who exactly were the other forces either pushing it or fully acquiescing in it?” His articles don’t seem to spell that out, unless I missed something in reading them. (Maygbe it’s spelled out in the books themselves?) The Jewish involvement in the 1965 Immigration Holocaust Act amounted to a genocidal attack by one tribe on a rival tribe that was in principle as much a moral crime as the Nazi genocidal attack on the Jews. The Jews’ reason for doing it apparently was that Jews feel more comfortable and less potentially threatened when there is no dominant white-Christian ethnoculture surrounding them in the countries they live in. (Needless to say, that’s no reason to commit attempted genocide.)

Everyone who is aware of the present attempt at white genocide through race-replacement “immigration” understands that the 1965 Immigration Holocaust Bill has to be thrown out entirely and replaced by an immigration moratorium, which may later be able to be replaced in turn by a restoration of the national-origins immigration policy in force from 1924 to the black year 1965. About that there is of course no question whatsoever. Scrapping the 1965 Anti-white-Christian Holocaust Bill is a cornerstone of a sane immigration reform (not just scrapping it, but undoing the damage it inflicted, by a policy of humane, financially-compensated repatriations).

Posted by Amman on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23 | #

Interesting points, Guessedworker. However, I was actually referring to an discrepancy in the black IQ distribution. I was recently reading Thomas Sowell’s “Race and IQ Reconsidered,” and the data he provided seemed to indicate that there were disproportionate amounts of women at the high end of the black IQ distribution, i.e the intelligence bell curve for black females was *much* more right-skewed than for males. Sowell is a Negro, so I’m taking his research with more than a grain of salt, of course. However, the tests he utilized were empirical IQ tests and standardized tests, which would not seem to be “inflated” by affirmative action. How would you explain the preponderance of black females on the right side of the Bell Curve? Don’t black females share the same genes for stupidity as their brothers?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:03 | #

Amman,

Don’t black females share the same genes for stupidity as their brothers?

Ungallantly put, perhaps. But substantively true.

I am dependent on sources in the same way you are, since I am not nor have never been a psychometrist like John Ray. I recall reading someplace that among blacks there is a two point variation from mean between the sexes. But I can’t recall the study, I’m sorry.

That doesn’t amount to a preponderance of black females on the right of the curve. I am inclined to call this into question. No doubt there is a preponderance of all females on the right of the curve. But blacks, no.

A good reference will prove me wrong but I think what we observe with black female success, if that’s what it is, is not solid evidence of IQ equality but of cultural influences.

From the point of view of the black male-female achievement gap the following might contribute in a positive sense:-

1. Double Affirmative action (for being black and for being female).

2. (In America) Programmes to help young black mothers with child care to release them for a college education.

3. The encouragement to girls generally that flowed from feminist rhetoric, and glamourised careerism and education.

Some obvious negative influences on the black male/female gap are:-

1. The power of street culture as a means of masculine expression and “advancement” that neatly sidesteps competition with groups of higher IQ.

2. Criminality as a route to eady money.

3. Prison - can’t go to college if you are detained elsewhere.

4. Drug conviction, which hits grant funding.

I expect you can add other and more cogent influences but you get the picture.

Posted by Amman on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:34 | #

No doubt there is a preponderance of all females on the right of the curve. But blacks, no.

I have to say you’re wrong here. If you’ve been watching that Larry Summers brouhaha over the under-representation of women in higher representation, one of his arguments was that the right tail of the IQ distribution for women was considerably *smaller* than it was for men. However, as I recall Sowell’s data proving (Again, I know he’s a Negro, but his sources seem reliable), of all blacks with IQs over 100, some massive percentage of them were female—I don’t remember exactly, but I think it could have been 70%!

And your admissions of cultural effects on black performance interests me—as you would seem to attest, performance in the real world is not completely dependant on IQ and genes. I wonder if creating some of these incentives for black men (For instance, glorifying education and careerism) and taking away some of the negative influences (cracking down on illegal drug trafficking, which of course involves securing the border and stopping illegal immigrants, and making efforts to abolish “street culture”) might prove to be a more efficacious way of curbing sociopathic black tendencies rather than re-instituting segregation, which is an uphill political battle, to make a gross understatement.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:02 | #

Amman,

First, I don’t accept for a moment that mean black female IQ in America is higher than 86-87. There is not a 17-point gap between the sexes.

Second, the cultural influences I describe prove that society is “plastic” - meaning susceptible to liberal manipulation. The human brain is not plastic.

Third, I reject wholesale the notion that it is the duty of 21st century Europeans to bear the black burden - even in America with its history of slavery.

Lastly, I adhere to the unfashionable belief that today, while IQ differentials are still fiercely denied by the Establishment, the critical proof for black civilisational capacity - which is what we are really talking about here - is extanct outcome. Liberals argue for taxation so as, essentially, to chase their Rousseau-esque dream of justice and love. I believe that they should first explain why, after 300,000 years and billions of dollars expended, we are still waiting for the African mind to produce a stable, steadily advancing society ... anywhere on the planet and at any technological level.

An uphill political battle to impose segregation (or repatriation in Europe) can be won if truths are spoken. But making African sociobiology other than what it is requires a society-wide application of force of the kind brought to bear in the Old South and in apartheid South Africa. Which uphill political battle do you fancy, really?

Posted by Amman on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:21 | #

First, I don’t accept for a moment that mean black female IQ in America is higher than 86-87. There is not a 17-point gap between the sexes.

I’ll see if I can find Sowell’s book and see the data he found. It’s quite possible my memory could have failed me.

Second, the cultural influences I describe prove that society is “plastic” - meaning susceptible to liberal manipulation. The human brain is not plastic.

We are in agreement on that point, sir. However, simply because the human brain is not plastic—practically speaking, since one’s intellect, talents, and abilities are not easy to change—does not mean that different environments can lead it to different results. For instance, a low-IQ black who can’t find a job and turns to crime because illegal immigrants are crowding him out of the marketplace may, in an alternate world where illegal immigration is controlled, be a competent, law-abiding janitor. Same brain, different outcomes.

Third, I reject wholesale the notion that it is the duty of 21st century Europeans to bear the black burden - even in America with its history of slavery.

Again, we are in agreement. However, it is in the best interests of the white majority to find some realistic way of curbing the sociopathic tendencies of their black neighbors. If African-Americans started getting jobs (no matter how lowly) instead of killing white people, I certainly wouldn’t complain, would you?

the critical proof for black civilisational capacity - which is what we are really talking about here - is extanct outcome. Liberals argue for taxation so as, essentially, to chase their Rousseau-esque dream of justice and love. I believe that they should first explain why, after 300,000 years and billions of dollars expended, we are still waiting for the African mind to produce a stable, steadily advancing society ... anywhere on the planet and at any technological level.

300,000 years is a long time. Inside that span, I can think of the kingdoms of Axum, Ghana and I think Nubia posessed both a respectable civilization and a Negroid populace.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:52 | #

The question in everyone’s mind in regard to the 1965 Holocaust bill must of course be, Where were those who were supposed to defend the white Christian majority against what was a transparent genocidal attack?

Those who did so were in the South, Sam Ervin of North Carolina foremost among them. When he couldn’t defeat the bill, he at least was able to impose a limit on immigration from Latin America. Though there are other partial explanations, perhaps the primary reason that white legislators voted in favor the 1965 Act is that is was represented as a largely symbolic act that would result in no significant demographic changes.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:57 | #

If African-Americans started getting jobs (no matter how lowly) instead of killing white people, I certainly wouldn’t complain, would you?

Another reason to stop the immigrant invasion.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:00 | #

Amman,

The balance between genes and environment as explicators of differences in IQ is uncontroversial unless one is a 100% environmental man. There are some about, of course.

Axum and Nubia rather prove my point about the benefits of segregation. Of Ghana I am quite unaware. Alas it never attracted Handel’s attention, either.

Posted by Charles Copeland on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:57 | #

A brilliant and most entertaining posting, GW.

As regards your final question as to how best to deal with Britain’s most violent, cognitively disadvantaged and problematic minority, why not start by eliminating affirmative action in their favour, and treating them just like the rest of us?

But not even UKIP (as far as I can tell from a glance at its Manifesto) even dares address this issue. Maybe I just didn’t look hard enough. I don’t want to slander UKIP, but if they don’t even have the guts to propose the abolition of the obnoxious Commission for Racial Equality, they deserve their fate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:51 | #

Well, coming from you that’s praise indeed. Thanks, Charles.

UKIP were pretty much dead after the Kilroy debacle, as their vote on May 5th illustrated. But they are deader still today with Jack Straw’s well-trailed anouncement. All but a rump of their support will now return to the Tories. Some, of course, will leech away to the BNP.

Two years ago I would never have believed it. Isn’t life mysterious?

Posted by Amman on Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:02 | #

Axum and Nubia rather prove my point about the benefits of segregation. Of Ghana I am quite unaware. Alas it never attracted Handel’s attention, either.

How are Axum and Nubia examples of the benefits of segregation? I had always thought they were Negro kingdoms. If I am wrong, I’d be much obliged if you corrected me.

Posted by jonjayray on Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:28 | #

All the studies I have seen show no male/female differences in black IQ—but there IS a big gap in educational achievement—mainly because black females stay on at school more while the males drop out. About the only way a black can fail to graduate from High School is by dropping out but such are their attitude problems that most black males DO drop out.

And with AA, black female diplomas get them pretty good jobs so their income is up to white female norms

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments